I wanted to get everyone's opinion about surround speaker selection. I'm debating on whether to purchase direct radiating, or dipole/bipole speakers. My media room is medium sized, however due to support beam placement, we've effectively had to cut the room in half by placing the couch roughly in the midpoint of the room.

My initial though was to put in direct radiating speakers slightly behind the listening position on the wood beams, however, given all the space behind the listening position (its completely wide open) I thought maybe dipoles would be better. (we use the space almost exclusively for TV and movies) Because the room is partially finished, I don't have a lot of options in mount placement.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

with the open space, you need to direct the output of the surround speakers towards the listener - you don't need to try and fill "empty space" with the directional and positional sound effects usually encoded in the surround channels. Plus, if you go to the Dolby Labs web site and look at their speaker setup recommendations, they use directional monopole speakers exclusively.

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/home_entertainment/speaker-setup-guide/index.html

dipole & bipole speakers are dated technology from before there were 5.1 true channels of discrete audio. They were created and designed to give the "effect" of "filling" the area behind the listener with sound.

Unfortunately since new content is recorded in 5.1 discrete, it means that the delays and other issues caused by bouncing sound around the room before it hits the listener degrades the sound from what it was intended to be.

dipole & bipole speakers are dated technology from before there were 5.1 true channels of discrete audio. They were created and designed to give the "effect" of "filling" the area behind the listener with sound.

Unfortunately since new content is recorded in 5.1 discrete, it means that the delays and other issues caused by bouncing sound around the room before it hits the listener degrades the sound from what it was intended to be.

Really? I find your last statement to be quite laughable. Please provide the basis for this statement.

Well, for one, I actually tested both in my house an was happier with direct radiators. Second was this article (http://www.electronichouse.com/article/surround_sound_bipole_dipole_direct_speakers/D1/) Linked off the front page of this very website right here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1055412)

Here's a quote from the article:

"Dipoles were originally design to result in a diffuse soundfield in rooms that were heavily acoustically treated. They were a part of the first consumer THX systems, which were trying to duplicate the effect of multiple direct radiating speakers in commercial theaters. It was expected that these systems would be installed in more professionally built home theaters. But today, even in very high-end home theaters we don’t dampen the room that much. So the advantage of dipoles is limited.

“Dipolar speakers were also invented in the old analog surround sound days, in a very different environment. These days virtually every DVD and even many TV shows have digital surround sound, with five discrete, individual channels. And the diffuse soundfield of dipole is really doing an injustice to these discrete digital surround soundtracks,” Fogel says. “Think about it this way: with stereo audio, you’re essentially creating images in space with two speakers. You can move instruments around in space, and the listener will perceive more than two speakers. Add two more speakers in the rear and you now have the ability to image between all four speakers, so in theory—in a perfectly implemented four- or five-channel system—you can place an instrument anywhere in 360 degrees around the listener’s head. But when you introduce dipoles, you destroy that image. You intentionally screw that up.”

And what about 7.1 systems? “If you can place four surround speakers in a room reasonably well, the value of dipoles and bipoles becomes even harder to justify. These speakers were designed to try to mimic the sound of multiple speakers. If you can actually have multiple speakers, you no longer need to fake it. So unless you absolutely cannot place your surround speakers correctly and unless you have the budget to spend on decent dipoles— because good dipoles cost $1000 apiece, at least, and less-expensive dipoles introduce all kinds of phase anomalies—I would never specify anything other than direct radiating speakers,” Fogel says. "

And yes, it's got opinions in it. It's also got points that support those opinions.

As I said in another post, all 7 of my speakers in my 7.1 system are identical. I think this gives the truest timbre matching and the best overall sound from my system. I've had people on this website argue with me that it's the only real way to get audiophile quality sound. I told them they were wrong, despite the fact that it's what I DO!
I like it better. If you like bipole or dipole, GOOD FOR YOU. I tried them & didn't like them in either mode of operation.

I recommend the OP try both, set them up with audessey, and see which he likes better.

Really? I find your last statement to be quite laughable. Please provide the basis for this statement.This is old "news", bluesky636.



