Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Satellite speakers vs bookshelf speakers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Satellite speakers vs bookshelf speakers

post #1 of 15
6/20/06 at 2:43am
Thread Starter 
Maybe this is a dumb question but are bookself speakers better than satellites? I have the feeling they are.
Reply
post #2 of 15
6/20/06 at 3:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spareribs
Maybe this is a dumb question but are bookself speakers better than satellites? I have the feeling they are.
Obviously, take a look at the driver size. Sateilles are fine for computer setups generally though. Bookshelf / floor standing are best for HT or audiophile uses.
Reply
post #3 of 15
6/20/06 at 6:40am
JaGwire must you post in every thread regardless of if you have a clue about the subject matter or not? Obviously you shouldn’t answer a question unless you actually know the answer, obviously.

Satellite refers specifically to a speaker designed to be used in conjunction with a separate subwoofer/woofer. It does not automatically indicate a lower quality than a bookshelf or floor-standing speaker.

A well-designed Satellite speaker can actually offer higher performance because the designer knows that the bass is going to be augmented by a separate woofer. Usually the woofer in the satellite has been relieved of the duties of producing actual bass (<100 Hz) therefore it can concentrate on mid-bass and midrange. This can result in lower distortion.

A Satellite/Subwoofer system is just another way of designing a speaker. The results can be good or bad depending on the implementation. The fact that most satellite/subwoofer systems are designed to be small and cheap (i.e. computer speakers) does not automatically mean that the type of speaker is inherently inferior to other design types.
Reply
post #4 of 15
6/20/06 at 9:05am
i thought it was bad if your main speakers don't produce down to 40hz, because your ears can still tell where the osund is coming from at that frequency... or maybe 60-80hz and u'll get poor imaging something, if u're too heavily reliant on subwoofer
Reply
post #5 of 15
6/20/06 at 9:29am
Opinions vary as to how high a crossover point can be used without localizing the sub becoming an issue. More depends on the slope of the crossover than its exact frequency. The first thing that most users do wrong is mis-place the sub. If the sub is centrally placed (Between the main speakers) the image will be much more coherent.

The problem with most computer speakers (And the dreaded Bose satellite systems) is that the crossover is set much higher (sometimes as high as 400 hz). Most satellite systems are garbage, but that doesn’t mean all are, or that satellite systems cannot be high performance.
Reply
post #6 of 15
6/20/06 at 9:45am
In practice, most sat systems I've heard tend to sound a bit thin for music, even after very careful placement, level calibration and phase adjustment.

But a very good sat system can sound very good for movies, like the Totem Dreamcatcher, or even the cube style Mission M-Cube, as examples.

Right now, I'm using a Epos ELS-3 matched to a Mirage Omni S8 for my den system and it sounds pretty good.
Reply
post #7 of 15
6/20/06 at 10:38am
Since we're on the subject, what is the difference between bookshelves and standmounts? Is this a type of marketing phrase?
Reply
post #8 of 15
6/20/06 at 11:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaldodo
Since we're on the subject, what is the difference between bookshelves and standmounts? Is this a type of marketing phrase?
Most bookshelf speakers are really improperly named, most are designed to sound their best on stands.
Reply
post #9 of 15
6/20/06 at 12:12pm
Just about all “Bookshelf” speakers are designed to be placed on stands. Putting bookshelf speakers on a bookshelf is the second worse placement possible. The only placement that would be considered worse is directly on the floor.
Reply
post #10 of 15
6/20/06 at 1:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yikes
Opinions vary as to how high a crossover point can be used without localizing the sub becoming an issue. More depends on the slope of the crossover than its exact frequency. The first thing that most users do wrong is mis-place the sub. If the sub is centrally placed (Between the main speakers) the image will be much more coherent.

The problem with most computer speakers (And the dreaded Bose satellite systems) is that the crossover is set much higher (sometimes as high as 400 hz). Most satellite systems are garbage, but that doesn’t mean all are, or that satellite systems cannot be high performance.
Placing the subs between the speakers is not necessarily going to give you more coherent low frequency imaging. It all depends on the particular room, as low frequencies are greatly affected by room acoustics. In my setup, corner load TACT subs absoultely klll my Velodyne DD-15 paced between speakers. I really believe room correction involving time alignment and frequency equalization is necessary in 99% of rooms in order to properly tame low frequencies.

Also, whether the crossover is set at 50Hz or 800Hz, localization of the subs has to do with proper driver matching, crossovers and again, room acoustics. I use a 250Hz crossover on my 2.2 channel "satellite" system:

Reply
post #11 of 15
6/20/06 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleestack
I use a 250Hz crossover on my 2.2 channel "satellite" system
Very nice "satellites"
Reply
post #12 of 15
6/20/06 at 2:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleestack
I use a 250Hz crossover on my 2.2 channel "satellite" system:
First time I've seen satellites placed in the bottom corner of the room!
Reply
post #13 of 15
6/20/06 at 2:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by warpdriver
First time I've seen satellites placed in the bottom corner of the room!
No those are the corner load subs. The Epiphany's are the satellites.
Reply
post #14 of 15
6/20/06 at 3:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleestack
No those are the corner load subs. The Epiphany's are the satellites.
I guess my post didn't convey the intended joke.
Reply
post #15 of 15
6/20/06 at 3:33pm
To some degree, what you want to listen to makes a difference.

I have both to listen to

1) Satelite system being Anthony Gallo duet Surround system. These are very small satellites, and a medium sized Sub. This is a GREAT system for surround while watching movies in my bedroom. For music they are pretty good too, this is where I make a point to listen to DVDa and SACDs at least once before they go in the headphone stack.

2) Monitor Audio RS 6 floorstanding speakers. For pure music listening, at this price is pretty astounding to me. (close to the Senn HD 650s anyways)

Keep in mind these are not esoteric speaker systems as referenced above, both of these ran me about 1K each. Different purposes, different tools. I do have the Sub centrally located in my surround system, and I don't have any problem with imaging with my Gallo set.

Now, does the average computer satellite system compete with an average to good bookshelf (do a bit of homework here, and good placement is an issue as well)... I would say no. With most bookshelf systems though, you will have to add the cost of an amplifier, something that usually comes with computer speakers.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Satellite speakers vs bookshelf speakers