AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Bipole vs dipole
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bipole vs dipole - Page 2

post #31 of 46
10/16/09 at 4:37pm
Is the Axiom QS8 V2 dipole or bipole or neither?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 46
10/16/09 at 5:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancomycin View Post

Is the Axiom QS8 V2 dipole or bipole or neither?

From the QS8 V2 specs

Quote:


All Axiom Millennia Surround Speakers feature:

Twin Titanium Tweeters


Dual Aluminum Woofers, top and bottom


Anti-Standing-Wave Cabinets


Quadpolar Technology


24 karat 5-way gold-plated binding posts

It sounds to me like all drivers fire in-phase like a bi-pole, but with sound going in four directions instead of just two they call it a quadpole. That's just my assumption.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 46
10/16/09 at 5:18pm
Some people insist that monopole speakers are better for music because the sound is more direct. If you're at an arena concert where music is being output from the stage, the music is going to sound like it's coming from the direction of the stage. Sure the sound is going to envelope you somewhat, but it's going to be a more dispersed sound, rather than a direct sound. It's going to be more diffuse. I suppose you could mount monopole speakers in such a way where they would sound less directional but the sound would still be more immediate rather than diffuse in normal-sized rooms.

If you're in a studio listening to a band playing music the sound is going to be even more direct - in the direction of the band that's playing the music. If you have a pair of stereo speakers that can produce a wide soundstage, than that's probably going to sound closer to the sound you'll hear if you were actually in the studio listening to the band playing.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 46
10/16/09 at 5:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alec88 View Post

Some people insist that monopole speakers are better for music because the sound is more direct. If you're at an arena concert where music is being output from the stage, the music is going to sound like it's coming from the direction of the stage. Sure the sound is going to envelope you somewhat, but it's going to be a more dispersed sound, rather than a direct sound. It's going to be more diffuse. I suppose you could mount monopole speakers in such a way where they would sound less directional but the sound would still be more immediate rather than diffuse in normal-sized rooms.

If you're in a studio listening to a band playing music the sound is going to be even more direct - in the direction of the band that's playing the music. If you have a pair of stereo speakers that can produce a wide soundstage, than that's probably going to sound closer to the sound you'll hear if you were actually in the studio listening to the band playing.

The reason monopoles are probably better for multichannel music is not just because the sound is more direct. It is because this is how the engineer mixed the soundtrack in the first place. If the ambiance of a live venue is what the engineer wants, he can put that into the mix. Monopoles can reproduce that ambiance just fine. If the engineer wants to reproduce the directional sound of a band, in a studio, on a stage in front of you, then he will mix that into the mix appropriately.

Point being, you shouldn't rely on the speakers, upon playback, to provide any sort of 'effect'. That is mixed into the soundtrack by the engineer and the speakers should reproduce what the engineer intended. A speaker that reproduces a diffuse soundfield is adding an effect that the engineer didn't really intend. Might it be a pleasing effect? Sure. Maybe. To some people. But if an engineer intends a sound to be diffuse, it will be mixed that way in the first place. If you then reproduce that sound diffusely, it will be even more diffuse. Likewise, if a sound is meant to be very punctate and is mixed that way by the engineer, but you reproduce it with a speaker that casts a diffuse soundstage, it is no longer going to sound as punctate as the engineer intended.

Now, you could argue that no one's room is perfect and that the room is going to affect even a direct radiating monopole. And I can't argue with that. That is correct. Indeed, many people do not like the sound of a perfectly treated room, especially for music reproduction. Most people rely upon the random interactions of their front speakers (which are usually, but not always, monopoles) with the room to provide a characteristic sound to their stereo music listening. Without that our systems would sound sterile. And it is exactly those interactions that are enhanced by a bipole or dipole speaker such as a DefTech or a Maggie. Still, that does not in any way argue in favor of using a surround-specific speaker that intentionally casts a diffuse soundfield.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 46
10/16/09 at 6:17pm
Thread Starter 
I am in the process of upgrading the surrs. and need advice as to which way to go from here . I am selling the Aperions and then go for either di or bi or maybe some more direct...Thats why I asked all of you for your recommendations. And so far I am still confused as to which way to go but I have learned alot to say the least. Thanks to all !!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 46
10/16/09 at 6:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesky636 View Post

NOW you tell us what speakers you are using? Here we thought we were helping you make a decision on what to get.

You are I need to know which type of spks. to get for new surrs. which will replace the Aperions 632s. So I can better match the frt. stage of all Paradigms.But it seems like all the people that have responded either have their on agenda and not really addressing my request.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 46
10/16/09 at 6:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by homer612 View Post

You are I need to know which type of spks. to get for new surrs. which will replace the Aperions 632s. So I can better match the frt. stage of all Paradigms.But it seems like all the people that have responded either have their on agenda and not really addressing my request.