My standard "canned" answer (I've probably plagiarized those links goros posted, among others):

Well, many people just do not like the idea of surround-specific speakers. Others think they make perfect sense. This can be a controversial subject.

Those of us who prefer direct radiating speakers for our surrounds think that a speaker designed specifically to reproduce a diffuse sound field is counterintuitive. Soundtracks are mixed in the studio to be reproduced by direct radiating speakers. Any ambiance or diffuse sound effects should be and will be properly mixed into the soundtrack by the engineer.

Surround-specific speakers are a remnant left over from the days of Pro-Logic receivers (or earlier, even) when the surround channels in a surround soundtrack were not really discrete channels and adding surround ambiance was really about the only thing the surround speakers could be used for. Nowadays, the surround channels of modern soundtracks are mixed discretely and very distinct and separate sounds are often present in the surround channels. Surround tracks have become more and more discrete over the years, as engineers have become more and more adept at using them. With the advent of the newer 7.1 (and even higher) discrete (and lossless) formats, direct radiating surrounds will only become more essential. Again, ambiance can be mixed into these discrete channels appropriately by the engineer so as to produce diffuse sounds if need be.

If you plan to use your surround speakers for any of the discrete surround music formats such as SACD and DVD-A, direct radiating speakers are much preferred, if not required. It is likely that there will be more hirez music available with the newer lossless codecs such as TrueHD.

Properly calibrated, direct radiating surround speakers should not be localizable.

Surround specific speakers are often more limited placement-wise.

Surround-specific speakers are very limited in their utility. They can only be used for one thing; as surround speakers. A standard pair of bookshelf speakers can be used further down the road as a stereo pair or as the front speakers in another HT setup. You can give them to or sell them to your kid brother, girlfriend, friend, or just a buyer, to be used much more reasonably as a stereo pair of front speakers than a pair of surround-specific speakers can be used.

Well, for one, I actually tested both in my house an was happier with direct radiators. Second was this article (http://www.electronichouse.com/article/surround_sound_bipole_dipole_direct_speakers/D1/) Linked off the front page of this very website right here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1055412)

Here's a quote from the article:


And yes, it's got opinions in it. It's also got points that support those opinions.

As I said in another post, all 7 of my speakers in my 7.1 system are identical. I think this gives the truest timbre matching and the best overall sound from my system. I've had people on this website argue with me that it's the only real way to get audiophile quality sound. I told them they were wrong, despite the fact that it's what I DO!
I like it better. If you like bipole or dipole, GOOD FOR YOU. I tried them & didn't like them in either mode of operation.

I recommend the OP try both, set them up with audessey, and see which he likes better.

HILARIOUS article. I especially love the following statements:

"Bipolar surround speakers are so rare and esoteric these days that I don’t know why anyone is still talking about them, though," - Really? Yet here we are, talking about them. I guess the author is unfamiliar with Definitive Technology (I have two BP2Xs at 90 degrees to my listening position) or all the speakers that are switchable between dipole and bipole (and even to monopole such as some of the PSB surrounds).

"We still use good dipoles when the room demands it." - How about that?

"Dipoles were originally design(d) to result in a diffuse soundfield in rooms that were heavily acoustically treated." - Heavily damped walls and speakers that rely on reflections from those walls would appear to be mutally exclusive.

"so in theory—in a perfectly implemented four- or five-channel system—you can place an instrument anywhere in 360 degrees around the listener’s head. But when you introduce dipoles, you destroy that imagine. You intentionally screw that up." - I will agree with this in regards to multichannel music. However, very few movies place individual instruments in the surround channels. Most surround effects are designed to be diffuse and even the occasional discrete sound like a gunshot or a helicoptor flying overhead doesn't depend on pinpoint imaging.

"because good dipoles cost $1000 apiece, at least, and less-expensive dipoles introduce all kinds of phase anomalies" - The author is WAY out of touch here.

I do agree with you on several points: Listen to the diferent type speakers and pick what sounds best to YOU. You tried them and did not like them. I have used dipoles, bipoles, and monopoles over the years. I am very happy with my bipole/monopole configuration. Articles like the one you referenced do very little to project a true picture without inserting personal bias. Personally, I will not recommend a specific brand or type of speaker, except in the most general sense (I like Polk speakers) because what sounds good in my room may sound like crap in your room and then you just end up hating me. :(

This is old "news", bluesky636.

