Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems HT budget balance

After the very little experience with HT/multichannel hi-quality reproduction I'm doing with my new M system, a question starts making space in my mind.

For quality reproduction (say multichannel DVD audio) , what is the best budget balance between front channels and surround channels?
To simplify things I'm assuming the system does not need an LFE
Given 100 as total budget for channel investment between
FRONT, CENTER, SIDE, REAR,
what's the balance you think is giving the best result?
25,25,25 and 25?
or
45,25,15,15?
or
50,25,0,25?
or
60,30,0,10?
or a different one?

My limited listening experience is telling me that front and center are the most important and must act in perfect sinergy (same crossovers, same amplifiers, same speakers) and rear and side speakers must have first of all a timbre similar as much as possible to front and center but they can have less extention and less power.

It will be very interesting for me to know what other more experienced listeners discovered with time.

Thanks

I would DEFINATELY focus your budget on the three front channels - you can go 'cheap' on the sides and rears and then upgrade later.

In my current HT system, I spent 4x on my right/center/left than I did on sides and rears. I think a timbral match for right/center/left is very important - particularly for movies where sound pans frequently occur across the three front swpeakers; not so much for sides and rears.

Simon

my meta-advice would be to be thoughtful about your end-goal. if you care about multichannel music over multichannel movie soundtracks, i think that impacts your thinking (though others might disagree). if you want to do DVD-A reproduction properly, i'd consider starting with five identical speakers (fronts, center, rears). for movie reproduction, i think you can much more "get away with" an imbalance in the rears. fwiw, i concur on the fronts and center being matched identically if possible.

for example (fwiw) i'm in no hurry to upgrade my rears from 5000s, and in fact i considered downgrading them to 33s at one point for the aesthetic benefit.

i listen to most music in Trifield, concerned primarily with fronts and center (and am VERY happy with the reproduction). i have so few DVD-As, and there are so few i care to purchase, that i don't much care about whether that reproduction is perfect. for movies, there's a lot more leeway in how the rears integrate (imo/ime/fwiw).

having had a 5000C and having upgraded to a 5500HC, i'll definitely never go back to a 5000C. a suite of 5500s across the front will blow your socks off and be perfectly matched.

g/l with your noodling!

doody.

Hi everyone and thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Yes, the need for a balanced scenario (always very important in front/center both for music and movies) moves also to the speakers around you when we speak about multichannel music.
Speaking about energy management I feel that in any case side and rear are called to a much lighter commitment, so the ideal system seems one having very similar timbre (5500 and 5000 series or even 33s) but putting energy where it is needed. I never heard 5500s playing but If I'll be proportionally surprised as I've been listening to DSP5000s, this means really a HUGE step forward.
Upgrading fronts to 5500s probably remove the need of a sub and permits a leaner and more transparent system for music.

Generally the need to match your front three "sonically" will determine your budgetary spend.