Do You Prefer Bipole, Dipole, or Monopole Surround Speakers? - Page 2

Unfortunately, studio mixing suites are frequently set up to create a single listening position for surround, with everything optimized (five identical monopoles all at ear height, all toed in, all aimed directly at the mixer's chair). The obvious necessity of creating such a repeatable standard does not necessarily translate well to a home theater where a family or group needs to be well-served by the surround reproduction.

The film mixer knows the theater has a surround array consisting of multiple speakers mounted on the sides and back of the room, and audience members who are mostly not in the sweet spot. He will mix accordingly. The music mixer knows that his 5-channel remix of a classic studio album will probably be heard by one or two people in a HT room that, if not optimized, is at least set up to accommodate multichannel music. And will mix accordingly.

That both products were mixed in similarly configured control rooms does not mean that the control room is the optimal listening environment for the product.

A single sweet spot listening position works for me, since no one else really cares that much in my household, so long as it's audible. Not sure I follow the argument that it won't sound as good in the room it was mixed in (unless that isn't quite what you meant).

I have a tough placement with surrounds. My seating is against the back wall that transitions to a pitched ceiling about 4' up. I was originally running 5.1 with monopoles (Swans Diva 2.1s) on 30" stands behind directly (4' or so) to the left/right of the listener toed in about 30 degrees. I ended up moving those speakers up to the front (sold the Swans Diva 6.1s that were overkill for the room and my 99% HT listening habits) and took the opportunity to come up with a better solution for the surrounds.

I ended up with an in-wall bipole surround (Sonance HomeTech THX-SUR) mounted in the pitched portion of the ceiling. I didn't have much latitude in terms of placement... I had to keep them low enough on the pitch not to be in front of the listener and I also had a dormer to work around. I ended up with them about 5.5' high and mounted upside-down to keep the tweeters as far back as possible. Given all the placement compromises, I think the sound I get is about as good as possible... quite a bit more open and less directional than the monopoles on the sides, and more aesthetically discrete as well. I ended up liking the Sonance HomeTech THX-SUR so much that when the time came to toddler-proof the room a bit I ended up going with the THX-LCR up front behind an AT screen.

I mean that a soundtrack mixed for theatrical playback should sound best in a theater, even if it was mixed in a control room.

Oh I get you now.

My first choice would be to have all 7 channels as dipoles, but firing directly at the listening rather than have the surrounds' nulls firing at the listening.

My two main speakers are Maggie 20.1s; the surrounds are a combination of electrostatic dipoles and old Mirage M-1 bipoles, at least for now.

I biased my setup for MCH music (DVD-A/SACD/DTS-CD/DVD-V concerts), so it's monopoles all around. Plus, I'm the only one in the house who cares about "the sweet spot", so everything is set to maximize that spot.

Amen to that!

I use bipole in my setup. My speakers are switchable and the sound is best with bipole. I followed THX guidelines when I built it and the sound is great.

I use dipole sides, and bipole rears. In a smaller room I think these work better. Haven't tried tripole as generally they're more expensive (too)

I think if my side and rear walls were further from the seating position, I'd use monopoles. But last time I used monopoles for rears I didn't like them.

where's the tripole option??

Me too! I'm using the M&K SS-150THX speakers, but often wonder if I'd be better off using them in dipole (THX configuration) mode. The manual states:


I have a 5.1 channel system, so maybe I need to do a test this weekend and see what sounds better. Hmmmm...

I am using Magnepan MC1's, dipoles

I can understand the trend away from dipoles: generally they are the least 'accurate' and provide little if the positioning modern enthusiasts demand. Still, I prefer dipole for their ability to widen my small space and fool my ears into thinking we paid 10 bucks for this movie and we're sitting in a theater...

I designed, built, and paid for the dedicated theatre. The sweet spot is MINE! bwahahahaha!

It should, but in the end the tend to be better in the small control room (the same with movies with too much quick edits and shaky cam) because the soundtracks used to be mixed in an actual theatre and edited on a giant screen. Nowadays, too many movies were edited on a 40" screen (or less) and in a small mixing room

I have bipole sides and mono surround back. A soundtrack sounds best in my theater from my chair. I can't comment on a public theater because I haven't set foot in one for three years.

I've read about surrounds and this is the suggested setup: bipole/dipole for side surround and monopoles for the back surrounds. I only have dipoles for now (5.1) and planning to get bookshelves as back surrounds.

Only THX recommends that during Pro Logic days. If you go to DTS and Dolby websites, they all recommend monopoles all around.

