Monitor 70's and 50's for HT?
Comments
-
zombie boy 2000 wrote: »I've owned both the 60's and the 70's in a bedroom set-up and have to say the 60's are just a better overall speaker. Just a more coherent sound coupled with tighter, more defined bass. The 70's can sound downright sloppy in comparison. Don't get me wrong... great speakers at their pricepoint, but the 60's seem to do better all-around - even without a sub.
I whole heartedly disagree. The 60s has almost no low frequency reproduction compared to the 70s. Monitor 40s have better LFE response than the 60s. ESPECIALLY if you are running without a sub, the 60s will not suffice in the low end. I agree that the 60s have a slightly tigher and crisper sound, but just barely. -
I'm just saying... ran with the same gear and in the same room, the 60's trounced the 70's - most noticeably in quality of bass. I'm sure the 70's dig deeper, but they were sloppier. For the record, I had 120 Rotel watts coarsing through their innards, so I'd say the drivers were about as controlled as they needed to be. Again... it was in a smaller room.I never had it like this where I grew up. But I send my kids here because the fact is you go to one of the best schools in the country: Rushmore. Now, for some of you it doesn't matter. You were born rich and you're going to stay rich. But here's my advice to the rest of you: Take dead aim on the rich boys. Get them in the crosshairs and take them down. Just remember, they can buy anything but they can't buy backbone. Don't let them forget it. Thank you.Herman Blume - Rushmore
-
Although it doesn't matter since OP already purchased speakers, for arguments sake..
I've ran them both with seperates a handful of times now, But never for seriously extended periods of time. I have, however, had the 40s, 60s, and 70s set up as mains in my HT for a couple months each, and everytime I switch to the 70s from the 60s It sounds like I'm listening to speakers that are twice as big. Furthermore, the 70s blend much more seamlessly than the 60s with the CS2.
However your comments have stirred my desire to swap them out yet again -
It's all gravy... Like I said, both were bedroom set-ups. No HT configs and no subs. Just 2-channel. I'd say it safe to say that the 70's would probably be better suited for a larger room.I never had it like this where I grew up. But I send my kids here because the fact is you go to one of the best schools in the country: Rushmore. Now, for some of you it doesn't matter. You were born rich and you're going to stay rich. But here's my advice to the rest of you: Take dead aim on the rich boys. Get them in the crosshairs and take them down. Just remember, they can buy anything but they can't buy backbone. Don't let them forget it. Thank you.Herman Blume - Rushmore
-
zombie boy 2000 wrote: »I've owned both the 60's and the 70's in a bedroom set-up and have to say the 60's are just a better overall speaker. Just a more coherent sound coupled with tighter, more defined bass. The 70's can sound downright sloppy in comparison. Don't get me wrong... great speakers at their pricepoint, but the 60's seem to do better all-around - even without a sub.
Hmmmm, I never would have thought that. Hey, to each his own right? I love my 70's and can't imagine the 60's even coming close, but I have never heard the 60's so who knows.
-JeffHT Rig
Receiver- Onkyo TX-SR806
Mains- Polk Audio Monitor 70
Center- Polk Audio CS2
Surrounds- Polk Audio TSi 500's
Sub- Polk Audio PSW125
Retired- Polk Audio Monitor 40's
T.V.- 60" Sony SXRD KDS-60A2000 LCoS
Blu-Ray- 80 GB PS3
2 CH rig (in progress)
Polk Audio Monitor 10A's :cool:
It's not that I'm insensitive, I just don't care..
