I need a pair of rears with the BeoLab 5's for use with movies and television, and i am unsure if the beautiful BeoLab 6000 is a sufficient speaker in this role. Would it be a better option to spend extra on BeoLab 3's or even go with the cheaper 4000's (i'm not sure the BeoLab 4000 would look right, it's hideous on it's floorstands).

The only way to find out is to audition them. In my opinion, they will be absolutely fine.

I personally think it depends whether you will use a 5.1 or 7.1 setup. For 5.1 I'd invest in some BL3s, but with 7.1 the sound is entirely surrounding you and the BL5s will puff out enough heavy sound so the BL6000s shouldn't have to struggle with anything.

Design wise, I love the BL3s and BL6000s enormously, but the BL3s will probably best suit the BL5 design.

As repeated by us all in almost every thread, you should hear them yourself and better still in your home. You'll make the right decission then.

As people here know I have some pretty set opinions on rear speakers in surround. So I won't go into those. (Phew!)

But after Peter disclosed that the BL6000 come with a wall mount (see News here) I have been wondering about using these instead of BL4000s for my surround. As far as performance goes they're quite comparable in output, but I'm intrigued by the opportunity to have these sleek speakers providing my surround.

AND - I have this weird notion that I'm going to be placing them horizontally, not vertically, on the walls. Rotated so that the drivers are pointing towards the main listening position for the music room/home theatre. Two in the back, and possibly another two - to either side if I decide to go for 7.1 (well, given that each BL5 has a subwoofer extreme, I guess that should be 7.2).

But I think they're going to look great like that - and do a solid job.  

Not sure if the wall brackets will work so well horizontally! LOL

Peter:

Not sure if the wall brackets will work so well horizontally! LOL

A modification is probably required, but I think this is going to work out quite nicely - like having small BL3500s along the wall.

And I'm going to be placing them so that the side and rear ones have their woofers closest to one another - that will concentrate the low end in the corners. 

soundproof:

Two in the back, and possibly another two - to either side if I decide to go for 7.1 (well, given that each BL5 has a subwoofer extreme, I guess that should be 7.2).

But I think they're going to look great like that - and do a solid job.  

Soundproof, I have sent you a PM

philipsmz333:

soundproof:

Two in the back, and possibly another two - to either side if I decide to go for 7.1 (well, given that each BL5 has a subwoofer extreme, I guess that should be 7.2).

But I think they're going to look great like that - and do a solid job.  

I am curious. 

The lower frequencies that are represented by the .1 are omni-directional aren't they. So theoretically, having .2 wouldn't result in the lower frequencies being separated into stereo, as the human ear would not be able to detect it.

As far as i can see, having .2 would simply result in a more even distribution of the sound.

Am i on the right track, or is that completely wrong?

The problem with having only one sub woofer is the possibility of standing waves at low frequencies giving different positions where one gets more or less bass. Having  two reduces this effect.  Besides, it means they sell more speakers!

philipsmz333:

soundproof:

Two in the back, and possibly another two - to either side if I decide to go for 7.1 (well, given that each BL5 has a subwoofer extreme, I guess that should be 7.2).

But I think they're going to look great like that - and do a solid job.  

I am curious. 

The lower frequencies that are represented by the .1 are omni-directional aren't they. So theoretically, having .2 wouldn't result in the lower frequencies being separated into stereo, as the human ear would not be able to detect it.

As far as i can see, having .2 would simply result in a more even distribution of the sound.

Am i on the right track, or is that completely wrong?

Even distribution, yes. Though the BL5s do process the bass so that you can hear it is supporting things to the left or the right of the soundstage (or center, for that sake). And there are possibilities, with DSP, of tying the subwoofer to the midrange info - so you can then actually pan the bottom (at least it appears as if you are). 

We have Beolab 1s in front and 6000s in the rear and they work wonderfully. We also tried a set of 4000s in the rear and found that we preferred the 6000s. I do think I will look into the new wall mount brackets as rear speakers should be higher than the 6000s are.  

We have 6000s as rears with 1s in the front and they work wonderfully. We tried a set of 4000s also in the rear and found we preferred the 6000s.

Razlaw:

We have 6000s as rears with 1s in the front and they work wonderfully. We tried a set of 4000s also in the rear and found we preferred the 6000s.

britops:

Razlaw:

We have 6000s as rears with 1s in the front and they work wonderfully. We tried a set of 4000s also in the rear and found we preferred the 6000s.

