M70 vs. RTi A3

ShadowTowel

Assuming there is a nice sub alongside these speakers, which would be better front speakers for movies? The RTi's are more expensive, but the Monitors are floorstanders. Just curious.

thesurfer

Your ears,, up to you, The rtiA,s will give you better quality sound,,, the Monitor more quanity,,,, Id take the rtiA anyday,,,, Quality, first,

ShadowTowel

thesurfer wrote: »

Your ears,, up to you, The rtiA,s will give you better quality sound,,, the Monitor more quanity,,,, Id take the rtiA anyday,,,, Quality, first,

That's what I was thinking too. Monitors are equivalent to the TSi line in sound quality I believe. So I would prefer my RTi A3's as well.

Topper

i'd go with the RTi as well

ScudDawg

I recently upgraded from Monitors to the RTi A line, I am also would go with the bookshelf speakers.

Upstatemax

Monitor 70's are great speakers. Nothing low quality about them...

I would go with the M70's over the A3's.

I have Rti A7's as well and I still have a big love for my M70's that are now in my office for music.

ShadowTowel

ScudDawg wrote: »

I recently upgraded from Monitors to the RTi A line, I am also would go with the bookshelf speakers.

What kind of difference did you notice while upgrading them?

ScudDawg

ShadowTowel wrote: »

What kind of difference did you notice while upgrading them?

overall clarity is the best way I can describe it. The Monitor 70 speakers are very nice however, but if you have a subwoofer, I think the Rti A3 speakers will sound a little better.

ScudDawg

xcapri79 wrote: »

With a good amp, I would take the Monitor 70's for music. The choice is based on personal preference. The room and its treatment are also a factor.

yes monitor 70's do sound a lot different with an amp, and do create more sound than an RTi A3.

thesurfer

ScudDawg wrote: »

yes monitor 70's do sound a lot different with an amp, and do create more sound than an RTi A3.

Of course,, more drivers,,, but the rti,s use better tweeters, and midbass,

ScudDawg

thesurfer wrote: »

Of course,, more drivers,,, but the rti,s use better tweeters, and midbass,

yep, also true, plus they look awesome

ShadowTowel

ScudDawg wrote: »

yep, also true, plus they look awesome

Haha yes they most certainly do! Love the curves and the real wood veneer. I have them in black and they're purdy...

VR3

For HT?

I would have to go with the larger speakers. HT is not exactly rocket science.

Geoff4rfc

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

For HT?

I would have to go with the larger speakers. HT is not exactly rocket science.

Yep, I'd have to agree with this answer the most :cool:

On3s&Z3r0s

Personally, I think you can put together a pretty respectable HT system with smaller fronts as long as you have a good sub. I've watched movies on a system that's A3's on stands for fronts and rears and a Velodyne sub, and I like that a little better honestly than my system which is Monitor 70 fronts and OWM 3 rears mounted at the ceiling. I went with the M70 fronts because of the price performance and because I knew I'd be listening to a fair amount of 2-channel on them so wanted something more full range.

cnh

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

For HT?

I would have to go with the larger speakers. HT is not exactly rocket science.

I have two systems. One is grounded by M-70s up front, the other by Rti-A3s. Which do I prefer? The M-70s as suggested and for exactly those reasons. The only advantage of the Rtis are a bit more detail up high..not even the mids are that much more pronounced when you have good 'amplification' on the M-70s. They can put out a WALL of sound. The Rti-A3s are nice as a secondary system or smaller two channel.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the flagship of the M-series is less than the entry tower in the Rti-A series either. For some things, it is IMO superior. And it is only when you get to the A7 and, especially the A9s that they are outdistanced?

cnh

On3s&Z3r0s

cnh makes a very good point, and I'm really happy overall with the sound of my M70 based HT. I would say one thing about the RTi vs. Monitor debate for home theater and that is if you're into voice matching your center I do feel like the CSi A6 center (which matches RTi) really blows away the CS2 center (Monitor). Again, the CS2 in my system is good, but since the highs are clearer in the RTi's I think it makes a significant difference in simple things like just how clearly dialogue is articulated when there's a substantial amount of other audio.

In my case, I had to create separate audio profiles on my receiver to emphasize the center on TV (movies seem to be mixed better). My buddy's RTi system just sounds clear as a bell all the time. To be fair, this could also be due to the fact that his big-**** center is competing with bookshelves and mine is up against M70's, which definitely are the bomb.

