or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › SURROUND SPEAKERS - Bipole, Dipole, Quadpole, Omnipole... WHICH ONE?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SURROUND SPEAKERS - Bipole, Dipole, Quadpole, Omnipole... WHICH ONE?

Poll Results: There are many surround speakers out there now, but the ones below would have to get my highest recommendation for the most remarkable & effective design Which of these have you had a positive experience with?

This is a multiple choice poll
  • 25% (20)
    Mirage OMD5 (or any other Mirage Omnipole)
  • 3% (3)
    JBL P520WS / Infinity ES-250 / Infinity Classia C255ES (Dual-monopole for 4 channels from 2 speakers, but also Bipole & Dipole switchable)
  • 26% (21)
    Axiom QS8 or QS4 (Unique Quadpole design)
  • 15% (12)
    Paradigm ADP (Many models available with this design, where the tweeters run Dipole, but the woofers are Bipole)
  • 13% (11)
    Monitor Audio BXFX or RXFX (Single woofer, but the tweeters can switch to either Dipole or Bipole)
  • 10% (8)
    Monitor Audio GXFX (6 drivers, including a ribbon. (Monopole / Dipole switchable)
  • 6% (5)
    KEF 26/2DS (Dipole only, alas... but with two 6.5 inch side woofers and a front-firing 8 inch!!! )
80 Total Votes  
post #1 of 628
Thread Starter 

I think it's time to start a thread discussing & promoting the use of DIPOLE surround speakers in 5.1 and 7.1 systems.

I've used many different types of speakers as surrounds. But until recently, I always thought that regular front-firing speakers were better for the surrounds, as they were a closer match to the fronts.

Damn... was I wrong!

After trying out a few types of dipoles and bipoles, I wonder why everyone doesn't have dipoles in their system. I'm also amazed that more hi-fi shops don't sell or push them... or even KNOW about them, as is all too often the case here in Australia !

Quick Definitions....

BIPOLE :
A good bi-pole speaker will have two sets of drivers facing away from each other, firing sound out into the room. This sound will then cover a wider area, and bounce off the side and back walls, helping to create a bigger sound that allows more people in the room to "get surrounded".

DIPOLE :
The same as bi-pole , but the drivers on either side of the speaker will run out-of-phase with each other. THX recommend this. The advantage is that it's harder to tell exactly where the speaker is as it sounds more diffuse. It's also harder for you to get ear-bashed by one of the surround speakers if you're stuck sitting off to one side. So opens up the "sweet spot".

So here are some advantages...

1. A wider, bigger sound - much closer to the result you get from multiple surround speakers in a movie theatre.
2. A much wider listening sweet spot for everyone in the room.
3. They're easy to wall-mount.
4. They're often more compact than a regular bookshelf speaker, and a lot more wall-friendly.

Here's an interesting shoot-out between dipoles and front-firing speakers. There are six pages with pictures. This will link to the summary...
http://www.hometheatermag.com/bootcamp/25/index5.html

Here's some more blurb: "The Case for Dipole surrounds":
http://www.paradigm.com/en/pdf/dipolar_confusion.pdf

One issue dipoles can have compared to bipole or front-firing speakers, is reduced bass. This is because the bass drivers are running out-of-phase with each other. Be aware though, that several manufacturers make dipoles that avoid this problem....

PARADIGM really know how to make great surround speakers. Their ADP190 would have to be my favourite all-round surround speaker for the majority of people. Paradigm design all their surround speakers so that the deeper bass is kept in phase....
http://www.paradigm.com/en/paradigm/...ounds.paradigm

MONITOR AUDIO also make nice surround speakers. The less expensive models have only one bass driver, but they can be switched between dipole and bipole, like this one...
http://www.monitoraudiousa.com/produ...e=3&product=21

JBL make some THX-approved models...
http://www.jbl.com/home/products/cat...=US&Region=USA

INFINITY make a unique speaker called the ES250. I own a pair of these. They can be switched between dipole, bipole and dual-monopole, where they operate as two separate speaker channels in one wall-mounted unit. Handy for 7.1 where you can't mount rear-wall speakers....
http://www.infinitysystems.com/home/...USA&Country=US

JBL now make one just like the Infinity...
http://www.jbl.com/home/products/pro...at=SSS&ser=PER


ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR SUGGESTIONS?


