|
Re: On Wall vs In Wall vs "In-Wall/On-Wall"
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 670
aficionado
|
aficionado
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 670 |
I have the in/ons (W22's at the time) and a W150 and I like them a lot. They definately do need a sub and I have mine crossed at 90 hz if I remember correctly. I tried it at 80 hz but there was a big dip in volume in the 80 - 92hz range or so which I guess in my room they could not cut it at that range. I don't doubt for a second the regular M22's will do better at a lower range but I much prefer the look of the W's in my situation. I use the theatre 90% of the time for movies and TV so I don't need the absolute best sonic performance. Picture whoring alert:
|
|
|
Re: On Wall vs In Wall vs "In-Wall/On-Wall"
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441 |
Ohh yeahhhh. Home theater porn.
|
|
|
Re: On Wall vs In Wall vs "In-Wall/On-Wall"
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,270
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,270 |
Hi spiffnme,
Nice to see you back. And yes, you're correct, the in-wall/on-wall hybrid would be the better option because you will get more bass extension and a fuller-sounding upper bass.
That's because the enclosure is larger than the strictly on-wall version, which require no hole-drilling.
All my listening tests to these various models are done without a subwoofer operating. The midrange and highs are very similar to identical from all three. But on A/B comparisons (to the stand-alone equivalents), there is less upper and lower bass from the on-wall models.
Regards, Alan
Alan Lofft, Axiom Resident Expert (Retired)
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,945
Posts442,484
Members15,617
|
Most Online2,082 Jan 22nd, 2020
|
|
0 members (),
1,228
guests, and
6
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
|