Personally I would go with Paradigm surrounds to match the front stage. Paradigm's surrounds are a hybrid of bipole and dipole. That's the best way I know of to describe it. If I remember correctly the tweeters fire out of phase (like a dipole) for diffuse sound, but the woofers fire in phase (like a bipole) to keep from losing bass response which is considered to be one of the drawbacks to a regular dipole. That's my opinion on the matter with no agenda to push.

What specific Paradigm models do you use for your front stage by the way?
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 46
10/16/09 at 7:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by goros View Post

My response is based off personal experience, and is my opinion. If you have a different opinion, good for you, but to call it without merit is kinda...dickish.

I tried both, liked one over another, and recommend he does the same. Just because you have a need to justify what you use to everyone doesn't mean it's correct for everyone, either.

Also, all 7 of my speakers in my 7.1 system are identical. I think it's the best way to guarantee timbre matching and the highest accuracy in the reproduction of soundtracks. Does that make it 100% true in all instances for every human being alive? Nope. Some on this forum would argue it is, others say it doesn't.

End of the day, all that matters is what you like and what sounds good to YOU.

I'm just not sold on the "filling the room with sound" when I'm sitting in one position and could give 2 craps about how the effect bounces off the back corner wall and back to my ears. IMO shorter path + less bounces = better accuracy and a more authentic reproduction of sound. This ideal is also what led me to using 7 identical speakers.

I also use 7 identical speakers in my setup. I also had the advantage of a room that allowed them to be evenly-spaced and "surrounding" me in a circular manner.

The advantage of this setup is that the timbre-matching of the speakers can eliminate your ability to pinpoint the speakers' locations because the sound "image" blends well between speakers. You'll get the benefits of both dipole/bipole and monopole surrounds, if you set them up well.

Much like 2 stereo speakers can produce a wide, coherent stage between them while allowing them to "disappear," as they say, identical surround speakers will also create this effect.

5 or 7 identical speakers produces a uniform, consistent "surround stage." The effect is not subtle.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 46
10/16/09 at 7:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireman325 View Post

From the QS8 V2 specs



It sounds to me like all drivers fire in-phase like a bi-pole, but with sound going in four directions instead of just two they call it a quadpole. That's just my assumption.

Exactly right. IMHO, they are some of the best surrounds available.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 46
10/16/09 at 8:41pm
It sounds like I have the best of both worlds then. I use the Paradigm Cinema ADP surrounds.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 46
10/16/09 at 9:05pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireman325 View Post

Personally I would go with Paradigm surrounds to match the front stage. Paradigm's surrounds are a hybrid of bipole and dipole. That's the best way I know of to describe it. If I remember correctly the tweeters fire out of phase (like a dipole) for diffuse sound, but the woofers fire in phase (like a bipole) to keep from losing bass response which is considered to be one of the drawbacks to a regular dipole. That's my opinion on the matter with no agenda to push.

What specific Paradigm models do you use for your front stage by the way?

Paradigm 100s v.1 with the ctr. being CC570
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 46
10/16/09 at 9:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

The reason monopoles are probably better for multichannel music is not just because the sound is more direct. It is because this is how the engineer mixed the soundtrack in the first place. If the ambiance of a live venue is what the engineer wants, he can put that into the mix. Monopoles can reproduce that ambiance just fine. If the engineer wants to reproduce the directional sound of a band, in a studio, on a stage in front of you, then he will mix that into the mix appropriately.

Point being, you shouldn't rely on the speakers, upon playback, to provide any sort of 'effect'. That is mixed into the soundtrack by the engineer and the speakers should reproduce what the engineer intended. A speaker that reproduces a diffuse soundfield is adding an effect that the engineer didn't really intend. Might it be a pleasing effect? Sure. Maybe. To some people. But if an engineer intends a sound to be diffuse, it will be mixed that way in the first place. If you then reproduce that sound diffusely, it will be even more diffuse. Likewise, if a sound is meant to be very punctate and is mixed that way by the engineer, but you reproduce it with a speaker that casts a diffuse soundstage, it is no longer going to sound as punctate as the engineer intended.

Now, you could argue that no one's room is perfect and that the room is going to affect even a direct radiating monopole. And I can't argue with that. That is correct. Indeed, many people do not like the sound of a perfectly treated room, especially for music reproduction. Most people rely upon the random interactions of their front speakers (which are usually, but not always, monopoles) with the room to provide a characteristic sound to their stereo music listening. Without that our systems would sound sterile. And it is exactly those interactions that are enhanced by a bipole or dipole speaker such as a DefTech or a Maggie. Still, that does not in any way argue in favor of using a surround-specific speaker that intentionally casts a diffuse soundfield.

