view-frustum culling VS objects azimuth/elevation tests ?

hi there,
I have been point to view-frustum culling by Robert.
I worked a lot about that,more because it was unfamiliar to me than because it is really hard, and at 80% of the walk, I have doubts about the benefits of this technique considering:
- I have glowing objects which HAVE to ... glow everywhere around my cam even if not directly visible.
- I need a far far-clip (not 1000000, but I mean, more than the usual 200)
- I already calculating azimuth / elevation of my objects relatively to my cam for sound purposes

The first statement would drive me to consider a culling angle smaller than (360° - lens Angle) and even ... maybe, if an object would be behind, it would have to light the stuff in front of the cam...

The second one is also a cons arguments considering the view frustum culling technique.
I read a lot that far far-clip of course decrease the ratio benefits/cost

The third could drive me to use those value to make almost the same thing than view frustum technique, considering all my objects that have to be culled are spherical (homogeneous dimension I mean)
Indeed, I need that for sounds, so EACH objects know about its azimuth/elevation relatively to the cam.
I can easily use them to inactive objects in a particular space quadrant of the cam local space for instance..

I'd like to have your opinions, maybe some leads around all of that.
I'm sorry if this is a "strategy" question, I'm sure this forum doesn't have to be only "how to find the quat from a cam?" or that kind of questions (I'm almost everytime asking these latter, myself)