satellite or tower?

mjk91383

i've been hearing a bunch of people say that they let their subs handle the bass up to about 100Hz. if this is the case, then what would be the advantage of purchasing a pair of towers (i70) over using satellites (RM7200)?

i was considering purchasing a new RTi system over the summer, but now i'm thinking about the RM7200 set... what do you guys think?

joe

OrangeToupee

1. I'm guessing that some people buy towers and don't bother getting a sub. 2. Some people love the aesthetics of towers. 3. Some people don't want to bother with stands, or are afraid of the vulnerable(kids, pets) structure that a speaker/stand give you.

In terms of actual sound, well, we could talk about that forever. I'll let someone else start that one up. I prefer sub and sat combo's. (Whoops, I started it)

dlew308

I love my RM7500 set w/ PSW450
It replaced my old...um...bose =/
I vote for sats/sub combo

danger boy

i guess i'm just an old fashioned guy.. in days gone by.. of 2 channel stereo.. if you wanted full range sound.. you most always went with towers. always, the bigger the better. if you could fit a pair of speakers as big as a small import car in your living room.. it would not only sound good in most cases. it would impress the hell out of your friends. ha ha

I guess with todays improvements in speaker quality.. bookshelf speakers are just as good. I'm not sure satellites are quite there yet. I say this only because in my experience the small cube type satellites can not reproduce mid range at all. sure your sub can handle the low frequencies.. and the sats the highs... but what about the mids?
Case in point.. my computer has a Sound Blaster Audigy card.. very nice 24/96 plus all the bells and many whistles.. well the speakers hooked up are Cambridge soundworks.. small cube for the left and right... and a small sub... sounds clean highs, and adaquate bass, but it lacks those smooth mids in music and voice.

Once again, late last year i replaced my ten your old towers with more towers.. i think for home theater and esp for stereo.. it has to be towers for me.

anyone else want to debunk my theory? ha ha
peace

cruiser3

After more than 20 years absence from the A/V scene, I decided to go with the satellites. Main reason is that I dont play my components at very high levels (db) . However, my advice would be to go with the towers if you really like to 'crank it up'. I have the RM6600 w/ 350 sub.

ntculenuff

my vote would be towers but it is all personal prefrance..it is really up to you and your ears and of course your space..i had a sat system and it sound great but it was always missing something. towers are great for full range you get more mid from them, sats just dont follow through, sub and sat are good but towers and a sub will blow you away....

OrangeToupee

When I said "sat," I meant bookshelf, sorry. There will never be any actual satellites in my system.

mantis

towers or bookshelves,
I own both and like both, for music listening i like the towers and for background music bookshelf speakers are great.
I have a pair of rt35i's in my bedroom over my computer.When I surf the web, I like to listen to music at low volumes.I have a niles sensor mounted inside my computer desk, I bring up my pronto or use me all for one remote to control zone 2 which is downstair's in the livingroom.Multiroom is really cool.
speakers are very personal,ones not better then the other untill someone listens.