Can somebody please explain to me the constant mention of the difference of a speaker that is better for movies and one that would be better for music?

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a speaker can accurately reproduce sound- does it matter what the source of that sound is? I understand the idea that someone only watching movies might not require a speaker(s) that would perform as well as someone that would be listening to music. But I hear comments about speakers (can't think of any one specifically) being better suited for movies than music and vice-versa and wonder about that.

  For example, my speakers (RF-7's) would probably be the "better for music" type but I also watch plenty of TV and movies and they sound just as good playing movies as they do with music.

  What's the take on that around here?    

My take is that if they are good speakers, they are good.  if they are ok with a sub then maybe they are ok for movies.  Go with the best you can afford and test them with music, the movies will fall into place.  For example, my Forte II's are awesome with music, and therefore great with movies too.  This is without a sub.  I can crank "Torque" on my subless forte II surround system and you will feel it in your gut.

  That's what I think. Many speakers (Forte's) have been around longer than "home theater" and people are using them for it and they do great. Sound is sound- no matter what the source is.

I would say speakers like the thx models are more for movies than music. I guess any htib would be movie oriented.

Music speakers to me mean floor standing, even though many bookshelves provide great sound but to me two speakers should provide the full spectrum without the needed use of a subwoofer. I am a big subwoofer person (look at my signature) but if the speaker needs a subwoofer to sound right, the speaker to me is not a true music speaker. Though this does not apply to computer speakers where the subwoofer was integrated with the speaker from design.

bhenry:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a speaker can accurately reproduce sound- does it matter what the source of that sound is?

I don't think it should matter.  My priority is music, but movies sound great on the system, too.  Clean and accurate sound should be what's needed for any source.  Clear lyrics, clear dialogue, the same gear can do both.  Kick drum, big boom, whatever, a full-range system won't have a problem.

However, some systems may be optimized for small-scale music, like acoustic soloists, for instance.  They might sound really fine with that sort of material, but not so good with explosions, or big orchestras for that matter.  For a significant number of listeners, movies (especially blockbusters) may be completely irrelevant, so they don't need to spend their money on a system suited for that, preferring to go for a really sweet low-powered outfit.  That's my take on it.

 Peronally, I think it's size and intended use.  If you have a 100' X 100' room, the RF-7's ain't gonna do it, the Klipsch industrial stuff will.  Home speakers don't go to full capacity in large rooms all the time.  We say Home theater because the speaker will be in a home, few homes have a real movie theater in them.

Islander-

  That makes sense- with the explosions. You would need a speaker system to reproduce the lower frequencies (and/or a sub) which would then require some considerable power from your amplifier.

  So this debate could go on for ever- let's face it, it ALL comes down to what makes YOU happy.

Call me a boring young idealistic engineer type, but to me, the quality of a speaker is in its ability to accurately reproduce a signal. So the only way you could have two types of speakers is to make an argument that movies and music have totally different signals...and I really don't think there is that much of a difference considering that the majority of the soundtrack in movies consists of music and dialog.

when I have read people writing about this...I have always thought they meant cheaper, less detailed speakers that do "all right" with explosions but wouldn't have been my pick for detailed music passages or nicer, more expensive "detailed" sounding speakers that some of the "audio snobs" feel would be "wasted" on "just movies."

Bill 

 Here is something to consider... Remember in the old Klipsh museum in Hope. I distinctly remember Jim Hunter telling us that the old 1920's horn in the back room met the latest THX speaker spec.

A good quality speaker's applications are timeless.

JM 

oldtimer:

I can crank "Torque" on my subless forte II surround system and you will feel it in your gut.

 

As a motorcycle enthusiast, I must ask... no... urge.... no..... BEG you to PLEASE not watch this movie!!!  Removing bikes from the movie altogether - the story still sucks to the point of making you want to spit. Adding the bikes back in and all it does is give bad face to not only sportbikes, but all bikes in general - as if there wasn't already enough resentment towards them to begin with.

Just because it might have halfway decent sound effects (which is debatable for this flick, but I won't go into that... to each their own :) ), should not discount the fact that the movie is a waste of film, polycarb and aluminum. You could find far more better movie examples to use in the enjoyment and demonstration of the awesome sound of a good speaker.  Transformers comes to mind... and honestly - I would rather buy you a copy and send it to you before having you post in a public forum about using that horrific movie to invoke voluntary upper-bowel movements. :)

-scr

Isn't it ideal in movies to have the same speaker all around whatever type 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 etc?  That just is not cost effective for music as its usually recorded in stereo.

srobak:

As a motorcycle enthusiast, I must ask... no... urge.... no..... BEG you to PLEASE not watch this movie!!!  Removing bikes from the movie altogether - the story still sucks to the point of making you want to spit. Adding the bikes back in and all it does is give bad face to not only sportbikes, but all bikes in general - as if there wasn't already enough resentment towards them to begin with.

I agree 100%.  Torque is a terrible movie that depicts sportbike riders as anti-social blockheads.  While riding their bikes in the country, one idiot tries to impress a girl by getting her thrown off her horse, and it doesn't get better from there.  Biker Boyz is another piece of third-rate drive-in fare as well. 

These kind of low-budget Hollywood B movies have no money to spend on distant locations or decent scripting or actors (although Ice Cube appears in one of them) and are usually filmed within 100 miles of LA.

For a good bike movie, check out The World's Fastest Indian.  It's a true story about a truly determined man who let nothing get in the way of setting a speed record on a very unlikely machine, starring Anthony Hopkins, who plays the part really well.

This is just like when people used to ask if the partucular speaker was good for rock, jazz or classical music.  And just like the answer to that question, it's simple.  If the speaker is truly accurate, then it's good for rock, jazz, classical, music and movies.  If the speaker is not accurate, then it may be passable for certain types of sound but will reveal its shortcomings on others. 

Today, some speakers are considered good for movies but not music.  Maybe they are very dynamic but not tonally natural.  What's an explosion or a car crash supposed to sound like?  I don't really want to know.  Speakers that are "good for music but not movies" migh have nice tonal balance and imaging but may lack dynamics appropriate to movie playback. 

 Bottom line: a speaker is either accurate or it's not.   Good for movies is a backhanded compliment in my book.

Islander:

While riding their bikes in the country, one idiot tries to impress a girl by getting her thrown off her horse, and it doesn't get better from there.

 

Isn't that also kinda how "Cool As Ice" started off also?  *twitch*