Edited by Electric_Haggis - 9/17/12 at 5:06pm
post #2 of 628
Ummm, I didn't know Australia was 15 years behind the rest of the world.

Time for a "The Packard is the best car ever" thread........
Quote:



1. A wider, bigger sound - much closer to the result you get from multiple surround speakers in a movie theatre.

No, not really, that's entirely different dispersion techniques. Only multiple monopoles will get you close.
Quote:



2. A much wider listening sweet spot for everyone in the room.

Not necessarily true. With dipoles, you get out of the sweetspot much more quickly.
Quote:



3. They're easy to wall-mount.

So are most monopoles.
Quote:



4. They're often more compact than a regular bookshelf speaker, and a lot more wall-friendly

Often, but that means they're putting drivers into a box that is too small for the drivers, assuming that you won't notice, and clearly, they must be correct as you didn't notice.
post #3 of 628
John,

you're just being difficult.

Quote:



3. They're easy to wall-mount.

So are most monopoles.

I don't recall bookshelves having holes built into the cabinet, as well as a template to show you exactly where to drill holes.

Quote:


Often, but that means they're putting drivers into a box that is too small for the drivers, assuming that you won't notice, and clearly, they must be correct as you didn't notice.

Basically, you're saying multi-directional surrounds are "afterthoughts" to a manufacturer. Just recycle the drivers from the rest of the lineup, and stuff'em into a box that is easy to wall-mount. Then charge double because J6P sees a pair of tweeter/woofer and can rationalize the premium.

Quote:


1. A wider, bigger sound - much closer to the result you get from multiple surround speakers in a movie theatre.


No, not really, that's entirely different dispersion techniques. Only multiple monopoles will get you close.

"How" they achieve the effect is secondary to me. What matter is, di/bi create surr effects that do not call attention to themselves. I don't care how accurate monopoles may be in comparison, but if there are two clusters of pirates over my shoulders instead of a boatload, they don't go on my walls. Music is a different story entirely as there is no visuals for the brain to process.


You started a thread some time ago about 10 things a "real" HT should have. I agree with everyone of them except this.
post #4 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bing View Post

John,

you're just being difficult.

Oh, I'm being more than difficult!
Quote:



I don't recall bookshelves having holes built into the cabinet, as well as a template to show you exactly where to drill holes.

I do. Heck, many of our bookshelf speakers can be hung on a wall as fast as you can screw a screw.
Quote:



Basically, you're saying multi-directional surrounds are "afterthoughts" to a manufacturer. Just recycle the drivers from the rest of the lineup, and stuff'em into a box that is easy to wall-mount. Then charge double because J6P sees a pair of tweeter/woofer and can rationalize the premium.

That is correct. But it's also true.
Quote:



"How" they achieve the effect is secondary to me. What matter is, di/bi create surr effects that do not call attention to themselves. I don't care how accurate monopoles may be in comparison, but if there are two clusters of pirates over my shoulders instead of a boatload, they don't go on my walls. Music is a different story entirely as there is no visuals for the brain to process.

You should hear a correctly setup theater someday.
Quote:



You started a thread some time ago about 10 things a "real" HT should have. I agree with everyone of them except this.

All in good time. All in good time.
post #5 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

Ummm, I didn't know Australia was 15 years behind the rest of the world.

Actually we are not, but I have even made that statement from time to time...
Quote:


Time for a "The Packard is the best car ever" thread........

What is a Packard?

Quote:


No, not really, that's entirely different dispersion techniques. Only multiple monopoles will get you close.

He is referring to the fact the sound is very diffuse when using dipoles - like in a movie theatre. Tom Holman actually made that decision and it became a standard feature of the Home THX audio system. When dipoles are mounted on the side wall with the "null" aimed at the listening position, what you hear is mostly reflected sound energy. This is described as emulating the movie theatre surround arrays (which are made up of many direct radiators). The reason the surrounds sound the way they do in a cinema, is that the sound reaching your ears comes from many different locations and at different arrival times - the result is spaciousness...

Quote:


Not necessarily true. With dipoles, you get out of the sweetspot much more quickly.

I would have to disagree having used them for a number of years. FIY, I don't use them today, but rather BIPOLES set up the same way that dipoles would be positioned.

Quote:


So are most monopoles. Often, but that means they're putting drivers into a box that is too small for the drivers, assuming that you won't notice, and clearly, they must be correct as you didn't notice.

