Originally Posted by Electric_Haggis
I also want to reiterate that having 2 pairs of surrounds (side & rear), then using Prologic IIx to convert all 5.1 material to 7.1 is the single biggest improvement most people can make to their surround soundstaging. Period.
Comparing pliix/z 7.1 synthesis with neo:x 11.1 synthesis on my system (the receiver supports both) I can state with authority that nothing works as well as even more speakers to create the immersion effect, even if their content is all synthesized. Compared to neo:x, pliix/z also sounds boxy and bassy on my system and it seems more prone to compression artifacts from low bitrate streaming along with distortion from old damaged LPs, causing odd sounds from it too. Neo:x synthesis can be downright spooky in how accurately it decodes ambiance and steers it with a good recording.
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman
Bipoles may not be too bad if you're sitting extremely close to the surrounds, but monopoles are still recommended for the 3D object based formats if possible.
My experience with neo:x has been that the more channels you have, the worse dipoles and bipoles will sound. I had six of them at one time (high/side/rear) and got rid of all of them because they just muddied up the sound stage. I sit no farther than 8' from any speaker and the rears are all 5' away and I still prefer the sound of side and rear towers over dipoles. So my experience runs counter to the usual and customary.
Dipoles come from an era when movie theaters had rows of speakers along the side and rear walls to create a diffuse surround stage from far fewer channels than they have today, and everyone was trying to emulate same in a small home theater or living room with bipoles and dipoles. Those days are over. More channels are where it is at today and you must use monopoles to preserve the original intent of the recording. Object oriented sound is designed to be discrete and concisely imaged from many monopole channels, not derived off room reflections from fewer channels.
Originally Posted by blazar
Surround monopole speakers should be used with all modern codecs and should be placed an adequate distance from your head.
I think, respectfully, that this distance-to-head thingy is a myth, based on my own experience. What matters far more is that the listener is properly centered between all the speakers and that the room acoustics are conducive to a good listening experience. The smaller the space, the fewer good seats there will be, but there is always at least one. Yes you lose some of that ambient feel but the imaging is actually superior when the speakers are closer, much like headphone stereo.
Originally Posted by DanHouck
That is excellent! I'm trying to decide if your bipoles you are selling will work in my situation. There is no "back of the room" as shown in the drawings, rather they would sit on or above a bookcase unit, above which is an opening to the great room below. I hadn't considered the possibility of facing them forward as shown in some of the schematics. If I did so, they would not be any higher than the listener.
I'm wondering if bipole option 1 or 2 would work here.
You need to decide if you are trying to fill in the ambient field or if you are trying to cover more seats. If you are just setting them on top of a bookcase you have the option of moving them around until you like what you hear, so just do that.
Originally Posted by Cyberathlete
Please quote reply with an underline for the suggested speaker:
Front row seating: 9-10 feet from screen (8-9 feet from front/center speakers)
Second Row: Seated area is 4-5 feet behind the front row
Room width: 13 feet
Room length (distance from speakers to seating has been averaged above but there is no back wall)
Height (drop ceiling): 7.5 feet
Backwall: non existent as it's the basement and that's just open space.
You might want to consider moving your rear speakers farther away if they are very close to the rear seats. Nothing you do with the sound processing or monopole/bipole/dipole can undo the fact that they are going to be firing right into the ears of the rear listeners but far from the front listeners, except to move them farther away so the proportional distance and thus relative loudness is more similar. Doing so will also allow the sound to disperse more and then you don't need the bipole/dipole at all back there.
My two schools of thought:
If the Bipolar speaker is an option as a surround (not rear surround) speaker then I should and could place it between the two rows so neither row is in a dead zone. But there will be no back wall to bounce sound off of for the immersive effect.
They will be bouncing off every wall as well as floor and ceiling, but that ambiance will be delayed. Later reflections can muddy the surround image if they are not quite late enough and come from many randomized directions. You did not mention room treatments but you should be considering them if you are going through this much effort and your choice of speaker plus placement and room treatment should be considered a package deal.
If the Bipolar speaker is an option as a rear surround speaker, then the drivers can utilize the left and right walls to bounce sound off of it and use monopoles for surround.
I have found that dipoles on the rear wall of my apartment seemed to not be audible, or too loud. They were very close and above my head, but no matter how I repositioned, they just sort of vanished into mud or blasted through. On the sides they seemed to have better sound.
It just seems that the poor localization capacity of human hearing to the rear, combined with dipoles, made for an 'all inside the head' headphone-like sound with rear dipoles that made them unintelligible and blanketed the surround image with that 'all inside the head' sound. Audyssey Dynamic EQ surround boost did not help any with that since it overboosts the surrounds and swamps the dialog.
Indirect radiating speakers seem to fight with the synthesis algorithms IMO that are supposed to be filling in the ambiance with synthetic ambiance not room reflections. Basically, unless you have a huge room needing wide dispersion all around and crave that auditorium sound, I would not use bipole or dipole in the rear. Typical room has longer front-rear dimension requiring more dispersion from the side speakers especially with two rows of seating so I would be much more inclined to go with bipoles on the side walls and use monopoles to the rear but if you can, try it both ways. Get a pair of each and swap them around. Then if you need to, buy a second pair of one or the other.
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy
Some would argue that 5.1.2 Atmos is a much bigger upgrade than 7.1 is, when coming from 5.1.
Given the much more available 7.1 titles and the vast improvemement of filling in a larger portion of the space (assuming the front-rear dimension is along the longer sidewall vs. a short front-rear room) the original comment is probably more accurate. My impression of height vx rear speakers is that rear speakers are much more immersive. Overhead speakers maybe more immersive, but your 7.1 titles are not going to decode well for that.
Originally Posted by na_rsx
So can I use the Fluance XLBP speakers for front highs if my receiver allows it, I have the Sony 850DN and its in one of the configurations below. I don't have a sealed living room, its pretty open and connects to the back dining room and kitchen. Do't want to mount them in the rear, so think I'd get good sound in a 7.1?
See here it says you can use as rear surrounds or front high:
The receivers I own have extra terminals so you can choose which set of speakers to activate by choosing the sound mode. If you are having trouble deciding, try mounting both and switching back and forth between them to see how they compare. Personally I would go with the rear speakers before the height speakers but if Atmos is involved you might want speakers directly overhead for a more 3d sound field. Remember that rear speakers of 7.1 can be ceiling mounted so there is no problem with a missing wall.