When I had DefTech BP2006s the sound was very wide but still quite directional like you might hear in a studio, even though they were bipoles. A bit like good direct tower speakers but only with a wider soundstage. So I guess the sound would be close to what the egineer intended. Using surround speakers for those kinds of recordings I think would just go against what the engineer intended. However, one could use surround speakers to try to make the studio music sound like it's actually live. Like in a large club or something. Generally, with the right kind of speaker placement it works pretty well. But that's really going against what the engineer intended.

If the ambience of a live event is mixed into CD than isn't it up to the surrounds to actually reproduce the the ambience? Monopoles or direct bipole surrounds are still going to put out a more direct and immediate sound that doesn't sound like it's from a large live setting. If it's a small club setting than a good pair of stereo towers should be enough.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 46
10/16/09 at 10:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alec88 View Post

If the ambience of a live event is mixed into CD than isn't it up to the surrounds to actually reproduce the the ambience? Monopoles or direct bipole surrounds are still going to put out a more direct and immediate sound that doesn't sound like it's from a large live setting. If it's a small club setting than a good pair of stereo towers should be enough.

First of all, I do not use surrounds when I listen to a CD. If you are doing that just to provide some ambiance, that is fine, but that's not for me. My experience is that 2 speakers can do a great job of providing plenty of ambiance, especially if that is the engineer's intent.

So, I'm talking about multichannel music mixing. Do you understand what I mean when I say that the proper ambiance can be mixed into a soundtrack by the engineer? If some sort of ambiance is desired, the engineer can provide the echo, timbre variation, etc., that is necessary to produce the intended ambiance. The way the soundtrack is mixed can very convincingly make it sound like you are in a cathedral. Or in a bathtub. That's all recording technique. But don't confuse production with reproduction.

It is up to all the speakers to produce the ambiance that is already mixed into the soundtrack. And not just the surrounds. The surrounds are often what are used to provide ambiance with the front array used to anchor the sound more realistically to the front, but it is all the speakers, in concert, that provide the overall and intended effect. There is no reason that 5 direct radiating monopole speakers can't very successfully reproduce the sound of a cathedral, arena, or jazz club if that is the intent of the soundtrack's engineer. Even a mono soundtrack can be mixed such that even a single monopole speaker will very convincingly provide a particular amount of and type of ambiance.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 46
10/17/09 at 8:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Point being, you shouldn't rely on the speakers, upon playback, to provide any sort of 'effect'. That is mixed into the soundtrack by the engineer and the speakers should reproduce what the engineer intended.

Have you ever seen the speakers many engineers use for mixing? Not what they show off to the producers and the like but what they use for the actual mix?

Here is a good example:



The large speakers on the wall are mostly for show, the small speakers on the console are the workhorses for mixing. The engineer uses the smaller, closer speakers for locating each sound on the stage in the final mix.

I've both worked in and set up a few studios. The basic setup hasn't changed much over the years. Back when I worked in studios, the most common speakers for "show" were some variation on Altec Lansing "Voice of the Theater". These were two-way horn drivers in large boxes. They were very loud and very efficient; needing relatively low power to produce very high volume, but they weren't very accurate. I once asked an engineer why they didn't use some of the more highly rated esoteric speakers for this. The explanation given was that most producers didn't know the difference and just wanted it loud.

The point of expensive / esoteric speakers in music reproduction is to reproduce each instrument as close to its true sound as possible. This also applies to home theater - to reproduce the soundtrack as faithfully as possible. Engineers don't usually listen for timbre of instruments/sfx, they rely on proper microphone selection and placement for that.

My point here isn't to dis one type of speaker over the other; it is that many of us have better reproduction equipment than most studios.

By the way, I would tend to agree with fireman325. While you don't necessarily need to have exactly the same speakers for front and surrounds, you would probably be best served by "matching" the fronts and surrounds relatively closely.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 46
10/25/09 at 12:52pm
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post17415664
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 46
1/10/10 at 8:16pm
I am in the process of rebuilding my HT system and recently started asking my local "experts" this question. Not surprisingly I got different answers from different people.

In the end, I decided on dipoles for two reasons:

1. I have Paradigm front speakers and their surrounds are dipoles. I have to assume that they know what is best for performance within their speaker line.

2. I contacted Audyssey and asked what they recommend. They have absolutely no stake in speaker sales, so no bias there. The response I got is that they recommend dipoles.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Bipole vs dipole