SURROUND SPEAKERS - Bipole, Dipole, Quadpole, Omnipole... WHICH ONE? - Page 6

well here is my dilema.... i'm putting together a 9.2 system utulizing 11 speakers using both the new height and wide speakers. across the front sound stage there are 5 monopole identical speakers LR are 30 degrees off center and the Wides are another 30 degrees for a total 60 degrees off center. Also there will be timbre matched but smaller monopoles as height speakers at 45 degree off center and close to the ceiling. what i have left is a pair of monopoles( same as the heights ) and a pair of bi-poles.

My question is that since the Wides basically blend the fronts with sides as they sit between side and front ( the Wides are actually on the side walls to obtain the 60 degrees ), now opinions PLEASE, start with bi-poles as side surrounds and monopoles for back surrounds or monopoles for side surrounds and bi-poles for back. I'm thinking that the addition of the Wides will change the dynamics of the typical side surround ( I plan on the sides being mounted at 110 degrees and approx. 2 feet above the listeers ears )...
So guys what do you think?????

bump

I can't believe that I have not seen this link before of Bipole/Dipole speakers:

http://www.electronichouse.com/slide...egory/4476/727

I am still open to suggestions, but that link is a GREAT resource for bipole/dipole options.

I had an opportunity to listen to a pair of Infinity ES250 speakers.....which has been recommend here several times. IMO, they sounded pretty thin. Although it may be an unfair comparison, they had a pair of affordable Polk TSI-200 bookshelves with dual 5" drivers...and they blew the ES250 out of the water. I know it is unfair to A/B them, but the 5" driver from the ES250 really, IMO, could not perform. I tried the ES250 in bipole and monopole mode in the comprison. I am not sure if I believe that the ES250 can handle frequencies lower than 120 Hz, thus making explosions sound believable. I know the sub can handle lower frequencies; however, as I posted earlier I would prefer the surrounds to handle at least 100 Hz competently.

I just bought Axiom QS8s but only have one of them installed currently (I'm new to drilling holes in walls!!!). I think it matches my Monitor Audio GS10s and LCR very well. The only annoying thing is that when watching TV some shows have the surrounds so low that to even hear them I have to boost the surround by 12db (my one surround is calibrated to the correct 75db)!! I swear the sound mixers of these shows have no clue about properly calibrated systems and probably just calibrate volume levels by ear.

Thanks for the feedback E. Yeah, the ES250s were on a carpeted shelf not against a wall Also, neither speaker were in the dipole setting. It just seemed that a lot of sound was not coming out of the speakers. I learned a while ago that you can't turn lead into gold. I am definitely not calling the ES250 Betas "lead", but it is hard to get a lot of sound from such a small enclosure and small 5" drivers. Still on the fence between the ES250s and the Energy RC-R. BTW, the tweeter on the ES250 was very natural and not nearly as bright as the Polks.

I just installed the second one last night so I haven't had a good chance to listen yet. I really don't have a lot of experience with surround sound so I can't compare them to others. I didn't choose the MAs because they are $2k or I'd have to find them on Audiogon. Also I wasn't sure if they were as good as the Axiom QS8s in regards to the soundfield they create. But I am really curious as to how the MAs would sound in my room and I'm sort of having second thoughts as I really like the sound of my GS10s so I'm wondering how their equivalent surrounds sound.

I finally got a set of used Infinty Beta ES250s....just like Electric_Haggis has been recommending.

I must say it is nice to have the option to play between the different settings: MONOPOLE, DIPOLE, BIPOLE. I have decided to stay with BIPOLE because it is mounted on my rear wall. FYI, this is a 5.1 set-up.

To be honest, I am not that impressed with this upgrade. I was expecting a bigger improvement over my poorly positioned (per DOLBY and THX positioning diagrams) 12 year-old home-builder installed JBL in-walls. I think those old in-walls sounded pretty OK b/c they had 6.5" drivers compared to the dual 5" drivers with the ES250. I must admit, those Infinity CMMD tweets are smooth. I just don't have as much impact from the surrounds, and i am not sure if I feel like I am getting a larger surround effect. I guess I am hard to impress. I am sure they will warm up to me with a little more time. Read my question below the pics as maybe I may not have them dialed in properly with Audyssey.

