bookshelf vs surround sound - Page 3

What seems to have changed? And what kind of statement, HAMP? I think you might have some reading comprehension issues.

There are reasonable and good arguments (although I really don't like using that word) to be made in favor of the use of direct-radiating speakers OR, likewise, some sort of surround-specific speakers. Simply saying "lol, well that's just your opinion and I like dipoles" is just not one of them.

And someone's post count is pretty meaningless!



But while we're here, I'll add another "argument" in favor of monopoles. Deciding to use surround-specific speakers limits your choices, considerably. Some manufacturers don't even make surround-specific speakers. And those that do might not even make ones that necessarily match all the speakers in their lineup. There aren't as many surround-specific speaker choices available as there were 10 years ago. Does that mean monopoles must be better? Absolutely not. The reasons this is the case are probably more complicated than that. But it IS still a fact.

And, btw, I have also tried to avoid getting into the dipole vs. bipole vs. omnipole or whatever discussion. I have tried to use the term "surround-specific speaker" to describe any speaker manufactured strictly for use as a surround channel speaker.

Especially yours!!! and the way you repost, you're not learning anything and passing on even less.

You keep making a comment about my comprehension, but it's you that it applies to without a doubt.

You and the rest of the people who prefer monopoles are saying that's the way to go.

DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND PREFERNCE'?

I'm not sure you are reading, if you think I only posted I like them. But just incase you missed it, I will repost. But as many times as you post, all I see from you is the inability to comprehend anything.



* Dipolar create a more open space of sound without the listener being able to pinpoint the source of the sound.

* Unlike bipolar speakers, the drivers in dipoles aren't moving in and out at the same time. One driver pushes air while the other pulls. So when the dipoles are placed properly, at 90° from the screen, directly to the left and right of the listener, they create a null zonean area in which the sound coming from each speaker effectively cancels itself out, usually in the off-axis middle area facing the listener. The sound coming straight toward the listener's ears is effectively dampened, and instead the listener hears virtually nothing but reflections from the room boundaries. So instead of perceiving sounds as coming from the speaker itself, the result is a diffuse sound-field.

* This design offers a more diffuse, spacious sound than a direct-radiating model. This is what surround speakers should do, after all. They are intended to reproduce ambient effects.

* Dipolar models are favored for THX-certified designs specifically because of their diffuse sound, which more accurately resembles what you would hear in a real movie theater.

* According to Dolby Laboratories: Surround speaker placement, room acoustics, and personal preference are as important as the speakers' radiating characteristic. These factors vary greatly, so Dolby Laboratories cannot recommend a particular speaker for home theater use.

* Dipoles are a closer match to the surround speaker arrays found in movie theaters.

* Ambience and envelopment are the goals of surround speakers, not the 3D holographic rear stereo images. Dipoles do a better job at envelopment due to the sound being directed away from the listener. Having the forward and backwards firing sounds out-of-phase makes the speaker harder to pinpoint.

* Dipoles have a bigger surround sweet spot than direct radiating surrounds have.

I use my 5.1 sound system for more high rez, multichannel music than anything, but also for quite a bit of movie use as well.

I only have a very small room for my system, the Mirage bipole surrounds sound very nice with both music, and movies. At only between 4 to 5 feet from the surrounds, direct radiators are just too "in your face" near-field for my application. I might well like the direct approach better in a different space. Sound reproduction really isn't a one size fits all solution as evidenced by the enormous variety of products available. Just one man's opinion.

Jay

When you say multiple MONOPOLES how many is multiple? 2, 4, 6, 8?

HAMP568,

When you copy text, word from word, from a post on the blu-ray forums, you should probably cite your source. You aren't the original author, are you?

http://forum.blu-ray.com/speakers/66...rs-part-i.html

See section on "Advantages of Dipole Speakers," which is the section copied.

What guidelines would those be?

I have seen allusions to the fact that standard monopoles are what are recommended when reworking soundtracks for consumer release. Do you really think they just "wing-it"? As I said, if nothing else, I am sure there is conventional wisdom.

And, btw, I am not convinced that a pair, and not an array, of monopoles, and not dipoles or bipoles, is not what is used to mix most cinematic masters, even. I think that most of the photos I have seen simply show a pair of standard monopoles back there. Almost all the diagrams in the Dolby guidelines for the mixing environment, although not clearly indicating what type of speaker, show only two speakers, there. Occasionally 4.

Nor did I pretended I wrote it. Is there some confusion in my post as to if I did it or not?

Yeah, actually there is. Nowhere in your post did you mention you copied the entire text from another site. Usually when people do so, they say so.

Allusions? So no actual guidelines?

Okay, look at this picture. This is a professional movie mixing stage. Do you see the two speakers in the upper left? Those are just TWO of MANY (an array) of speakers surrounding the mixing board (the rest aren't visible, but I assure you, there are many, many more speakers "surrounding" this stage). THIS is how soundtracks are "MIXED" for both the commercial theater AND the HOME. The movie studios RARELY choose to "remix" a soundtrack for video release. There "might" be a tiny bit of "remastering" (ie slight EQ for setting general "tone" for the smaller room in a home) but hardly any "remixing" is going on.



