bookshelf vs surround sound

If by surround sound you mean dipole, and by bookshelf you mean monopole, then its really a matter of preference. Personally, I like all monopole speakers x 7, but others prefer the more diffuse effect that dipoles give.

Surround sound ie bipole/dipole speakers make such a mess of the sound stage that there is no need for more than two. I don't think anyone could notice the difference between two and four. The sound stage from direct radiating speakers, on the other hand, stands more of a chance of benefiting from more speakers. I would get either four bookshelf speakers or two bipole/dipole speakers, but I wouldn't mix the two types.

It's noticeable depending on the size of the room. It can make a difference also if you mix di/bi-pole with monopole, and that does not mean anything bad. I don't think it would be good to mix bi-pole and di-pole, but that too can depend on the room.

Not every room is perfect, so not all normal speakers placement is going to be the same.

Some of the time, experimenting can be necessary

The problem with di/bi-poles is they always have a diffused sound. With two monopoles, the sound engineer/mixer can create a diffused sound when wanted/needed.

The sound from surrounds is not meant to be always diffused.

A pair (or 2 pair) of bookshelf speakers will be more versatile down the road should you decide to use them in another system or sell/give them to someone. For example, they can be moved to a 2 channel bedroom setup. Or whatever. A pair of surround speakers is just that; a pair of surround speakers.

lol... I guess the surrounds couldn't be sold or given to someone, they just surrounds..

Sure they could, but they aren't nearly as versatile as a pair of standard bookshelf speakers.

It's not a true statement. Bookshelf speakers do not normally go as low as a tower speaker, but if you have subs, the sub will take care of the low-end. You will save money with getting the bookshelf that is comparable to the towers or spend the same amount of money and move up a level with getting bookshelf speakers.

Four bookshelf or surrounds will give you that effect you are asking about. It's just that surrounds do it better, that is their design.

Here is another way to answer your question with the difference:

Having four bookshelf all around, what normally happens when an effect happens, a person will turn towards that sound and can point out where the speakers is in the dark.

Turning towards that speakers, can also be known as a distraction, you don't want any distraction when watching a good movie.

Having surrounds/di-pole/bi-pole, you should be sitting in the diffused area of the speakers, it's part of the effect. When the effect hits, your more encompassed by the surround sound. You should be able to hear the rain drops' all over the room, instead of pointing to the speaker it's coming from.

You asked what will be the best type of speaker for your surrounds? The best type is the kind that is designed for surrounds, not something you can switch from front to back.

I have a medium size room, and I am using four di-pole speakers. They were abit more costly then what the dealers was offering instead. They are some great speakers, and when TRON' came on Blu, the surround audio I was getting, I was soooo proud of buying them.

I believe in most thread, people talk about how that movie was great for bass, but not me, it was all about the surround effect I get. There have been other too, that was just an example.

Get some surrounds that have an selectable switch on them, to pick between bi/di-pole.

malarkey

LOL @ surround-specific speakers.

So sorry, but it is true that there are surround-specific speakers. You are just part of the people who don't know or, it's just that you like how any speaker sounds from the rear.

Bi/di-pole speakers are working differently then monopole speakers. They have different type of crossover, they run the tweet in-phase and out of phase to have a much different effect then monopole.

When the lights are out, I rather be encompassed with the audio instead of being able to point out where the speaker is located.

I use 4x Yamaha NS6490's + a NS-C125 (both items acustically sealed) + 2x YST-SW215s (Ported). Couldn't be happier and the best part is that it only cost me $480 total for the set (all on clearance).

Center $80
2 subs $200
2 pair bookself $200

Not knocking those who spend more or less just have fun and like what you buy with no regrets

This is nonsense. If this was true, the soundstage of nearly every stereo system would be just as bad, given the are almost all using direct radiating speakers. The surround speakers won't draw any more attention to themselves then the front stage speakers, if you set them up right. If the surround channels are meant to sound messy and ambiguous, its the sound engineers job to make them sound that way, not the speaker manufacturer. The speaker should simply playback whatever is being sent to it as faithfully as possible.

If you plan on using a subwoofer, I would get 4 bookshelf speakers to use as the main speakers and surround speakers. If you take a tower speaker and its littler brother the bookshelf speaker...the tower speaker has an extra bass driver, so it wil extend lower and with more authority. BUT, they will use the same tweeter. So again, if you plan on using a subwoofer I would use bookshelf speakers all the way around. I would recommend this to anyone on a budget. Take the money you save from buying bokkshelf speakers and buy a good subwoofer. I use monopole surrounds...some use dipole. I cannot comment on the difference as I have only used monopole. As one poster stated above...with monopole you can always use them somewhere else if you decide to upgrade, where bipole and dipole will always need to be relegated to surround duty.

I prefer monopole all the way around - as long as the speakers have good
on and off axis response, I am fine. The speakers do not draw attention to
themselves. There is enough artificial sound in movies to begin with.

Here is another know it all that does not know anything. How about you go learn the difference between the front sound stage and rear ambient sound before you try to criticize the difference in what each should sound like.

HAMP568, this has been discussed considerably here in these forums as well as elsewhere for several years, now. Do some research. If you prefer surround-specific speakers for your surrounds, that's fine, but the conventional wisdom nowadays is that direct radiating speakers all the way around is the way to go. That's how modern soundtracks are mixed.