BoogerBomb & Bigham16 right there with you & preach it brother. Am beginning construction this weekend for the downstairs theatre room. With quotes in front of me, I now find myself emailing the vendors asking for new quote options on speakers and projector screens for my 14X38 rectangular space! Ugh.

The issue is muddled by the fact that most speakers marketed as "dipoles" for surround sound actually aren't. They're basically just two speakers stuck together at some angle, and wired out of phase.

Dr. Toole's term for "dipole" surrounds, "bidirectional out-of-phase speakers" or something like that, makes a lot of sense.

Though I think my preference for surrounds might be evolving - to what? good question! - so far out of what I've tried* I've gotten the best results from concentric drivers (think KEF Uni-Q, Pioneer/TAD CST, Tannoy Dual Concentric) mounted above the listening position and firing upwards. I have also found that I have very low sensitivity to surround speaker quality. Probably the biggest disappointment for me in audio thus far has been the lack of any material improvement when replacing mediocre speakers for very good speakers in the surround side and back positions in an older 7.multisubs system. Truth be told, with levels matched I don't think I could've even distinguished a difference, though when trying the same two speaker designs in the front three positions the difference in quality was obvious.

*First surround speakers in the DPL era had six 3" Audax full-rangers firing in four directions. Also have tried bipole towers, bipole towers with a high-pass filter to simulate a dipolar bass rolloff, concentric drivers firing forwards, bidirectional out-of-phase speakers. Have not tried actual dipoles (think something like a 75"x4" flat planar-magnetic driver perpendicular to the wall), wide-directivity line arrays, or the Keele CBT.

Monopoles for me. I have Paradigm Ref.20s and they sound great for music and home theater.

I prefer Magnepans and Martin-Logans. Dipoles. I wish others had said what their dipole speakers were.

Both of these speakers establish a wide image (2D) and in some movies, soundstage (3D).
The imaging maybe less precise, but the size of the acoustic space seems larger.

The electrostatic monopole's (M-L) also convey more ambience sound than the 'Pan's, and with good
sound design, you can hear subtle reflections off the walls of the original space. If that's your thing....

I don't crank up the volume on 'stats, but find the sound more involving. Every time I switch back to
monopoles or anything (bipoles, dipoles) with dynamic drivers, I find my self turning up the volume
to make it more "involving", but never quite find it that satisfactory.

I use old Xbox Omnipolar because my theater room is a non-symmetrical mess.

They do a fantastic job. Got em for like $15 each on a parts-express clear-out sale.

My only complaint( actually my wife's) is that they look like alien heads.

There should not be such a thing such as a "Sweet Spot." But whatta you going to do? Every one should enjoy.

I am running 9.2, with the fronts split hi and low. Front rear sub's.

All monopole except the surround side which I have set further back and set for dipole (bi/di pole switched THX cert.) for better reflection when listening to 5.1.
In a perfect world all monopole would be best if everything were HBR audio.

I know, those pesky law of physics.

I have used all 3. In the early days when I had Dolby surround , I had mono poles as Di Bi speakers where not available. Then when Dolby Pro logic came out , they where released and I dove right in. When Dolby Digital hit the scene , I still used Di polar speakers then tried out Bi polar and still hung on to that style of surround speaker.
After learning more and more about Dolby Digital , I discovered that they where not needed anymore as the surround channels where discrete. I went to mono's and never went back.
As a custom In Home Installer , there are times when I will spec a Bi polar speaker due to placement issues. When everything is close to being correct , I always go Mono. Nothing sounds better then having the same exact speaker all the way around.

Have you read this sticky? It has 500+ posts in it....
http://www.avsforum.com/t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one

It was last edited by Edited by member "Electric_Haggis" - 9/17/12 at 8:06pm, there is even an active poll on post#1 with recent speaker brands/types there......
Edited by mtbdudex - 2/17/13 at 4:45am

What I use as well!

In my last theater, I used Def Tech bipoles for sides and rears (BP10s and BPXs). While it was a very enveloping sound field, I always felt like I was missing some of that localization that some movies had. (The Matrix roof top scene being a good example.) I just finished my new theater and used monopoles all around . (Well, actually, I used B&W DS3s as my sides, but in their monopole configuration - there is a switch to convert them to dipole) So far, I'm loving the localized nature of the sound and trust that the encoding will do the job of envelopment, if needed as part of the scene. However, as this new theater is narrower than the last, I can always swap the DS3s to dipole mode if I feel they are too localized.