If passive means all crossovers are after the amplifiers it means the subwoofer will have a passive crossover as well. Hence, I was asking examples of fully passive subwoofers.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Which speaker setup best describes your primary audio system?
- Thread starter Rick Sykora
- Start date
I recently saw a comparison of average house/room sizes in Europe – it may even have been on this forum(?) – where Denmark surprisingly has one of the biggest average room sizes. Even so I've never seen anything resembling a home-theatre setup in even the the most well-todo households. Possibly something to do with the reigning scandiwegian minimalist æsthetic ...
I don't know of any offhand. But there are 50 people who have voted 'Passive 2.x' in the poll, so I suppose they would know ...
That is why I am curious as I can’t recall any passive subwoofer model.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #87
I think I pretty much answered most of this already (ad nauseum).
This is not the poll to end all polls. From an analysis perspective, when the results are tallied, you still will not be able to tell whether the member used Atmos or not anyway. So, if you or anyone else is happier with counting them as primary speakers, not sure it matters much at this point.
If you want to start an Atmos poll, please do.
Last edited:
You will be surprised. There are hundreds of HT installers in the UK. Every year they enter nearly a thousand installations for awards. Here is an example of a UK installer showing off:
Luxury Home Cinema Design and Installation Company London
Treating yourself to something as extravagant as a home cinema? Only choose our approved design and installation company in london.
CEDIA even has a separate UK office.
I think the problem arises from too many choices. When you have too many choices you want the exact choice that fits your own system. We all know that the possibilities we can come up with is almost endless.
To ascertain the use of active and passive speakers in the same poll as number of speakers adds another layer of complexity.
I would have reduced the options to just four. That will cover every possibility but an Atmos setup without a subwoofer. I think that’s OK though. I’m sure we all would want to know the member who has such a system
1- stereo (2.0)
2- stereo with subwoofer (2.x)
3- multichannel (x.0)
4- multichannel with subwoofer (x.y)
4- spatial (3D, Atmos, etc.) (x.y.z)
To ascertain the use of active and passive speakers in the same poll as number of speakers adds another layer of complexity.
I would have reduced the options to just four. That will cover every possibility but an Atmos setup without a subwoofer. I think that’s OK though. I’m sure we all would want to know the member who has such a system
1- stereo (2.0)
2- stereo with subwoofer (2.x)
3- multichannel (x.0)
4- multichannel with subwoofer (x.y)
4- spatial (3D, Atmos, etc.) (x.y.z)
1) I am running a 4.2 system and would like to see more focus here on multichannel gear like AVRs processors etc, thus current split is disappointing for me.
2) I thought that the vast majority of people here are from the US and have big houses with cinemas...
Mate, the number of 10 -20 year old surround sound systems at the local recycling centres downunder in Oz, beg to differ
I'm guessing they have all been replaced by soundbars and 80" TVs.
The local midfi shops no longer sell passive speakers. Interestingly they sell AVRs. I wonder how folk obtain speakers for them.
This. Take my parents - replaced a flimsy 5.1 setup to soundbar+sub, sub burned after lightning, now left with soundbar…they just don’t care enough
Yeah, I agree. But, if you look at the data results for 5.x and above the numbers for folks with multi channel systems is in second place at last glance. 42 respondents have 5.x or more. So not too lopsided and it’s early yet.
Waxx
Major Contributor
Wel, i got several 2.0 setups and friends and family mostly also only 2.0, 2.1 or 2.2 setups or soundbars and sonos in wall systems. I know one friend who had a 5.1 logitec setup, but it's not connected anymore as his 2.1 setup sounds so much better and fits his living room better. I know nobody in my friends of family who use multichannel setups anymore altough some spend quiet a lot of money on their setup.
But for those who like it, enjoy it. I don't care as long as you like it. It's just not that common as some think here. This is a site where the nerds and audiofreaks come toghetter, and here you will have a higher percentage who use this kind of systems than in real life i think and it's still only abou 25% who use it as main system.
Isn't that what avsforum.com, avnirvana.com and avforums.com are for?
There was a poll here about where people are from and I seem to remember the majority were actually European. But that was a year or more ago and may have changed since then ...
Pattern
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2021
- Messages
- 38
- Likes
- 53
I would call my setup 2.2 semi active. It's a two channel passive setup with dual subwoofers however I am running the subs in stereo with a reletively high crossover point directly underneath and slightly behind the passive mains. This allowed me to run Dirac with my DDRC-24 as if I had two large full range speakers. Very satisfying from a listening perspective and from a hobby perspective.
Edit: I voted "other"
Edit: I voted "other"
From a conversational standpoint...
Why?
HT and Games are a part of my usage, true: as I mentioned above, though, one of the main reasons for the 7-channel bed layer in my system is Multi-Channel Audio.
For me, high quality reproduction is the name of the game, and even for HT I appreciate the accuracy and neutral characteristic of my Speakers. The nice thing is that I can listen in 2.0, 2.1, or 5.1 as the program encoding demands. Sometimes my Front Center is encoded and other times (again as I mentioned before), with some DTS 5.1 mixes, the Rear Center is encoded and parsed to the Rear Surrounds.
Rarely do I ever upmix program material to a higher channel count than it was originally mixed for.
Which brings me back to:
Why suggest that somehow this site is not suited to multi-channel applications of audio reproduction?
And this doesn't even touch on the trend toward more spatial audio with Atmos or Auro upmixing of audio content!
(I know many cats who are upmixing all their audio content that way. Though, I can't speak to how critical their listening sessions are or if it is more just for funsies.)(But then, does that somehow make their choice any less than that of a 2-channel purist? Or what about somebody that wants to listen to Saint-Saens Symphony no3 on Speakers that can't even reproduce the Low C from the Organ?
Alas... I digress.)
Please, lets all get back to the regularly scheduled programming of questioning and micromanaging Rick's Poll.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,362
- Likes
- 12,357
Passive for the win!
I have two 5.1 systems
Two 2.0 systems ( active ) and one headphone system and one 1.0 system ( portable WiFi radio , conected to the same server as everything else )
But there is no alternative for active versions of multichannel ? So I just voted multichannel 5.1
Two 2.0 systems ( active ) and one headphone system and one 1.0 system ( portable WiFi radio , conected to the same server as everything else )
But there is no alternative for active versions of multichannel ? So I just voted multichannel 5.1
Because there are (at least) three excellent forums dedicated to multichannel audio and its associated video. ASR is the only one dedicated to audio reproduction in general without focus on the number of 'channels'. And I would prefer it to stay that way.
I don't think I did. Just that it should not be the primary focus, as reflected by the current poll which indicates that multichannel is (currently) the primary focus of under 25% of participants.
To clarify my perspective: I have nothing in principle against multichannel audio for musical expression. I just don't don't have the room or the financial wherewithall to do it properly at the current time. Especially considering the infinitesimally tiny number of multichannel releases that are worth bothering about. And no, I don't think yet another Pink Floyd multichannel rehash worthwhile use of my time ... ;-)
As to multichannel/spatial/3d film soundtracks, I find them almost universally annoying and a distraction from the action on the screen, and I try to avoid at all costs.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #100
Any more crabbing about this poll and you will have to answer to my fiercesome guard dog…
Unless it is thundering and then you will find him cowering in the shower!
Unless it is thundering and then you will find him cowering in the shower!
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Poll
