Anyone here who has played with speakers like that? Put in speakers of varied brands to an amplifier - like
2 - Polk 2* Jamo, and a Center of a different brand, and a subwoofer?
Other random arrangements - what were the results of the experiment?
I was asking since I have a 5.1 system who's speakers work well at low volumes but start getting vibrations and rattles at higher volumes.
So I need speakers....but I was wondering if its a good idea to buy bookshelf's of various makes and putting them together in a 5.1 system?
I have tried something similar to what you have described above. Currently running the following speakers and amps in a 7.3.2 setup:
Fronts - Quad S-5
Center - Quad SC-2
Mid Surrounds - Wharfedale Evo 4.2
Back Surrounds - Boston Acoustics A26
Atmos Height - Onkyo SK-410
Subwoofers - 2 x REL T9i and Rythmik E15HP2
AVR - Marantz SR6013
Amplifier (front channels) - Cambridge Audio CXA81
Some observations -
1. It is important to get a decent timbral match for all speakers to get good immersion
2. For best results, use the same make and build for the Front Speakers and Centre Channel. Prior to the Quad SC-2, I had the Q Acoustics Concept Centre. While a fantastic centre channel in its own right, the tonal/timbral difference with the Quad S5s meant this aspect stuck out like a sore thumb and led to the Quad SC-2s. The improvement in immersion was massive to say the least.
3. Similarly, while the surround channels come into play to a much lesser extent and are mostly relegated to ambient noises, having a close enough tonal match gives a more seamless experience. Prior to the Wharfedale Evo 4.2, I had the KEF Q350s do mid surround duties and the timbral/tonal differences were, again, a bit too much to give a cohesive experience. However, my gamble with the Evo 4.2s paid dividends and their presentation is close enough to the Quad S5/Quad SC-2 in many ways to provide a more seamless transition.
4. A certain amount of flexibility is possible if the back surrounds aren't too close to your seating position. Hence, I could get away with the Boston Acoustics A26. For a 5 speaker system, the observation is moot.
5. Prior to the Cambridge Audio CXA81, i was using the Marantz PM6006 to drive the Quad S5s. Though down on most performance aspects to the CXA81, the PM6006 had slightly better synergy with the Marantz SR6013, again due to the tonal similarities. However, the SR6013s preamp section lends enough colouration to the CXA81 to be a tonally close enough match to not detract from the experience. Got lucky there.
6. While implementing different makes/models of two or more subwoofers, it is easier to integrate two sealed or two ported subwoofers as opposed to mixing both designs i.e. sealed and ported. I was using a Mission MS450 (ported) prior to the Rythmik E15HP2 (sealed) and getting it integrated with the REL T9is' (sealed) was a pain. Despite being aided by plenty of measurements and positioning of the Mission MS450, the integration with the RELs was less than stellar. Enter the Rythmik E15HP2 and the integration is near seamless without much fuss!