In this picture, do you see the multiple (more than just 4 speakers) representing this rear stage? Again, there are more speakers to the SIDES which you cannot see in this PROFESSIONAL post-production stage.



Here is a link to a site which educates people on what even "scaled down" mixing stages use. Note the diagram in the link describes "an array of speakers for the rear stage" and also note this diagram is the "redux" version of a full mixing stage, so the number of speakers in the rear are fewer, yet still contain no less than EIGHT (that's 8) speakers in the rear stage:

http://www.genelec.com/learning-cent...vie-mix-rooms/

These are just 3 pictures I was able to pull off google in a few minutes. There are many, many more I can show if you wish. Please let this be the end of this debate. I have done exhaustive research regarding this before I bought my speakers to ensure I was following the spirit of THX home soundtrack reproduction principles. This is why I keep trying to advise people to buy speakers that follow these principles. THX engineers who have doctorate degrees didn't just "make up" these recommendations. These are experts in audio who conducted exhaustive tests and know the math. When Lucasfilm's engineers put together recommendations on how to produce movie soundtracks at home with an aim to sound like a real movie theater, then I tend to listen to them. They are the experts that developed the movie sound recording and reproduction process for professional movie theaters. The reason movie theaters are 1000-times better today than they were in the 60's, 70's & 80's is because of Lucasfilm. They are the defacto word on movie soundtrack production.

Tim...with those arrays to the side and rear, the mixer/engineer also has timing mechanisms for each at his/her disposal as well. Correct?

I guess another question is: "what about TV shows mixed for 5.1?" I know those mixing rooms are VERY different.

What? Is this a trick question?

Do you not think there are some sort of guidelines? Even if not universal, at least within each studio?

OK, thanks!

Asking someone to support a claim they made is the equivalent of asking a trick question? Besides, you brought it up, claiming there are guidelines that "do actually specify or recommend that direct-radiating monopoles be used". All I'm asking (for the 3rd time) is: what guidelines? Do you have a link you can post? Do you have a pic you can post? Anything?

The time arrival delays on the rear channels are likely set when the system is calibrated. I don't believe it would be wise to change those if they want a consistent result.


That 3rd diagram I showed in my post "is" a scaled down mixing stage intended for TV shows. If you follow the link and read the site, it explains it. Again, this is all really academic at this point. It all still comes down to personal preference in the end. If monopole is really, honestly what you prefer, then by all means. There is no one that is going to tell you what you should like. The THX guidelines are recommendations. I tend to think they should be followed universally but, that is not the reality of speaker manufacturers. Monopole is still an option that has it's enthusiasts. Just like people who like dipole front speakers.

Personal choice is a good thing, but it never hurts to have as much information from the "professionals" as possible. When I did my research initially, I had my own arguments with Lucasfilm guidelines, but after reading more and understanding the purpose for each requirement for THX approval, it became clear they went to a lot of trouble to figure out what would produce professional movie theater results at home. I don't think it's wise to reinvent the wheel after reading their material. Actually, after having a good understanding of their principles has allowed me to be able to select non-THX approved speakers at a lower cost that for all intents and purposes duplicate THX results.

If I can chime in here. I personally have owned both direct surrounds and quad-pole surrounds ( Axiom Qs-8's) and i have to say that there is no other experience better than the surround specific or dipole, bipole, or quad-pole set of speakers. As someone that has spent years hearing both I can honestly tell you how great it feels to be fully engaged in a movie soundtrack. Some will argue and disagree and that's ok but it simply takes more than just listening to speakers one time to fully understand the potential of dipole or quad-pole surrounds.

wow the arguments in this thread are out of hand, time to lock this baby up....

Tim I would like to thank you for your input in this thread. While I prefer monopole it doesnt mean I wouldnt try bi/di-pole as surrounds. It seems like you spent a lot of time researching all of this.

One thing I would like to suggest to the OP (if he is still reading this thread) a lot of ID company's offer a 30 day in home trial. You could always buy a set of monopoles and a set of switchable bi/di pole surround speakers to compare. Then you would keep what you thought sounded best in your room. I recommended the Emotiva ERD-1's to a friend of mine and he absolutely loves them. They are switchable between bi or di-pole. Unfortunately they are being phased out and do not have a 30 day in home trial. But at $249 a pair with free shipping that is one hell of a deal. The only other ones that I know of are the Polk FXi SS's in the RTi A series of speakers. And there are plenty of ID monopole speakers to choose from.

I actually thought that even for each individual speaker in the side arrays a timing delay could also be set.