ShadowTowel

Okay... Well I'm a home theater guy who loves his blu ray movies... Are you all saying that the monitor 70s and the matching center would be better for me than my rti a3's with a csi a4? I am like 95% movies and 5% music.

In other words, if I was able to sell my front 3 and get the monitor 70s and a cs1/2 without losing any money, it would be a great improvement/deal?

Ron Temple

ShadowTowel wrote: »

Okay... Well I'm a home theater guy who loves his blu ray movies... Are you all saying that the monitor 70s and the matching center would be better for me than my rti a3's with a csi a4? I am like 95% movies and 5% music.

In other words, if I was able to sell my front 3 and get the monitor 70s and a cs1/2 without losing any money, it would be a great improvement/deal?

I think you're much too suggestable. Keep what you have and start saving for a nice sub. You're an HT/gamer, the sub will make the largest difference in your rig and you'll appreciate the better resolution. I wouldn't take a step backwards to get a bigger sound. I'd make the sound bigger.

Geoff4rfc

Ron Temple wrote: »

I think you're much too suggestable. Keep what you have and start saving for a nice sub. You're an HT/gamer, the sub will make the largest difference in your rig and you'll appreciate the better resolution. I wouldn't take a step backwards to get a bigger sound. I'd make the sound bigger.

Did anyone mention SUB??????? I have had my Empire Epik now almost two weeks and let me tell you what.....Super Sonic BOOM to the 5th power :cool:

ShadowTowel

Ron Temple wrote: »

I think you're much too suggestable. Keep what you have and start saving for a nice sub. You're an HT/gamer, the sub will make the largest difference in your rig and you'll appreciate the better resolution. I wouldn't take a step backwards to get a bigger sound. I'd make the sound bigger.

So a wonderful sub would compensate for the lesser sound quantity? I was nit getting the impression from these responses that bass response was the only difference. I already have a PL-200 which rattles me pretty good, but I want to get an HSU or SVS or even an Epic one day. Or possibly get another PL-200 to double up. Not sure which yet... Anyways, thanks for the input! I am suggestible in things I am not completely knowledgable in.

cnh

Good points. I didn't notice that you 'already' had Rti-A3s? Ok, if you have those and you're into home theater--get the larger center and, yeah, a sub--it's your cheapest route.

But as far as my own personal preferences. I just don't like either the Rti-A5s or even A7s that much? Now the A9s--those are more 'musical'.

M-70s don't get 'respect' because they're seen as a 'lower' model. But for music...M-70s over A5s any day of 'my' week.

Actually, I find both the Rti-A1s and 3s 'more musically' satisfying than A-5s with a sub.

cnh

ShadowTowel

Yeah I own them and my csi a4 is on the way. I get it Thursday. I don't have a tv stand yet but the one I am planning on getting is not capable of holding more than a 22.75" center, and sadly the a6 is 24"... It is very frustrating because I really want the 6 after hearing all of the comments on this site. But I have to make due with what I have. My only option with the A6 would be to have it on top of the tv stand in front of the tv (which I would have to raise a little) instead of in a lower shelf within the tv stand... I don't know. I'm hoping I get my A4 and am happy with the improvement over my CS10 instead of longing for the A6...

ShadowTowel

Well I have a sub that I consider good, but I realize there is room for improvement. I don't think my sub is a slouch though. It certainly helps out the bookshelves on the low end a lot!

Upstatemax

If you're really looking for an upgrade, hold out and save for some Rti A7's at a minimum...

I still think the Monitor 70's are an upgrade from the A3's, but the A7's are a nice speaker for the money.

dnoyeB

Why do you prefer M70s + sub over A3's + sub? It would seem that part of the money spent on the M70 is wasted due to the duplication of the work the sub is already doing!?

mdaudioguy

ShadowTowel wrote: »

Well I have a sub that I consider good, but I realize there is room for improvement. I don't think my sub is a slouch though. It certainly helps out the bookshelves on the low end a lot!

You have a BIC PL-200, right? There is no reason at all why you can't get amazing HT performance with the RTiA3/CSiA4 setup. It may take some fiddling with the various settings (crossover, speaker size, speaker levels, etc...), but once you get it set just right, you should be enjoying some very nice results. Of course, upgrades are always possible. Only you can decide when to stop. If I were building my HT again, I'd seriously consider bookshelves over towers.