OLD SURROUND pics:


NEW surrounds (ES250) w/ the in-walls disconnected:


QUESTION:

I ran Audyssey with the speakers in MONOPOLE mode, and than switched it to BIPOLE mode afterwards. Does anyone have a recommendation as the best way to calibrate BIPOLES with using Audyssey? FYI, I have an Onkyo 605.

I would re-run Audyssey with them in "bipole" mode. This setting vs. the monopole setting could impact their in-room LF response and impact the crossover chosen by Audyssey. Also, the overall level measured by Audyssey could be different, which would affect their "trim" settings.

Craig

I have been researching the best route to go with my surround and rear speakers and this thread has been a huge help. I am currently finishing the basement in my home and it will be a dedicated man cave with a theater setup. I currently have a Denon 2310, Klipsch RF-5 fronts and RC-62 center. I am unsure of the best route to mount my surrounds and rears and what speakers to use. The room is 36' long and 17' wide. The couch will be 13' from the TV. I plan to mount some RS-52's or QS-8's for sides but don't know what to do for rears. Mount them on walls just further back? I feel that would be pretty far away then is the issue. I don't have the luxury of a back wall because there will be a pool table behind the sofa. The walls currently without sheetrock so wiring or going in-wall or in-ceiling is still a possibility at this time and I want to make a decision so i can wire it accordingly. Thanks for the help.

Ryan

Wow, that is a pretty long room. I may not be the best to give advice, but you may be able to get away from mounting BOTH the side and "rear" surrounds on the side walls. I am sure you have seen the diagrams for surround positioning from both the Dolby and THX websites (can easily be googled). You can position your side surrounds slightly in front of the seating position and the rear surrounds behind the seating position. I have even also seen people place the rear surround speakers on the floor (or short table) behind the sofa/listening area and have them pointed up. In the same regards, you can have some in-wall ceiling speakers positioned behind the seating area and function as the "rear" surrounds.

A good 5.1 setup may be the best way for you. The only other good option would be in-ceiling (ugh!) speakers. I'm no fan of in-ceiling speakers as you might guess. The Emotiva ERD-1s are on sale now through Dec. Even though they are 4 ohms there are quite a few people driving them with an AVR with no problems. I've done this myself as I'm an owner of a pair - for almost a year now. They sound great - surprising for such a small package.

I am putting together an 11.1 system with the following components and I could use some assistance. I have zero real world experience with anything other than a stereo setup so I'm stepping into this big time. What I'd like to prevent is stepping into it'.

Here is my purchase list so far:
AVR - Denon AVR-4810CI - 11.1 (internal amps will be used for surrounds and other zones.
Outboard amp to drive the fronts and Wides - Wyred or Emotiva
LCR Speakers - JTR Quint8
Wides - JTR Slant 8
Sub - Danley DTS10

All that remains to make this complete are the surrounds. Please see the attached drawing for placement in the room.

I've read the various discussions arguing dipole / bipole / mopole / multipole, etc. Regardless of the theoretical merits on monopole, most seem to conclude that di / bipole is preferred by most people. But, the biggest qualifier is the room. As you can see from my room drawing, I have a pretty good distance between all the speakers and the nearest listening position is just under 7 ft for the surrounds (the left seat on the couch will measure about 6.5 ft to the right surround. The room is live'.

With the exception of the wides, all the surrounds and height speakers will be flush mounted into the mansard which faces down at 45 degrees and the speaker centers will be at approximately a 9' elevation.

I do want all position on the couch and to some extent the recliner to be in the sweat spot. I certainly wouldn't be happy if it was just the lonely man' seat in the middle. Well, I might be but no one else would be. ;-) I'm not too concerned about the table behind the coach.

So, with this setup I think I could go all monopoles but I'm ready to be convinced otherwise.

Let me know what you think and thanks for all your help. I'm very close to completing this setup and looking forward to getting it put together in the weeks to come.

