monitor series

aimee

Other than bookcase vs. floorstanding, what are the main differences between the monitor 40's and 50's in terms of sound, power, quality, etc. I've read that the 50's aren't real sturdy on thicker carpets b/c of poor quality feet. If so, would I be depriving myself if I just mounted the 40's on the wall?

aimee

thanks for all your help!! Not.

cfrizz

Welcome Aimee.

If you are able to go & listen to both in a store you will be able to hear the differences. I personally prefer floorstanders since to me they sound better.

aimee

thanks - but I do not think I will be able to - that's why I was hoping to partially rely upon the more experts types in this forum. No one really replied (other than you) - so maybe it was a stupid question.
The specs. on the 2 series look similar - but I don't know if that is enough to go on.

cfrizz

Just give it a bit more time Aimee. It wasn't a stupid question, but it might take some time before monitor owners see your post.

There aren't too many monitor users on here (that are active) so it might take a little time.

I believe that most speakers are able to have the feet taken off & have spikes put on to give them more stability.

aimee

If there are not that many monitor users still left, then maybe that suggests that I am looking into somewhat obsolete equipment. I am not a true audiophile - but did invest in a 1080P Plasma and a higher end Blue-Ray Player and an Onkyo receive that can decode the DTS and Master audio bit-streams (terms that I have recently become familiar with) - so I do want to cheap out on the speakers - but I cannot spend another couple grand on speakers. I was looking to get a nice center and fronts that will still be compatible with surrounds when I buy the surrounds later in the year. I'd be curious to know people's recommendations.

tommyboy

Yes, the feet on the monitor series suck, but I never had a problem with them falling since I don't plan on hitting them hard enough for them to topple over;). But if you have small kids, you might want to consider mounting the 40s or go up to the rtis with spikes.

cfrizz

Aimee, there are probably tons of monitor users, they just don't happen to post on here or very often.

What would be your budget for the speakers?

jayman_1975

I have the montitor line. 70's up front and 40's for surround. Have never had a problem with the 70's being tipsy but i have also threatened my whole family with very very bad things if they ever get pushed over. As far as the difference between the 40's and 50's i can't say for sure. I do know that the 40's are no slouch on their own up front if you have a sub to fill in low spots. I'm sure you'd need a sub with the 50's as well as they wouldn't come anywhere near the low spots you'd need for ht or music. I think it would be best to put any speakers in the monitor line except the 70's on a reciever that is somewhat laid back as they are a tad on the forward side.

skykeys

aimee wrote: »

Other than bookcase vs. floorstanding, what are the main differences between the monitor 40's and 50's in terms of sound, power, quality, etc. I've read that the 50's aren't real sturdy on thicker carpets b/c of poor quality feet. If so, would I be depriving myself if I just mounted the 40's on the wall?

I was told a long time ago from an audio expert - and I've found this to be true: the single most important component of a hi-fi system is the speaker. Ideally, you pick the speakers first and then match everything else up to them.

You'll likely have the speakers you choose for a long time, so better to make the investment up front for the best quality speakers you can possibly afford. Over the long term, the cost difference is meaningless, but the enjoyment factor is priceless.

Unless of course - you have tin ears and can't tell the difference in sound quality between a mono AM radio and a fine stereo system. . . .


I will add this though: The most expensive speakers may not necessarily sound better to you than a less expensive brand or model. I will never buy speakers without first listening to them very carefully.


Regards.

bopicasso

I first bought monitor 40s for 260 dollars on a impulse buy. After research I ended up with Rti8s for 300 plus 30 dollars shipping. I returned the 40s to cc before the 30 day return policy for a full refund. Alot better speaker for almost the same price.

aimee

cfriz -
don't really have a specific budget (which is probably dumb) becaue if I saw something on a clearance that was more than I was prepared to spend, I'd probably talk myself into it. I have an ONKYO 605 which is only 100 watts per channel - (and doesn't have pre-outs for power amp.) so I am not sure that I could drive the real higher end POLK products anyway (if i am wrong on that, too, please feel free to chime in. anyone??)
-MK

cfrizz

Your 605 will drive the monitors just fine. When we talk about more amplification it is usually once someone is prepared to go up to the next level of audio fidelity. This is simply something that we have learned over years of being in this hobby.

