Thank you to our Sponsors
Well big rooms usually are good as long as there not to live sounding.
Given the fact that you have carpentered floor, then that shouldn't be a problem.
Easiest way is to listen to a par of 9s at the dealer and compare them to the ones you have home, that way you should know how the room "sounds".
Then try to listen to a pair of 5s at the same dealer and compare.
Dealer is bringing a pair of 5s to my house on the 13th. Hopefully that makes the decision easy for me, whether it is yes to the 5s or no to the 5s.
I would simply mention, that both Dolby Digital and DTS specs call for matched, full bandwidth (20hz - 20khz) speakers all around in a 5.1 or 7.1 setup, and that each channel must be capable of an output of 105db, played simultaneously.
That's far more demanding than what's required for a two channel music only setup.
For movies, it's permissible to have a compromise in the rear channels, with bandwidth and SPL limited speakers, crossing over to the mains re bass-redirection at 80hz.
For multi-channel music, this compromise is not recommended - the speakers must be full bandwidth capable and matched all around.
Note the use of the word 'compromise', for indeed that is exactly what it is.
Personally, I don't like using bandwidth compromised speakers as rears, as you loose the stereo effect of low bass in the rear, with it all being sent either to the fronts, or to a sub at the front of the room. However, I also appreciate that for price and space considerations, this is a compromise many of us have to make.
My local dealer is an ex audiophool, like me, and he has three pairs of Lab 5's in an 7 channel configuration along with a projector/screen in his home, as he is an avid movie fan, and like me, dislikes compromises in either sound or picture.
But I appreciate that many of us don't have the space or financial wherewithal to do that - apparently he took out another mortgage on his house!
I'd love to own a system like that, for they are rare - most of us either choose, or have to compromise, and never realise what it is we're missing!
Kind regards
John... 😐
Based on that, would you recommend four Beolab 9s instead of Beolab 5s in front and Beolab 9s in the rear?I did not know there was a reason, or standard, to have all the same, but I do like the symmetry four 9s would provide.Personally, I don't like using bandwidth compromised speakers as rears, as you loose the stereo effect of low bass in the rear, with it all being sent either to the fronts, or to a sub at the front of the room. However, I also appreciate that for price and space considerations, this is a compromise many of us have to make.
Personally, I don't like using bandwidth compromised speakers as rears, as you loose the stereo effect of low bass in the rear, with it all being sent either to the fronts, or to a sub at the front of the room. However, I also appreciate that for price and space considerations, this is a compromise many of us have to make.
Based on that, would you recommend four Beolab 9s instead of Beolab 5s in front and Beolab 9s in the rear?
I did not know there was a reason, or standard, to have all the same, but I do like the symmetry four 9s would provide.
Notwithstanding that everyone has given you excellent advice
Speaking personally, I would have four Lab 5's all round if it was feasible - putting aide room issues others have mentioned, for a no compromise approach.
Failing that, I would have two Lab 5's in front, and two Lab 9's as rears.
The reason is, that yes, the Lab 9's would cross over the very low bass to the Lab 5's.
However, depending upon what the factory has deemed ideal re a crossover point for that speaker combination, as would be preset in the logic table for bass management in your surround sound processor, the cross-over point may be considerably lower than 80hz, to optimise the Lab 9's as much as possible. Certainly you would in all likelihood hear much more low bass from the stereo rears with Lab 9's than with Lab 3's for instance - both in terms of bandwidth and amplitude.
The other very important advantage IMV to using Lab 5's as fronts, over Lab 9's is that they each contain what could be argued to be a state of the art subwoofer thrown in 'for free'.
In all high end movie setups I've ever heard, or read about, stereo subs are de-riguer.
It's true that the .1 or LFE channel of a 5.1 or 7.1 setup is mono, as it is also true that it can go exceedingly low, to around 10hz or so. This is to provide true infrasonics, where you don't so much hear, as feel the sound, to give an atmosphere of menace etc in a movie, or to create suspense etc.
The heavy hitters in the high end audio world as regards subs at the top tier of performance for movies, include the likes of the JL Audio Fathom F13, the Velodyne DD18 etc, and it is fair to say that the Lab 5's are one of the truly few high end loudspeakers that can compete with these industry heavyweights when it comes to bass ability as regards extension into true infrasonics, played at very low distortion and with the amplitude levels required for Dolby specs.