The size of the box really depends on the TS parameters of the drivers, but in a similar fashion to an isobaric sub-woofer (the gap between the drivers), a dipole (without a dividing wall) does not compress the air inside, so the drivers can operate in a much smaller volume...

Mark
post #6 of 628
I have used both dipoles and monopoles. I am now using dipoles and think that, on balance, they sound better to me. I mostly watch movies and TV. There are some kinds of scenes in which monopoles sound better to me, but on most material, dipoles do a better job. My answer would likely be different if I listend to a lot of multi-channel music (I don't).
post #7 of 628
I could have predicted where this thread would go.

I've chimed in on the dipole debate before, and here's my spiel again. If your room is smallish and/or acoustically dead and/or you have multiple seats, dipoles tend to work better, with an even but compromised listening window. If you have a larger and/or more live room with less seating, or seating away from the surround speakers, direct-radiating surrounds can be better. If you are a sad, lonely, pathetic little man who sits in his solitary, cushy theater chair, five identical direct-radiating speakers, equidistant from your ears, can provide an absolutely holographic movie experience, allowing you to momentarily forget that you are lonely and unliked, with no friends.

All rooms are different, and no generalization can be made about surround speakers without considering the room.

Now back to the bickering. I am enjoying it.
post #8 of 628
AH! The voice of reason, as usual.
post #9 of 628
Paul, that's one of the funniest things I've read on here in a while. There's nothing like a dry sense of humor with good delivery slapping you upside the head.
post #10 of 628
Thread Starter 
Nicely put, Mr Scarpelli !!

Over the years, I've used a bunch of different surround speaker types in a bunch of different configurations in a bunch of different rooms....bookshelf speakers, even towers, angled in, out, up, down, etc, in 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 configurations.

Mostly, I made the mistake of not seriously considering dipoles (or even bipoles) based on theory over practice. Finally HEARING good dipoles - properly placed and calibrated - has changed all that. If they're dipoles that have the bass running in-phase like the models I mentioned above (or Triad!), then better still.

Of course, it's always going to be room-dependent (same goes for any speaker).
But the bottom line is this... MOST people, in MOST rooms, whether 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 setups, tend to get better results with diffuse-radiating dipole speakers - especially for the side-surrounds. Every time I go to someone's house and am not sitting in the absolute sweet spot, I'm reminded of this. And every time I've persuaded someone to change over to dipoles, they've been very happy they did...
post #11 of 628
Electric_Haggis,

Are you running a 7.1 system at present and are you using dipoles as back surrounds as well as side surrounds?

Mark
post #12 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post


Are you running a 7.1 system at present and are you using dipoles as back surrounds as well as side surrounds?

That brings up a good point. While I sometimes favor dipoles for the sides, I rarely like them in the back. A diffuse soundfield is not desireable when the speaker is firing into a deflector of pink cartiledge...the back of your ear.
post #13 of 628
Useless information department...

Originally, dipole surrounds were developed to open up a large surround field, but mostly to mask or compensate for the gross flaws of early consumer surround, which was analog. Dolby Stereo was passive with no steering logic, and separation was 3 dB from front to back. It was derived by subracting one front channel from the other and shoving that info into the rear channels. Dialog could still be heard in the back. Pro Logic was a crude matrix which actively steered sounds and derived a center channel. It was bandwidth limited like an AM radio, throwing out the baby with the bath water. If there was little high frequency content, the sounds were less likely to be localized in the rears. Also, the attack and release times of the control voltages was slowed tremendously to try to smooth out artifacts. I never liked Pro Logic, although in the early days of it (1986) it masked lots of it's own flaws and flaws in crappy movie soundtracks. I thought it was pretty good until I heard Jim Fosgate's propriotary surround technologies of the late '80s, which had fast response times, full-range rear channels, and stereo rears. As Jim continued to improve his surround technologies through Citation 6-Axis, the antiquated Pro Logic looked older and more outdated. At this point, Dolby adopted Jim's latest surround version as Pro Logic II. (Now Jim and Norma are rich, and I am here.)

Pro Logic II steers signals with few enough artifacts that you can use direct-radiating surrounds. DD and DTS, which use discrete multichannel, not two channels processed into five or seven, work very well with direct-radiating speakers, but in the appropriate situation.
post #14 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Scarpelli View Post

If you are a sad, lonely, pathetic little man who sits in his solitary, cushy theater chair, five identical direct-radiating speakers, equidistant from your ears, can provide an absolutely holographic movie experience, allowing you to momentarily forget that you are lonely and unliked, with no friends.

post #15 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electric_Haggis View Post

I think it's time to start a thread discussing & promoting the use of DIPOLE surround speakers in 5.1 and 7.1 systems.




ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR SUGGESTIONS?

After years of direct side surrounds, I'm still getting used to my Paradigm ADP dipole/bipole side surrounds (ADP 590s); which I've had now for 3 months.

I still sometimes miss the more direct side sounds I was used to (particularly in DVDs I'm familiar with) -- but it is more all enveloping. Its weird when I cant' tell that's its coming directly from the side -- I actually have to physically put my ear near the side surround to tell that the sound is coming from that speaker.

Because basically it now sounds like its coming from all over the left side -- not just the left side middle.
post #16 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Scarpelli View Post

Useless information department...

Originally, dipole surrounds were developed to open up a large surround field, but mostly to mask or compensate for the gross flaws of early consumer surround, which was analog. Dolby Stereo was passive with no steering logic, and separation was 3 dB from front to back. It was derived by subracting one front channel from the other and shoving that info into the rear channels. Dialog could still be heard in the back. Pro Logic was a crude matrix which actively steered sounds and derived a center channel. It was bandwidth limited like an AM radio, throwing out the baby with the bath water. If there was little high frequency content, the sounds were less likely to be localized in the rears. Also, the attack and release times of the control voltages was slowed tremendously to try to smooth out artifacts. I never liked Pro Logic, although in the early days of it (1986) it masked lots of it's own flaws and flaws in crappy movie soundtracks. I thought it was pretty good until I heard Jim Fosgate's propriotary surround technologies of the late '80s, which had fast response times, full-range rear channels, and stereo rears. As Jim continued to improve his surround technologies through Citation 6-Axis, the antiquated Pro Logic looked older and more outdated. At this point, Dolby adopted Jim's latest surround version as Pro Logic II. (Now Jim and Norma are rich, and I am here.)

Pro Logic II steers signals with few enough artifacts that you can use direct-radiating surrounds. DD and DTS, which use discrete multichannel, not two channels processed into five or seven, work very well with direct-radiating speakers, but in the appropriate situation.

yup and THX was a "band-aid" for that horrible pro-logic format

but i do love the old THX trailers used on AC3 laserdiscs
post #17 of 628
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Electric_Haggis,

Are you running a 7.1 system at present and are you using dipoles as back surrounds as well as side surrounds?

Mark

Actually...no!

Currently, I'm using a pair of Infinity ES-250's on my side walls on either side of the usual listening positions. (Or very slightly behind, for those sitting closer to the screen.)
I've previously tried them in both Dipole and Bipole mode for 5.1, but I settled on using them in Dual-Monopole mode in 7.1.
Here's a picture of the ES-250's again...
http://www.infinitysystems.com/home/...OPE&Country=AU
The front-most drivers are outputting side-surrounds, and the back-most drivers are outputting rear-surrounds. So of course I've got 2 sets of wires (and amps) running into each speaker, and I use ProLogic IIx to convert all 5.1 Dolby soundtracks to 7.1.
This has the advantage of offering better steering and spaciousness than the alternatives... at least in my room.

I have in the past used various types of speakers at the back of the room in 6.1 and 7.1 modes. But my problem is that we're just sitting too damn far forward from the back wall, and IIx processing steers too much surround into the rears. So I could never get the balance right - even with properly mixed EX or ES films. In my current room, this particular arrangement works just PERFECTLY.

Having said all that - it isn't ideal. If I had a different room (or a bigger projection screen) and we were sitting closer to the back wall, I'd much rather go for 4 speakers. Definitely dipoles on the side walls, and probably dipoles (or perhaps bipoles) for the back wall.


Again, here's a link to the dipole/bipole/monopole shootout I mentioned earlier...
http://www.hometheatermag.com/bootcamp/25/index5.html
post #18 of 628
I much prefer the sound of decent bookshelfs as the surrounds than a dedicated "surround" speaker. I think the bookshelfs sound far better in all the applications I've heard them in.
post #19 of 628
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 View Post

I much prefer the sound of decent bookshelfs as the surrounds than a dedicated "surround" speaker. I think the bookshelfs sound far better in all the applications I've heard them in.


Really? In what way?
post #20 of 628
Interesting...