Louis

I would stick to monopole surrounds. With 4 speakers firing simultaneously, you'll get good envelopment (without resorting to diffuse speakers) and still maintain clear directionality. The only suggestions I'd make to your proposed set-up would be to move the side speakers forward so that they're in line with the seating (no sense having both pairs of surrounds rearward of the listeners), and use 5 of the same speakers up front (either Triple 8 or Slant 8) for a consistent soundstage.

Sanjay,

When you say the side speakers I assume you are referring to the wides. And yes, I would line them up with the fronts so that they are all on the same plane and at the same height.

Louis

No, I meant the surrounds at your sides (as opposed to the surrounds behind you). Keeping the side speakers directly to your sides (+/- 90 degrees) will help stabilize lateral imaging and give you better rear-vs-side separation in the surround field. The latter effect is lessened when both pairs of surrounds are behind you.
If you're going to have all 5 front speakers lined up on the same plane, all 5 at the same height, all 5 powered by the same amp, then I really would encourage you to consider using the same model at all 5 positions.

he was referencing the side surrounds not the wides

Its not practical for me to include the same model for the Wides, price and size considerations overrule here. But the Slant8 is tonally identical to the Quint 8. Same mid/hi driver and extends down to 80 Hz. Seems like that should be okay.

I've also read in this forum that the wides, while receiving substantially more signal than the surrounds, still is considerably down from th LCR. Is this not correct?

Finally, regarding the position of the side surrounds, I can certainly experiment with this placement but this is according to the Audyssey DSX Configuration. Do you not agree with this?

Thanks!

Louis

Unfortunate, since you're making a concious effort to keep everything else identical for the front soundstage.
Would you be comfortable swapping one of the Quint 8s (say the left front speaker) for a Slant 8 in your set-up? You don't have to answer; it's just a mental litmus test for yourself to see how "tonally identical" you really feel they are. Just something to consider.
I don't, for the reasons I mentioned previously.

Sdurani,

Are you familiar with the Quint 8 and Slant 8? The Quint 8 has four 8" drivers for bass / midbass and a fifth 8" coaxial driver for mid/hi. The Slant 8 is a single 8" coaxial driver. The same coax as in the Quint 8 but absent the 4 bass drivers. The Slant 8 would be a poor substitute for the Quint 8.

There is another alternative. JTR makes another speaker, the T8, which is the same as the Quint 8 sans 2 bass drivers. If balance across all 5 is that important, I might be able to go with 5 T8s instead of the prior configuration.

The key question for me is just how much signal do the Wides actually take on. I thought it was considerable down from the LCRs.

Louis

Yes.
Then how will it sound when something moves towards the left of the front soundstage and transitions from the Quint 8 to the Slant 8?
Which is what I suggested 7 posts up. The Quint 8 may go lower than the Triple 8, but that difference in bass can be covered with your subwoofer. Anyway, it was just a suggestion. Nothing more.

Suggestion definitely appreciated. I was underestimating the role of the Wides. I'll give this more thought.

Sanjay,

Related question. How important do you think the tonal balance is with the surrounds relative to the front speakers? Most things I've read put a low priority here.

JTR doesn't make a surround speaker that meets my requirements exactly although I think I can get JTR to provide a custom box but there are many other solutions that will give me a flush mount for probably less money.

Thanks again for your opinions.

Louis

Not as important. Even in this day and age of surround sound, the front soundstage remains critical. That's where your attention should be focused, whether watching movies or listening to music.

By comparison, the surrounds are less important. Save for the occasional direction effect, they're still used primarily for ambience. As such, tonal match between the front speakers and the surrounds is not as critical as between the various front speakers.

Of course if you can use the same speaker model at all locations, nothing like it. But that's impractical for most people. It's too bad JTR doesn't make an in-wall version of the Slant 8, using just their coaxial driver (frequencies below 100Hz from the surround channels can be rerouted to the subwoofer).

Happy Thanksgiving Louis.

But building a surround from something like the B&C 8CXT 8" Coaxial Driver

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/psho...53&ctab=2#Tabs

should get pretty close. Just needs a crossover and a cab to complete the picture.

And Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.

Louis