The vast majority of the people just want a good, stable, sounding system that will get the job done.

Polk makes excellent speakers at all levels & prices, that will sound good with just about any gear used to drive them.

All will sound good, but naturally as you go up the ladder with better gear, they will sound better.

skykeys

aimee wrote: »

cfriz -
. . . I have an ONKYO 605 which is only 100 watts per channel - (and doesn't have pre-outs for power amp.) so I am not sure that I could drive the real higher end POLK products anyway . . . anyone??)
-MK

Hi Aimee,

I have a 7 (or 8) yr old Yamaha RX-V620 receiver, which has 95 watts per channel x 5. It does have a switch on the back to toggle between 8/4 ohms, which probably helps. I'm driving my new surround set up with it: two LC265i's, one LCi-RTS-C, and 2 LC80i's with it in a 5.1 setup. I think they all qualify as "higher end Polk products". No preamp. It sounds great.

I don't have to push it to get bass because I have the DSW-500 sub. (Polk subs are probably not on par with the rest of their speakers, but that is another discussion). I think when you have a sub in the mix, it greatly reduces the power peaks consumed when driving the speakers to loud volumes, and thus you won't likely clip your amp unless your driving it to head-banger levels. :eek:

All that being said, some would no doubt argue that it would probably be more ideal in my setup to have a higher powered amp/receiver. But my Yamaha performs fine for me, and I'm fairly picky about my sound. As far as I'm concerned, I'm utilizing the Yamaha to its full capacity (but not beyond). So, I'm getting the most bang for my buck by not paying for additional watts that I would never use.

Hope that helps.

bluzrip

....

psomers

Aimee.
You can actually hear them. Crutchfield will let you try a product for 30 days, and if not happy, you can return it and they will pay return shipping. If you don't have a budget try the RTIa series. They are a nice stpep up, and you won't end up upgrading as you get more into it. Monitors are a nice, my buddy has a set of 50's, but I prefer my RTI's.
Paul

AudioFilet

I use the monitor series in my main HT setup, 50's in front & 40's for surrounds. I don't use that system for music much, just movies & the occasional concert DVD. I like them just fine. My AVR has plenty of power for them, so no problems there. The 50's are a little small for floor standers, so I have them sitting on 1 foot high stainless steel step stools, the kind you would find in a medical office. The top of the stool is covered with closed cell foam for mechanical isolation. Works just fine. The 40's are hanging from the ceiling and angled down into the listening area. The back surrounds are Infinity Beta ES250's, mounted on the wall.

Poee7R

I've spent some serious time with Mon 70's, off a reciever, amp'd, solid state, tubed, 2 channel and HT. And I really havent been able to find a speaker that was so good at doing so much for such a low price.

They arent perfect, by any means. But I do regret selling them. So with that I would say dont worry about the feet, if you have the room for floorstander's go for it. I personally would take a floorstanding speaker over one I had to mount to the wall. Placement is very important, and there is only so much you can do with a speaker hanging of the wall in terms of placement.

I have not listened to the 50's but I have heard the 40's. And I assume you would be good either way.

Also if the feet bother you too much, add spike's or something to suite your situation. I never had to do anything with em on carpet or hardwoods, but I would guess you could unscrew the feet and add spikes if necessary, or do what alot of people do and set them on a "slab" of marble or wood.


Dave

Ryder888

Poee7R wrote: »

I have not listened to the 50's but I have heard the 40's. And I assume you would be good either way.

I have the Monitor 60's but was looking at the 50's & 40's today as rears. They look very similar as far as drivers & tweeter, IMO.

As for tipping over, they are a very narrow speaker. I have mine on carpet and it has'nt really been an issue. They will tip pretty easy, but everyone knows not to bump the speakers....or else.

I've been happy with the sound of the 60's. You would obviously need a sub with 50's or 40's.

good luck