[funkmonkey]

Okay, lets face it surround speakers are not the top priority for most of us.  Of course timbre matched; same driver/crossover is ideal, but the reality (for me) is that I don't really care that much... and my wallet cares even less! 

I had been VERY happy with a 2.0 system for years, and then stepped up and blew the bank on a set of SALK HT3s and HTC for my front line, figuring I would add some surrounds a little later...  now it's a few years later and I am certain that I am not missing that much running without surrounds.  I don't want to put much into them, but I am at a point now that I would like to have something there, and if they work out well enough I might even add the height channels...  Small is important, the wife hates the idea of more speakers. 

This is for movies only, music is strictly two channel (for now)

So: CHEAP and CHEERFUL options for surrounds???
I figure under US$300/pair (street) qualifies.

on my plate out the gate are:
Pioneer SP-BS22
Orb Audio
KEF C1
Polk Audio RTI A1

Any opinions? suggestions? arguments for or against?
Thanks

[srb]

The Pioneer SP-BS22 are the winners in price (and will do a good job) at $80 to $100 on sale, but the KEF C1s are ~ 2-1/4" shorter, ~ 1-1/4" narrower and are front ported so they are better suited very close to or up against a wall.

Unless their 8.7" depth is too much (about equal to the Pioneers), they would be my choice considering your application and WAF.

Steve

[JLM]

I'm with you: a 2.1 HT guy (with HT being a low priority in my life), but when we built 10 years ago wired for rear channels (the "while we're at it" syndrome), then got tired staring at wires hanging out of the walls.  My main rig is in the man cave and a secondary audio system (made up of leftover pieces) is upstairs.  So I picked up a pair of 2-way built-ins and painted the metal grills to match the walls.  Then got the itch to add the center channel and AV receiver (had been using more leftovers and trying to resist the "one thing leads to another" effect).  Now I have more invested in the HT system than I care to, but everyone is relatively happy and have something to match the 50 inch TV.

In your case I'd think $300/pair of surrounds won't come close (even for surrounds) to match-up with the Salks, but going built-in would save cabinet/veneering costs.  Plus you'll have to do something for multi-channel processing and additional amplification.  And what about a sub or two?  Hard to go cheap and have any kind of matching of sound quality.  Seems more like $3000 before you're done. 

Have you asked Jim for ideas?

[Letitroll98]

I like the suggested array from the OP, a good selection of lower priced bookshelf speakers that would all be "good enough" for surround duty.  Except that I'm not a fan of the C series KEF's and would suggest moving up to the Q100's if possible, on sale at accessories for less at $399 and a much better chance at somewhat matching the Salks in sound character.

Have you considered dedicated surround speakers like the Klipsch RS41?   Or for a little more the Polk F/XiA4 or Def Tech SR8040? 

[funkmonkey]

I hadn't even thought about bipoles.  Thanks, good idea.
Also, the Q100's (on sale) might work. 
The AV receiver is a done deal (couple years old now Denon 3310c)
I have not spoken to Jim about any options...  though, I don't think he sells anything less than $1k he might have some suggestions.
At this time built-ins are not really an option... still renting (been trying to find a house for a few years now but GREEDY LA housing market is hard to overcome with one income). 

Just looking for something cheap and decent to fill in the cinematic soundfield.

[WGH]

Just looking for something cheap and decent to fill in the cinematic soundfield.

Decent and definitely cheap, a friend uses a pair for surrounds and the're alright:

Dayton Audio SAT-BK Satellite Speaker Pair Black $35  (that's right, 2 speakers for $35)
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=300-670

And they come with wall mounts too!

[funkmonkey]

I'm not a fan of the C series KEF's

Any particular reason for this opinion?

[funkmonkey]

Decent and definitely cheap, a friend uses a pair for surrounds and the're alright:

Dayton Audio SAT-BK Satellite Speaker Pair Black $35  (that's right, 2 speakers for $35)
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=300-670

Certainly the cheapest option I can think of. =)  Thanks

[Big Red Machine]

http://www.mcmelectronics.com/browse/Speakers/0000000055/p/1

I have some of these cheapo 2 ways for the surrounds.  ALso have AV123 speakers and some Parts Express Dennis Murphy specials I'll eventually try in this new location.

[Atlplasma]

You could look for a pair of used M&K speakers such as the 750 THX series. They are 4 ohm speakers and likely to match well. I use a couple with my SongTowers.

[charmerci]

Dennis Murphy says the NHT Super Zero's work really well with the Salks.

