Do You Prefer Bipole, Dipole, or Monopole Surround Speakers? - Page 3

I usually like monopoles... but a lot does depend on the room and seating arrangement.

However, if object-oriented soundtracks get a foothold, timbre matched and more "full" frequency monopoles will be the go-to surround speaker... and more of them will be needed.

Sorry about the watermarks as I didnt realize they would be there but should have known. But given my living room would anything but monopole even be effective given the distance to the back wall on the left (about 6 feet or so until it hits the pantry area) and the fact that the right side would fire into the hallway?

I would mount the surrounds to the left and right of the couch on the walls. Speaker stands are out of the question with a super clumsy 5 year old running around.


Edited by BoogerBomb - 2/17/13 at 10:28pm

Monopoles - I prefer the localized sound vs the dispersed sound.

I think you're right that inward-aimed monopoles mounted high on the side walls are the right solution for that layout.

PS: Isn't a land-mass unattached to other land an island, not a peninsula?

Its actually attached to a wall on the right side. Thanks for the input!

For Music Mono
For Movies Dipole


Djoel

 

Same here. M&K SS150s. Brilliant solution - no need to choose dipole or monopole - have both in one!

They use multiple monopoles. This is a massive distinction. Dipoles were not "specifically" for legacy matrix surround as is often incorrectly suggested. Dipoles formed the foundation of THX's spec for home theater because they are the only design which, in a single box, aptly emulates the sound emitted by an array of monopole speakers...which to this day is still the base line for surround sound. Sure it would be cool to install a dozen small monopole is a home theater, but it just isn't practical.

dipoles would work splendidly. Its not as though sound shoots in a tight beam and down the hall never to be heard again. A properly design dipole (which unfortunately cannot be taken for granted) will have a uniform power response (ie the sum of sounds radiating from the box, not just directly front and aft of it).

I don't think you'll want to use dipoles with object-oriented audio because of the way the sound "objects" are encoded. They'll probably mess up the sound cues embedded in the mix. And timbre matching will be a must.

Do you own a pair of dipoles? I do.

Dolby recommend monopoles all round, but in some rooms that is not the best option. Monopoles for surrounds didn't work in my room.

As for timbre matching surrounds? Nah.

Well got the FXI A6's. First of all, MASSIVE difference in sound from the 2 inch satellites I was using. Popped in TRON Legacy and so far I think I prefer Bipole, but will still keep switching between the two for a bit.

You're going off of the old, looser standards of traditional channel-based content. Object-oriented sound is mixed differently and requires different speaker standards for optimal reproduction. Every demo I've seen pictures of and every white paper I've read seems to indicate timbre matched monopoles all around would work best due to how sound "objects" are encoded and interact with the room's acoustics and speaker layout.

There is also the possibility of rear "channel" stereo subwoofer outputs since the sound effects can now be mixed full frequency.

on paper works best. But in real world use, each cinema and user has different experience.

If the rear and surround speakers had a lot of space between you and the speaker I'd say yes monopoles are a good choice. But in the UK where rooms are small, and where surround speakers need to be placed discreetly, and the sofa is generally closer to the side & surrounds then the mains & center, those white papers really don't mean much. I had full discrete channels years ago, and chose diffused speakers because monopoles just stood out too much, and didn't have much spatial spread. With them 2-4' close to you, monopoles won't dissappear into your home cinema, at calibrated levels they'll still be quite distracting.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/tech-spotlight-srs-future-surround

Take a look at this early article about object-oriented sound mixing (the final specs are more sophisticated now and use acoustic room calculations for auto calibration much like Dolby Atmos)... namely SRS's Multidimensional Audio rendering lab (now DTS MDA since they bought SRS)... this particular mixing room uses 22 individual monopole speakers plus subs. You can have as few or as many speakers as your decoder can output and it will map the sound accordingly using psychoacoustic 3D rendering. The more speakers you have, the more detailed the soundfield. But in order to get the correct spatial cues firing at you for the best effect, you don't want to use dipole speakers. The mix does the ambient diffusion for the environment being recreated on screen or the direct object panning of specific sound effects (dependent upon the x-y-z coordinates the mixer gives the sound), not the speaker itself.

In that setup, the speakers are further away than I am.

Just because mixing studio uses monopole doesn't mean home owners should. I have monopole for the second system (PC audio system), because they are 7' behind me. But in the main system, the sides and surrounds are about 3-4' away. Monopoles just wouldn't work.

Plus they're physically larger and aren't designed for wall mounting. With brackets they'll stick out considerably.

Time for speaker manufacturers to start thinking ahead with newer, more appropriate designs to facilitate this new form of audio. I like Triad's approach because they have many different custom styles from which to choose. More ought to follow suit.

How about flat panel (NXT) and Electrostatic? They're flat.

I remember when I had my monopoles on the wall, they stuck out. About twice the depth of my current side/surrounds. Dedicated surround speakers disappear in your room, but monopoles on brackets don't.

I use dipole on the side and bipole for the rear sounds pretty good to me.

RE: How films are originally mixed

FWIW, in 2003 I had the honor and pleasure of sitting with a multiple Oscar-winning sound mixer as he worked on a Hollywood feature in the William Holden Theater at Sony Pictures in Culver City. As we were chatting, he revealed that they would do about seven different mixes for this particular film including theatrical, airline, broadcast TV, foreign, and home video. This procedure was becoming common, he explained, with various studios requiring different mixes up-front and other studios commissioning the mixes as necessary. He said that Disney required the most work up front, paying to have all potential mixes performed at the same time the theatrical mix was created.

As a result, I think drawing conclusions about home setups based on the context of theatrical exhibition is unreliable since a customized home theater mix may be present on the DVD/BD release.

Amen to the above. If you are happy with the surround presentation in your home then that is more important than trying to replicate a mix environment that you were not present for.

For my home theater I have an older system using Mirage's Omnipolar speakers, which are basically bipoles. My L/R mains are Mirage OM10 floorstanding bipoles, and a monopole for my center (a Mirage OMC3). To me this is pretty much ideal, the center focuses dialog on the screen, and I get a big soundstange upfront with the L/R mains. My rear speakers are Mirage FRX omnipolar/bipoles. After trading a Mirage subwoofer for an SVS this setup has worked really well for me, sounds great on regular movies, and especially good with concert films.

I'm 4 ft from the side walls and about 8' from the rear. I have some old Paradigm ADP 170 Dipoles,Def Tech SR 8040's. I switch between the 2 on the sides. I kind of like the Dipoles,a more enveloping sound. I was thinking about going with Martin Logan Motion 4's for sides and rears. I already have an all Martin Logan setup. What do you guys thing. My room is about 8-10' wide and 25' long.