Hey, Sanjay

In THIS "article" (scroll down) posted over at the Bluray.com forums that was cited earlier in this thread a sort of "devil's advocate" question was raised: "Sound Engineers Use Monopole Surround Speakers. Why Should We Use Bipole/dipole Surround Speakers in Our Home Theaters?", to which a supposed industry insider said, in response:

"I don't think the studio's mix with any assumption on playback speakers. The guidlines (sic) for re-mixing or re-purposing soundtracks for DVD release specifies that monopole speakers be used. But I think that is largely because most control rooms for mixing are pretty dead acoustically and dipoles or any reflecting speaker will not sound very good under those conditions."

I have found this same quote from the same person, HERE. I suppose that is the source.

Also, quoted from HERE:

"Bipoles and dipoles (and omnipole speakers for that matter) all provide a more diffuse surround-sound experience. There’s nothing wrong with this, and in some cases it can enhance your experience, but today’s surround-sound soundtracks are recorded and mastered using direct radiating speakers and the discrete surround-sound channels with Dolby Digital or DTS (or their higher-resolution counterparts such as Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio)."

I realize those are both weak and a bit circular but that's the best I can do. Not that I even care, though, honestly. I know that I am not simply making that up. I have seen similar stuff stated by supposed "insiders" in discussions in these and other forums in the past. Nor did I pull what I said in Post#18 in this thread out of my butt. I have been reading for years that the trend is toward direct radiating monopoles, not just for production but for reproduction, also.

Myth? Perhaps. But it's not my imagination.

/shrugs



And, btw, for anyone still reading in this thread, I would never just flat out tell someone that they were using the wrong surround speakers. Ultimately, that is a personal preference. I can present (yes, regurgitate) the argument in favor of monopoles and that's about it. The only problem I had with HAMP568 was his posting style, not necessarily his viewpoint. Timothy91 presented that viewpoint with considerably more tact and knowledge. Can't really argue with that.

FWIW, Floyd Toole is quite succinct about how he feels about dipoles:


"When viewed from the perspective of what a surround loudspeaker is intended to do, the dipole configuration falls short...In terms of delivering strong, high-quality, direct sounds to all listenersfor purposes of localizing sound effects, the dipole attenuates the very sounds that are needed to initiate the precedence effect. In terms of sound quality, the inconsistent destructive and constructive acoustical interference in the direction of listeners is not amenable to delivering high sound quality, and the directivity is very inconsistent with frequency (see Figure 18.20). It is time to move on to other designs."
Floyd E. Toole, Sound Reproduction - The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms. Chapter 22, Section 22.5.2.



"In terms of sound quality of the three directional options, it is evident that the dipole mode is not competitive."
Floyd E. Toole, Sound Reproduction - The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms. Chapter 18, Section 18.4.3.

So it's settled. Monopole is the only way to go and diffused "rear channel" speakers are a scam. Noted.
Jokes aside, I use monopole andthey don't draw attention to themselves. I have not tried diffuesed speakers, but I'm sure I'd like them as well.

Relax, I wasn't accusing you of making anything up, just asking for a source of the guidelines you referenced. To that end, thanx for the link.

The comment from the Disney engineer about using monopoles doesn't make it clear whether they're being used as part of an array (even when mixing for home video), like in the diagram that Timothy91 posted. With something so vague, one can make the argument that all commercial theatres use monopole surrounds, therefore it makes sense to use them at home.

But that belies the fact that they are used in arrays, which create a diffuse sound with very generalized directionality. At home, playing each surround channel through a single direct-firing monopole speaker will result in a very different sound. IF the goal for someone's home theatre is to recreate as closely as possible what was heard in the mix room and approved by the filmmakers, then the diffuse surround field has to be recreated. And that's where a pair of dipole surrounds has the advantage over 2 direct firing monopoles.
He seems to be making a case for diffuse surrounds rather than direct firing monopoles.
That quote from the Dummies.com site makes no sense. Mixing stages and commercial theatres use diffuse arrays of surround speakers, irrespective of whether there was 1 surround channel (Dolby Stereo), 2 surround channels (5.1), 3 surround channels (Surround EX), or 4 surround channels (discrete 7.1). Doesn't matter if the sound was optical or magnetic, analogue or digital, lossy or lossless; it was always mixed and presented over arrays.

The notion that switching from matrixed Pro Logic to discrete 5.1 or from lossy compression to lossless packing suddenly makes the diffuse surround arrays on a mixing stage sound like point-source monopoles is not borne out by reality. In this particular case, that site really earned its name.
Or you can state your own reasons for prefering monopoles. It's not like someone can argue against personal preference. I've been running a 7-speaker layout for about 20 years and, having tried diffuse speakers, I continue to prefer monopoles all around. But then my goals are very different from recreating what I hear at (good) movie theatres.

Look up axiom qs8s. That's your quadpoles. Monopole is basically what most people have

Monos are your usual monitors/ bookshelves, dipole and bipole have two mids/ woofers set at an angle for a wider spread. It should be clearly stated what is their method of operation.