Opposite for me, I had 6000's as rears and swapped for 4000's which I prefer.

Not surprising - can be a function of placement, materials in the room, better direction of the sound with your setup.

I suspect you got a better sound from the BL4000s because they were placed higher than the BL6000s?

Both are great speakers. 

No the 4000's are on floorstands.

I have BL6000 as rear speakers and am fully satisfied with them. I also have BL3 in a different set-up and believe they would be absolutely wasted as rear.

I have 6000s as rears in a setup  with 8000s and 7.1. They do a good job as rears. With the 5s, I think the 3s would be better as rears, because then you would have a complete ALT setup. Don't you think the 6000 would be overpowered by the 5s?

Estetically, I find that the 6000s are the most beautifull speakers B&O ever made, but I find they don't match the 5s at all.

beodim:

I have BL6000 as rear speakers and am fully satisfied with them. I also have BL3 in a different set-up and believe they would be absolutely wasted as rear.

Completely agree! Obviously the best rear speakers would be Beolab 5s. But in a world where there is not limitless money, I would spend as little on rear speakers as I could! 

In a 5.1 or 7.1 setup, BL6000 should be sufficient.

I had a pair of 6000 as rear in the past, they did their job quite honestly.

In the cinema mode, don't forget that rear speakers are far less important than the central one.

Rear speakers are there to produce a surround sound, with sometimes a located effect (e.g. a plane coming from front-right and going to rear-left), so IMHO you don't need to spend too much money on them.

Cinema sound-engineers do not put so much effects on the rear channels, as on the long run it would be rather un-easy to have a too much present rear sound-stage.

I would prefer to spend more money on the central speaker, it is important that they can deal with the front speakers, which are BL5 in your setup.

Be careful on this point, your central speaker will have a hard job as you have terrific front speakers (I know that, I have the same ones and the internal speakers of my BV5 hardly deals with them).

If you have no budget limitations, you might consider BL3, as the ALT would produce a more diffuse surround sound. It's the "luxury" option.

IMHO, BL5 as rears would be a huge waste of money.

Anyway, the best for you would be a live test with your dealer.

Yann.

 

britops:

No the 4000's are on floorstands.

They're still significantly higher up than the 6000s, remember? The two woofers on the 6000 are well below the level at which you have your BL4000s now. Most likely your 4000s are managing to reach over your furniture, delivering sound energy to your ears. While the 6000s were shooting into the back of your furniture - that could account for the difference you heard ...

Good point. Most people think the drive cones are either all the way up and down the 6000s, or just at the top. They're actually slap bang in the middle...

I agree both 4000s and 6000s are superb. We have 4000s on stands in a link room as well as connected to our computer. Sometimes I prefer them for music over the 1s.

Oh, the BeoVision 5 as a centre speaker not good enough for the BeoLab 5's? Oh well.

philipsmz333:

Oh, the BeoVision 5 as a centre speaker not good enough for the BeoLab 5's? Oh well.

I'm going to say, because this TV is SO BEAUTIFUL, I will put up with it, i don't care too much for movies anyhow, other wise i would have blown the $35000 on a BeoVision 9!

Hmmm - I haven't heard the BV5 together with the BL5s, but it's kind of sad if it doesn't square up with them. Wonderful combo.

The BeoLab 7.4 center has 2x250w ICE power, and the drivers are coupled for mono.

On the BV5 you might want to make a modification. I don't know whether that's possible in the menu, or whether you have to open her up. Here are the spec's:

Power amplifier modules 4 units
Long term max. output power per module 39 watts
Frequency range 50 - 20,000 Hz
Max. sound pressure level 96 dB
Cabinet principle / net volume Bass Reflex / 3.5 litre
Woofer 115mm
Tweeter 18mm 

Rather than have the sound system try to interpret stereo (which would give you stereo within the stereo of the BL5s), you would want to have all the speakers in the BV5 output only the center channel, without any reduction in power output. People wiser than me re. the specifics of the BV5 should be able to have an informed opinion on this?
 

I was using 6000s as mains!! and they were fantastic! so I am sure they will do very well!

But when you compare them to the next in line, they do sound "weak" but having said that they are still a fine speaker imo.