[Teyry]

I have Dunlavy SC-IV's for my mains and a Dunlavy SC-I/AV for my center channel. To save money on surrounds at the time (approx 1998) I purchased Vifa/Madisound kit speakers. One pair was a Bipole/Dipole design that I purchased for the sides and the other was a standard monitor design similar to my center channel that I purchased for the rear speakers. The Vifa/Madisound kit used the same midrange drivers and tweeters as the Dunlavy's but instead of using a first order 6db per octave crossover they use 12db per octave crossovers. I have found them to be a perfect match for the Dunlavy's. They never call attention to themselves. A few years ago I picked up a pair of Citation 7.3 surrounds as from my understanding they were designed by John Dunlavy for Citation. They seemed to do a good job but I preferred the Madisound kit. 

[FireGuy]

I'll toss in Axiom's QS4's into the mix... QS multipolar surrounds use four drivers each, a tweeter on each angled baffle, and a woofer/midrange driver on the top and bottom. The QS surrounds fire sound in four directions - up, down and at 45-degree angles across the diagonal of your room.  $428 with B stock.  Haven't seen this design anywhere else on the market.  I've heard them and they are enveloping as advertised.  These also have a relatively small foot print and should blend in well.

[JLM]

Dennis Murphy says the NHT Super Zero's work really well with the Salks.

That's the kind of advice I was thinking of.  Something that might cheerfully go along with the Salks.  Many ideas are cheap, and many are good value, but what mates well is the real question.

Here's a link:

http://www.nhthifi.com/Bookshelf-speaker-SuperZero-2-1

[Letitroll98]

And for something completely different, we bring you the Allison Four, available used on eBay for nearly the retail price 20 years ago, they've held their value well.



http://www.ebay.com/itm/Allison-Four-Speakers-4-by-Allison-Acoustics-Nice-Cabinets-Woofers-Refoamed-/221277933439

Designed to be placed against the wall, on a shelf or a stand, and operate nearly full range.

[funkmonkey]

That's the kind of advice I was thinking of.  Something that might cheerfully go along with the Salks.  Many ideas are cheap, and many are good value, but what mates well is the real question.

Here's a link:

http://www.nhthifi.com/Bookshelf-speaker-SuperZero-2-1

This isthe kind of thing I was thinking as well    Thanks

[mcgsxr]

Given the OP's given stated priority (movies - at least for now!) I have only the one question - do you prefer direct radiating surrounds, or a more diffuse effect?
 
I went with the diffuse angle for my recent HT build, as I wanted an immersive effect for the surrounds, vs a pin point sound field (I had used direct radiating surrounds 2 other times in other builds). 

If looking for direct radiators, I think many of the suggestions already made are on point.

If considering dipole or bipole surrounds, I like the Axiom suggested, or the ADP series from Paradigm (I use ADP-190 V6 in my current setup).

[funkmonkey]

^^^dunno, never had surrounds, but I would think direct radiating would be the place to start, for a shared purpose living room.  Dedicated theater I think I would opt for dipole/bipole, mainly due to size.  Small and unobtrusive is key here.

[dB Cooper]

And for something completely different, we bring you the Allison Four, available used on eBay for nearly the retail price 20 years ago, they've held their value well.



http://www.ebay.com/itm/Allison-Four-Speakers-4-by-Allison-Acoustics-Nice-Cabinets-Woofers-Refoamed-/221277933439

Designed to be placed against the wall, on a shelf or a stand, and operate nearly full range.

Blast from the past!!!! Used a pair of these years ago with my Hafler DH-101 and DH-200. Bet they would sound great with modern amplification. They do like power. Rock solid clean bass, easily to 40Hz. "Omnidirectional in the forward hemisphere" was how Allison described them. For that matter, any of the speakers using the "Convex Diaphragm" drivers would make excellent surrounds. The later "CD Series" line had better high frequency extension. Because they are designed to be placed against the wall, they also eat up very little of your living space. Sadly, an attempt to revive the line a few years back with overpriced revised models (the "rebooted" Four was $2500 a pair) failed.

[ctviggen]

I'll toss in Axiom's QS4's into the mix... QS multipolar surrounds use four drivers each, a tweeter on each angled baffle, and a woofer/midrange driver on the top and bottom. The QS surrounds fire sound in four directions - up, down and at 45-degree angles across the diagonal of your room.  $428 with B stock.  Haven't seen this design anywhere else on the market.  I've heard them and they are enveloping as advertised.  These also have a relatively small foot print and should blend in well.

I had similar speakers from Emotiva, but Emotiva had the "woofer" coming out the front.  Personally, after having these speakers, I think I like non-enveloping sound better.  To me, speakers that beam the sound at you sound more realistic for flyovers and the like.  I'd recommend trying these before you buy them.