With older surround sound formats it was helpful to have rear speakers that could provide a diffuse soundfield as much of what was intended for reproduction by the surround speakers was there to provide ambiance. There was no way to really mix that ambiance into the soundtrack other than the delay that the processor could provide for the (relatively crude by today's standards) surround channels. And with such a soundtrack, a surround-specific speaker could do a good job of reproducing that desired diffuse effect. But that was then, this is now.

Soundtracks nowadays are mixed completely differently. With today's discretely mixed surround sound formats you don't really need or want your rear channels to provide a diffuse soundfield. All of the speakers in the system should have the same radiation characteristics. Any ambiance in the sound field can be mixed in by the engineer at production and doesn't need to be added to or augmented artificially at reproduction by the speakers. And unlike in the past, engineers nowadays are able to mix many distinct and punctate sounds into the surround channels. These sounds are certainly not meant to be reproduced diffusely. Properly configured and calibrated direct radiating surround speakers will reproduce the soundtrack exactly as the engineer intended.

Sure, there are people who still prefer surround-specific speakers, and companies still manufacture and sell them. And I can't fault you for defending what you already own. But for someone currently building a system, surround-specific speakers are probably not the best choice going forward.

I don't think the original question was well enough defined to answer. About all we can say is that both surround speakers and bookshelf speakers aren't floor-standers. There are dipole surround speakers, but in many product lines speakers used for surround duty can just as well be used as stereo bookshelf speakers. I'm currently listening to 2 Paradigm Studio 20's in a stereo configuration. They are often used like this as bookshelf speakers. But they are also used as surround speakers with larger speakers in the front, and presumably 7 of them could be used in a surround configuration, likely with a sub.

However it does seem clear that you wouldn't want to use dipole speakers for anything other than surround.

pot meet kettle....

Do some reading up on modern surround sound mixes and you will learn that there is no real benefit to using bipole/dipole speakers over monopole. Also modern surround mixes are mixed using monopole speakers.

If you like bipole/dipole speakers for your surrounds that fine, everyone has preferences and there is nothing wrong with that, but they are not superior to monopole, just different.

I know I cannot pinpoint my monopole surrounds during ambient noise, only when sounds that are mixed to come from the particular direction can I notice them, still cant pinpoint them, just hear noise from behind or left or what have you.

Like you said, it has been discussed, which means there have been two sides, it doesn't mean your side won, or it's the way to go because that's how you feel. I like specific items to do their job, and bi/di-pole are designed for surrounds.

I don't need to do any research, but maybe you do, heck even this site has a sticky thread on the subject, so it's not a waste of time.

Only reason you guys have given to buy monopole over surrounds is that they can be re-sold easier. That's a funny reason to think that monopoles are better. Sound like to me, if you had a football team, you would have linebackers everywhere instead of a quarterback throwing the ball.

I have not read except in this thread and a few people who don't think that bi/di-pole are not a good suggestion, but I have read how much they are loved.

I do know that this technology should have died back when DVD's came out, but it didn't, it has grown even more then before.

I have a feeling, you know more then the engineers and will come back with some old fashion mess.

Thanks for speaking for me, but I have never sold a speaker in my life.

Yes it has been discussed, I still stand by surround speakers are not superior to monopoles, just different.

Ok, then stand by that they are different, don't attack me for saying what the difference is.

You don't read too well, huh?

The reason why monopoles should be used as surrounds instead of dipoles/bipole speakers is simply because they do better at their job of reproducing the soundtrack. Dipole/bipole (and quad-pole) can only offer a vague and diffuse soundstage. Monopoles can give you that also, but can also give you a far more precise soundstage and everything inbetween. At least with monopole, it is up to the sound engineers to decide how the character of the sound will be. One can get away with dipole/bipole designs at the present time only because surround channel programming is so under-utilized, it is mostly only used for ambient effects, and any speaker can do that well. On the occasions where surround channel programming is called to do anything even remotely serious, dipole/bipole speakers will only offer confusion.

Another reason why the dipole/bipole design is so widely used is because they are much easier to mount on a wall, and they don't extrude nearly as much as an aimed bookshelf speaker. Its a matter of ease, not performance, as, by any technical metric, direct-radiating is a far better performing speaker for soundtrack fidelity.

I use book shelf speakers for my rear surrounds and never have I looked at them when sound effects were going on in a movie. I much prefer them to di/bi pole SS speakers.

What is this? The attack of the opinions? I told what some of the differences was. And you people act like I attacked your systems or something.

Like was has been said to me, about it being my preference, it's mine and many more to want the encompassed ambient sound that di/bi-pole offers. If you guys want to sit in the direct radiating sound field that is produce from your monopole speakers, then that is your preference.

But you really shouldn't say as if it's a fact, that it's the way to go. It's your opinion, so learn that there is a difference between opinion and fact.

Don't attack me as if I'm wrong.

Why not? You're the one that copped an attitude. There was plenty that was presented here in a very reasoned fashion that was well beyond just being "opinion". Whether you care to digest it properly or not is your choice.

Once again, you show how wrong you are. I didn't get an attitude, you seem to have.

Since we are going there, then I wouldn't trust your opinion. With as many darn post you have, when do you have time to watch a movie to see the difference anyways.

Maybe you should read the thread again, HAMP568. How could you gather that the "only reason you guys have given to buy monopole over surrounds is that they can be re-sold easier" from the contents of the thread?



Oh. OK.