Sit back and soak in what you've got, before making any decisions to change it.

Upstatemax

dnoyeB wrote: »

Why do you prefer M70s + sub over A3's + sub? It would seem that part of the money spent on the M70 is wasted due to the duplication of the work the sub is already doing!?

The Monitor 70's have great midrange and an expansive soundfield. Thanks to the Cascade crossovers in them, they are a very smooth and as CNH mentioned, put out a WALL OF SOUND.

I also don't like to have a sub handle all of my lower frq... I prefer to have a sub handle mostly LFE and let the mains handle everything north of 60hz (I now have my RTi A7's set to 40hz). I find they do it tighter and quicker than most subs and it makes it more difficult to locate the sub in the room.

I have found that when the A3's start to go below 100hz they get muddy and sloppy. The Monitor 70's can go down to 40hz but I found them to be better crossed over at 60. The A3's, I would not dare to drop below 100hz.

IMO, the less you have to RELY on a sub, the better.

On3s&Z3r0s

dnoyeB wrote: »

Why do you prefer M70s + sub over A3's + sub? It would seem that part of the money spent on the M70 is wasted due to the duplication of the work the sub is already doing!?

I think it depends on what your listening preferences are (2-channel vs 5.1). At NewEgg sale prices a pair of M70's costs about the same as a pair of A3's. And for 2-channel music listening many prefer a full-range speaker to bookshelves and only one sub. Unless the bookshelves can reach low enough, the sub has to extend up into the bass frequencies that are "directional" by which I mean it becomes fairly easy to tell that the bass is coming from a different location from the higher frequencies and it throws off the stereo imaging a bit (IMO). In fact, if you tell your AVR your fronts are large, it's default settings most likely will not send a signal to the sub when processing 2-channel sources so there won't be overlap in that case.

But in this case, if they're going to be used 95% for HT/5.1 and only 5% for 2-channel/music I think you're right that you don't need the full range floorstanders as fronts. It really comes down to a matter of preference.

@ShadowTowel, I wouldn't worry at all about the smaller center... maybe if you had it with A7/9's you'd have a good case for needing the bigger one, but you should definitely be able to get your HT sounding sweet with the gear you've got. Unfortunately, as long as there are things like multipurpose living areas used as media rooms and budgets and wives, every HT becomes an exercise in doing the best you can with the constraints you've got.

rooftop59

Another vote to stick with the A3s. I have not owned the 70s and I understand that they are in a class apart from the other monitors, but I have owned the 30s and 30s and the rti4s and 6s, and the rtis were a bit step up to my ears. Plus the A3s should have enough bass response that unless you are in a huge room you should not have to set the crossover to high (I personally would try 60 for music, but probably 80 for movies). The difference in overall sound quality between the two lines is just too much for me to be able to recommend the 70s as an upgrade even with the increased mids and bass. just my 2 cents.
Peace,
Paul

mdaudioguy

Upstatemax wrote: »

The Monitor 70's have great midrange and an expansive soundfield. Thanks to the Cascade crossovers in them, they are a very smooth and as CNH mentioned, put out a WALL OF SOUND.

I also don't like to have a sub handle all of my lower frq... I prefer to have a sub handle mostly LFE and let the mains handle everything north of 60hz (I now have my RTi A7's set to 40hz). I find they do it tighter and quicker than most subs and it makes it more difficult to locate the sub in the room.

I have found that when the A3's start to go below 100hz they get muddy and sloppy. The Monitor 70's can go down to 40hz but I found them to be better crossed over at 60. The A3's, I would not dare to drop below 100hz.

IMO, the less you have to RELY on a sub, the better.

Crossover is subjective, and while I generally agree with you about reliance on a sub, an 80Hz crossover seems reasonable for these speakers. Even bumping up slightly to 90 or 100, it should still sound great. I have some smaller Def Tech satellites in my living room, that are not quite as capable as the RTiA3s on the low end, and after much experimenting, I have them crossed over at 80Hz. Sounds great. Different speakers, I know, but the concept is the same - let your ears be the judge. I also crossed my RTi10s over at 60Hz for a while and went back to 80... to each their own, I guess!