A Beolab 2, whilst a very good sub, simply is not in the same performance league as the 15' drivers in the Lab 5's, or the afore mentioned JL Audio Fathom and Velodyne in this regard.
Also, as well as the ultra low frequency .LFE effects, very low bass, such as around 20hz or so, will play in stereo, rather than mono, which would be the case if you were to couple a Beolab 2 with Lab 9's at the front for instance, so as to add extra depth and reach in the sound to cater for LFE.
Whilst you may not readily hear frequencies around 20hz, there is ample documented evidence to show that stereo low bass, over mono low bass, offers a very worthwhile gain in reproducing the ambiance from halls, and the recording venue etc, and with it the sense of air and space in the sound.
And for music use, as well as movies, the Lab 5's will offer the best of both worlds, that a Lab 9 in conjunction with a Lab 2, effecitvely cant.
On one hand the Lab 2 won't do LFE anywhere near as effecitvely as the Lab 5s, and for music the Lab 5 will give you bass reach and extension that only the Lab 2 could hope to match to some degree - yet it is not as clean re a fast transient response in the low bass like the Lab 9, which in turn doesn't have the low bass reach/extension of the Lab 5.
Really, if money is not the question, and there is sufficient physical space, I could see no reason NOT to go with a Lab 5 solution for the fronts.
After all, they are B&O's current best loudspeaker, and arguablly one of the finest available in the world.
If I had the money, I'd buy them in a heartbeat, and certainly would heartily recommend them in your situation for the reasons I've attempted to outline; hopefully with clarity and in a manner that assists rather than confuses.
I hope this helps in some way... 😕
Kind Regards
John... 😐
Thank you very much. Very logical and good explanation/opinion.
Speaking personally, I would have four Lab 5's all round if it was feasible - putting aide room issues others have mentioned, for a no compromise approach.
The room Razlaw describes above isn't large. Indeed, it's smaller than the room I had my BL5 (which was 18ft high). For me, the other downside was that the BL5s dominated the room and I wasn't comfortable with that. Sure I wanted great speakers, but I don't want them to be the focal point of the room.
One of the reasons Scandinavians are so good at design is that they believe "less is more" and not "brash is best" :)
Also where do you buy 5.1 or 7.1 music?? SACD was a complete fail, and listening to normal stereo recordings on a surround system just isn't the same as your are at the mercy of your audio processor!
While I understand what John is saying I really think a "5's all round" system is something you only ever do when you've completely run out of other things to do with your money!
Also where do you buy 5.1 or 7.1 music?? SACD was a complete fail, and listening to normal stereo recordings on a surround system just isn't the same as your are at the mercy of your audio processor!
While I understand what John is saying I really think a "5's all round" system is something you only ever do when you've completely run out of other things to do with your money!
I accept that Lab 5's all round is something you'd do when you have nothing else to do with your money, (but I could think of worse things to spend it on... lol) and also agree with Moxxeys comments as regards the room etc. At the end of the day, it's a balance of compromises that best suit a particular user - and their environmental situation and financial wherewithal.. :-) I guess I'm just vocalising the idealist approach.
I agree that SACD was a commercial failure as far as mainstream acceptance was/is concerned.
However there are over 4,500 titles available worldwide - wherever possible I buy new classical and jazz recordings in SACD, as my ES 91000 Sony player outputs DSD over iLink (IEEE 1394) also commonly called Firewire, and the amp, which is Class D, pure digital, literally processes DSD re it's modus operandi, so it is a digital DSD stream from disc to loudspeaker output terminals.
Personally, I find discrete multi-channel SACD far superior to two channel CD when it comes to believability and realism as regards that concert hall presentation.
Certainly, my Sony Bluray player can play multi-channel SACD's and output the audio as either DSD or PCM over HDMI.
Given that the processor in the V1 handles multi-channel PCM, I'm very confident that I'd be able to play my existing collection of hybrid SACD's in this manner, once I get some B&O speakers to go with it.
At least, that's the goal as regards my SACD's - my 'regular' CD's I'll stream from my Mac via an latest generation Apple TV.
Kind regards
John... 😐
You must be logged in as a BeoWorld member to post replies to forum threads.
Register to access the forums, reference material, and exclusive member benefits — including our monthly prize draw.
Become a Member