To each his own. ;)

See? We can agree on something.

I don't remember who it was, but someone hijacked a thread from another OP a few days ago and was picking fights with me for telling him that as long as he stuck with the same brand and line of speaker, that the sound from the L and R, the Center, and the surrounds should be relatively well voice matched. I then went on to say I use all identical speakers for all 7 channels and that I think it sounds better.

He jumped in and attacked me and told me I was wrong and that the only truly high fidelity approach was to use all identical speakers. (Which I do). I then argued that it's his opinion and he can't definitively say that is true for everyone or for every brand and it's totally subjective.

He told me I was wrong and that what I said was his opinion was scientific fact and couldn't be questioned. It was seriously like talking to a wall. This subject brings the same kind of argument, because no one is wrong and no one is right, it's all just subjective opinion.

I don't know where it is, but there is an article out there somewhere with all the charts and graphs and data arguing all 3 points of view (direct, bipole, dipole) and it doesn't say which is better. It says it's completely dependent on the design of the room and the total pressure that it needs to create to make the sound "sound" its best. Any of the 3 could be "perfect" for that situation. Again, totally subjective, but with MATH!

Yeah, this is a go-nowhere discussion, but it's entertaining.

Edit - On a side note, one of the mods deleted my last response to someone in another thread, along with bluesky's post that followed. My post actually had something to say in it to make a point. What's up with deleting instead of editing?

Thanks to everyone for their suggestions and the discussion, this is exactly what I was looking for.

As per the suggestion, I am trying out both to see which I like better, but from a practical standpoint, I think monopoles might work better (cheaper, and I have better placement options, behind and pointed towards the listening position)

Thanks for the discussion.

See? We can agree on something.

I don't remember who it was, but someone hijacked a thread from another OP a few days ago and was picking fights with me for telling him that as long as he stuck with the same brand and line of speaker, that the sound from the L and R, the Center, and the surrounds should be relatively well voice matched. I then went on to say I use all identical speakers for all 7 channels and that I think it sounds better.

He jumped in and attacked me and told me I was wrong and that the only truly high fidelity approach was to use all identical speakers. (Which I do). I then argued that it's his opinion and he can't definitively say that is true for everyone or for every brand and it's totally subjective.

He told me I was wrong and that what I said was his opinion was scientific fact and couldn't be questioned. It was seriously like talking to a wall. This subject brings the same kind of argument, because no one is wrong and no one is right, it's all just subjective opinion.

I don't know where it is, but there is an article out there somewhere with all the charts and graphs and data arguing all 3 points of view (direct, bipole, dipole) and it doesn't say which is better. It says it's completely dependent on the design of the room and the total pressure that it needs to create to make the sound "sound" its best. Any of the 3 could be "perfect" for that situation. Again, totally subjective, but with MATH!

Yeah, this is a go-nowhere discussion, but it's entertaining.

Edit - On a side note, one of the mods deleted my last response to someone in another thread, along with bluesky's post that followed. My post actually had something to say in it to make a point. What's up with deleting instead of editing?

I believe it is commonly agreed that it is a very good idea to have identical speakers for the front 3. As for the rest, it is a matter of preference. IMO, matching sides to the fronts is not as critical.

IMO, matching sides to the fronts is not as critical.That's not really what is being discussed. What is being discussed is bipole/dipole/monopoles as surrounds. Yes, if you wanted to perfectly match your surrounds to your front speakers you would buy the same type of (if not the exact same) speaker as your front speakers. In most cases, but not always, this would be direct radiating monopoles. But you can also make the decision that you wanted dipoles or bipoles for your surrounds and you could still try to timbre match the speakers with your front speakers. Or not. But I don't think anyone would dispute that timbre matching the surrounds to the front speakers is as important as timbre matching the front array.

But I don't think anyone would dispute that timbre matching the surrounds to the front speakers is as important as timbre matching the front array.

I would, unless I misunderstand you, for anything other than multich music... Matching front 3 extremely important, matching the surrounds to the fornt three, important, but not as much so.