Mark
post #21 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electric_Haggis View Post

Actually...no!

Currently, I'm using a pair of Infinity ES-250's on my side walls on either side of the usual listening positions. (Or very slightly behind, for those sitting closer to the screen.)
I've previously tried them in both Dipole and Bipole mode for 5.1, but I settled on using them in Dual-Monopole mode in 7.1.

Oh wait you started this thread but you're not using your surround speakers in either di/bipole modes? Kidding aside, how do you like your Infinity's? I am thinking about getting a pair of them or the similar Revel S12. I love the flexibility of using them in either dipole, bipole, monopole and dual monopole configurations.

I've had monoples, dipoles and bipoles and I prefer the latter. I find monoples a bit distracting and the null area created by dipoles not very engaging. Bipoles give me both senses of direction and immerssion.
post #22 of 628
I dunno bout all this bipole dipole talk. Spaciousness? All I want is speakers that disappear. At the listening area, I want whatever is happening onscreen directionwise to be mimiced accurately aurally, in my listening area.

Properly positioned and SPL measured at 0 db to the listening area sweet spot (for movies that is) is nopt creating a spacious sound. The idea is to deliver/recreate the sound of the recorded onscreen action to the watcher.

I think for 5.1, the main surrounds/center/front let/right... normal speakers would be good. But when ya start to add those speaker ala the 6th and 7th and so on, those might be a good place for the dipoles. Imho.
post #23 of 628
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Alcasid View Post

Oh wait you started this thread but you're not using your surround speakers in either di/bipole modes? Kidding aside, how do you like your Infinity's? I am thinking about getting a pair of them or the similar Revel S12. I love the flexibility of using them in either dipole, bipole, monopole and dual monopole configurations.

I've had monoples, dipoles and bipoles and I prefer the latter. I find monoples a bit distracting and the null area created by dipoles not very full filling. Bipoles give me both senses of direction and immerssion.

WOW. Those Revel S12's are VERY similar to the Infinity's, aren't they?
Again, JBL make an identical speaker to the Infinity ES-250 (same parent company)....
http://www.jbl.com/home/products/pr...cat=SSS&ser=PER

And yes... Personally, I love the Infinity ES-250. I reckon they're one of the best-kept secrets in surround sound. So the same would go for the JBL and these Revel's, I guess. Using them in dual-monopole mode in 7.1 gives you the same diffuse sound-field as dipole-mode, but with better bass (as the woofers are in phase), better effects steering and better phantom imaging.

My only real gripes with all these three speakers are:
1. Driver size. If I had my way, they'd have 8 inch dual woofers, rather than 5.5 inch woofers. Of course that'd also mean MASSIVE boxes on the walls. But then, I'm a big-woofer kinda guy - I have three VAF Research DC-X's as the front trio.
2. In Dipole mode, it'd be great to have the bass in-phase below 150Hz or so, like all Paradigm dipole speakers do. Of course, Monitor Audio, Triad and others offer this by way of a single front-firing woofer. The Monitor Audio surrounds offer the advantage of being dipole/bipole-switchable.

As I said above, when I move to a setup where we sit closer to the back wall, I'll go for dipoles as side-surrounds, and dipoles or bipoles as rear-surrounds. Perhaps two pairs of Paradigm ADP190 or ADP390.......?
post #24 of 628
Paul, I agree with you 100% about the early Dolby days. I've been in the motion picture
post production profession for 25 years, doing Dolby Print Masters involving
there DS-4 matrix hardware. Not only were the steering circuits annoying but at best
channel separation was about 15 db. Ah, the good old days!
Anyway, question about direct firing rears. If I'm using dipoles for my surrounds where the rear facing driver is out of phase with the fronts and I now introduce direct firing rears which are in phase with the fronts but out of phase with the dipole, is this going to cause any sound field problem?
post #25 of 628
Having read threads on this debate in the past there always seems to be the same arguments presented. Just because Dipoles were originally designed to overcome issues from the past does not mean they do not still have a place today. Just because someone is biased to one approach over the other does not make it fact. I always like the "well you haven't heard a properly setup arrangement." How can anyone make that statement of another with no information on the person and their experiences. Maybe they just like a different approach to the sound. We must remember also that commercial theaters are not perfect in surround imaging either so saying an approach either does or does not mimic a Theater does not support a good argument, IMO.

