mmill02
mmill02's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 2 months ago
Joined: Nov 29 2015 - 10:25pm
Speaker selection Polk RTI A1 vs A3
commsysman
commsysman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: Apr 4 2006 - 11:33am

The center channel has no relation to the sub, since they operate in entirely different frequency ranges. IMO a sub should NEVER be set to operate above 60 Hz; the front speakers should be capable of operating from 50 Hz up.

Personally, I think the smaller drivers of the A4 will do a better job of reproducing the midrange frequencies that are the essential function of the center speaker. I would prefer it to the A6 for best midrange clarity.

For the front speakers, I would suggest the A3 speakers, since they have 6.5 inch drivers. This will give you a good midbass output from them, and the sub can be set to operate only from 50 Hz down.

IMO the sub should only be operated BELOW the operating range of the main speakers, which should be set operate FULL-RANGE with no limiting.

The A1 speakers should be adequate for rear or surround service.

mmill02
mmill02's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 2 months ago
Joined: Nov 29 2015 - 10:25pm

Thank you for your reply. So I shouldn’t be concerned about matching the woofer sizes of the main speakers with the center and rear speakers?

Also wondering if anyone can help me pick a receiver for the Polk RTI system I have mentioned above. I can get a deal on Marantz and Denon and am considering the MR1606 and the SR5010. Would the SR5010 be overkill for the Polk RTI speaker package I’m looking at? I’ve ruled out Denon X1200W and X2200W since I’ve been told that the Polk RTI speakers can sound a bit bright and Marantz receivers have a warmer sound. Should I still consider the 2 Denon receivers mentioned? Again, any help would be great.

commsysman
commsysman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: Apr 4 2006 - 11:33am

My experience is that the best-sounding receivers are Cambridge Audio, NAD, Marantz and Harmon-Kardon...in that order.

The Marantz SR5010 is a good receiver that should work fine with those speakers, but for about the same price you can get a NAD T758 receiver, which IMO is a step up in sound quality and true power.

Amazon also has the Harman-Kardon AV3700 for sale for $800, and that would be another one to consider that is comparable to the Marantz.

Cambridge Audio receivers are IMO without equal in sound quality, but they are more expensive. No free lunch. The Cambridge CXR120 runs $2200.

As far as the speakers go, the front speakers need to have large enough drivers to give you response down to 50 Hz or so. The rear and center speakers do not need to go that low in frequency, so their main drivers can be smaller.

I have another suggestion to make. If you have your mind made up about getting the Polk speakers, so be it.

On the other hand, if you could get some speakers that sound better for less money...would that be of interest?

I think that the Infinity P163 speakers sound better than the Polk speakers you were considering, and they seem to cost a bit less; around $100 each from Amazon. The Infinity PC351 Center speaker runs around $200. So four of the P163 speakers plus the PC351 would run under $600 total. I don't know how that compares with what you had planned to spend, but I suspect it is less.

boMD
boMD's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: Feb 2 2015 - 6:48pm

I own a pair of RTI A1s and love them. They are very natural sounding, but do lack a low end. Having a subwoofer certainly makes up for this.

For a couple of years I was using them in a 3.1 system with movies, video games, and music. I have since moved them to a 2 channel system exclusively for music and they sing quite well.

David Harper
David Harper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: Aug 7 2014 - 2:23pm

One of the principal advantages of a sub is that it relieves the main speakers of the burden of reproducing the lowest frequencies, which conserves power from the receiver since the sub has its own amp. Therefore no, you DON'T want to set the mains to operate full range. You want to cut off the lowest frequencies to the mains, usually at 60 or 80 hz, depending on where they begin to roll off naturally.

bierfeldt
bierfeldt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: Oct 26 2007 - 2:30pm

The real question with AVRs IMO is room correction. Cambridge and NAD use simpler room correction software that does little more than adjust the volume coming out of your speakers. Audyssey is much more sophisticated and will alter the tonal character of the sound. In the case of music, this is undesirable IMO but I don't tend to listen to music in 5 or 7 channels. Alternatively, for movie soundtracks which fluctuate wildly in volume and can be poorly mixed, I want something that is going to correct for those potential issues. I really like Audyssey for home theatre application. Marantz (and Denon) use Audyssey. In scenarios where speaker placement is optimal, and the room is ideal for theatre, room correction means less. When you have bad placement or less than ideal room layouts, more advanced room correction can make a huge difference.

I agree with commsysman that for a pure unaltered sound, Cambridge, NAD and I would toss in Arcam (though even more expensive) all make better sounding units than Marantz. In an ideal room or if you are a "purist" in wanting to hear the soundtrack in an unaltered way, they are better choices. If you want a smoother, more detailed sound that I find less fatiguing, Marantz may be a better choice. This is strictly a matter of personal choice.

Denon is more neutral than Marantz but it isn't bright. I will say, I don't like it paired with my Polk speakers but think it sounds great with B&W speakers.

This may seem counterintuitive as they have a reputation for a cool sound and I normally don't love Onkyo/Integra but with Polk speakers Onkyo sounds pretty good to me. Like Denon and Marantz, even their low end units offer discrete amplification instead of chip amps. Onkyo seems to be largely maligned here but in the AVS forums, they get a lot of love and Integra seems like THE pro installer system in my area. I had an Onkyo receiver paired with Polk speakers and liked it, with B&W speakers I hated it. Might be worth a listen.

Full disclosure, I have a Marantz AV7005 Pre/Pro and Marantz power amp in a mostly dedicated Theatre room in my basement driving Sunfire speakers. I have a Denon AVR 1912 in my family room that splits time between TV and audio and is used 95% of the time in 2 channel driving a pair of B&W M-1s. I don't use 5 channel much because the balance of the speaker are Polks and they don't meld well with the B&Ws. I am too cheap to buy 3 more M-1s. I just gifted my Onkyo receiver to a friend because I don't have a spot for it in my house and I don't recall the model.

David Harper
David Harper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: Aug 7 2014 - 2:23pm

I have a Denon AVR X 1100 W and I had polk Rti4 speakers, stand mounted, which sounded good. I bought a pair of B&W 686's (I think), also stand mounted, thinking they would be an upgrade. Brought them home and replaced the Polks with them, and they sounded awful. The highs were harsh and distorted(to my ears). Took them back to best buy and put the Rti4's back on the stands, and the good sound was back. I think the Polks have a smoother more listenable high end. Maybe the B&W speakers would be a better match with Marantz.

Log in or register to post comments
-->
  • X