I always see the discussion resolve too much around the speakers themselves and the differences between the technological approaches and not enough about the sounds we are trying to replicate. Dipoles/Bipoles create a more diffused sound while monopoles a more direct sound. Each of these can have pros or cons depending on the sound one is emulating. We want accuracy but my argument would be that neither can inherently be accurate because we are trying to emulate different types of sounds.

If the sound is a door opening, foot steps, or voices coming from directly to the side or back I can see where a monopole would provide more accuracy from a positional and height perspective. However, who wants all sounds coming from exactly the same position every time.

When I hear explosions, airplanes, or helicopters I expect it to be more enveloping. I also believe that with a more diffused sound the brain can fill in the gaps. For example, a helicopter flying overhead should not sound like it directly at your side but instead above. A diffused sound will let your brain to locate it where you would expect it to be so long as the directional sound does not confuse that issue. How often in real life do we hear a sound coming from above and have to look around to find it.

My conclusion, is that Monopoles handle some types of sounds better and Dipoles/Bipoles handles others. Until there is a technology to handle both equally well we have to compromise. Some compromise to the Monopole camp and other to the Dipole/Bipole camp. For anyone to say otherwise is just an opinion and not fact no matter how errogantly it may be argued.
post #26 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Scarpelli View Post

Originally, dipole surrounds were developed to open up a large surround field, but mostly to mask or compensate for the gross flaws of early consumer surround, which was analog.

Holman/THX also used dipoles to mimic the surround arrays that stretch along the entire length of the side walls of a mixing stage or commercial theatre. Caesar1 described it in his post: "...sounds like its coming from all over the left side -- not just the left side middle". Decorrelation prevented mono surround information from imaging in between the speakers or in your head, and kept it sounding externalized.

If that is the specific effect you're looking for (emulating what the mixers heard is certainly a valid goal for HT), then it's difficult to do with a single direct-firing monopole speaker on each side. Of course, if your goal is to do something different and/or better than what a mixing stage sounds like, then the options are wide open.

Sanjay
post #27 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

What is a Packard?

An antique.
Quote:



He is referring to the fact the sound is very diffuse when using dipoles - like in a movie theatre. Tom Holman actually made that decision and it became a standard feature of the Home THX audio system. When dipoles are mounted on the side wall with the "null" aimed at the listening position, what you hear is mostly reflected sound energy. This is described as emulating the movie theatre surround arrays (which are made up of many direct radiators). The reason the surrounds sound the way they do in a cinema, is that the sound reaching your ears comes from many different locations and at different arrival times - the result is spaciousness...

It's "described" as emulating, but it doesn't. Totally different principle and the "precedent effect" comes into play in a theater. Besides, the goal should be emulating what the guy who mixed the film hears, not what a busload of people are forced to hear in a theater. People keep referencing movie theaters as the goal. That's like building sports cars to emulate buses.
Quote:



I would have to disagree having used them for a number of years. FIY, I don't use them today, but rather BIPOLES set up the same way that dipoles would be positioned.

I say this a lot, but a side mounted "bipole" is really just a wide dispersion monopole. It only radiates over 180 degrees. A wide dispersion monopole will actually perform the same job, but do it more accurately.
Quote:



The size of the box really depends on the TS parameters of the drivers, but in a similar fashion to an isobaric sub-woofer (the gap between the drivers), a dipole (without a dividing wall) does not compress the air inside, so the drivers can operate in a much smaller volume...

True, but either way, there's no bass. Either you have cancelled bass in dipole, or those that do "hybrid" models have boxes that are too small to provide bass. Better to have one driver in the right sized box than two drivers jammed into a small one for looks.
post #28 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithb View Post

My conclusion, is that Monopoles handle some types of sounds better and Dipoles/Bipoles handles others. Until there is a technology to handle both equally well we have to compromise. Some compromise to the Monopole camp and other to the Dipole/Bipole camp. For anyone to say otherwise is just an opinion and not fact no matter how errogantly it may be argued.

Well put!
post #29 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electric_Haggis View Post

I've previously tried them in both Dipole and Bipole mode for 5.1, but I settled on using them in Dual-Monopole mode in 7.1.

IOW, monopole.
post #30 of 628
i think speaker type is dependant on room size and shape along with seating
posistion so there is no one particular type that will suit all.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › SURROUND SPEAKERS - Bipole, Dipole, Quadpole, Omnipole... WHICH ONE?