SURROUND SPEAKERS - Bipole, Dipole, Quadpole, Omnipole... WHICH ONE? - Page 17

My 9.1 setup is comprised of all direct radiator speakers. I'm currently using GoldenEar Supersat 3's for my side surrounds (monopoles). The problem is that due to my setup, they must be at ear level and directly to either side of the listening position. In the sweet spot they sound great but to listeners who are not dead center they tend to hear one side speaker too much. So, I was hoping that a bipole or a quadpole (Axiom Qs8) might be a better candidate for those side locations. The ceilings are 17' high and the room is open in the back. Also I thought that if I went with bipoles, a model with identical drivers on both sides might be better than one with only the tweeters firing to the sides and the woofer firing directly ahead. Do you think that this type of setup would minimize this effect? If so, which type (bipole or quad)?

I have a quick question: What do you do if you have no immediate back wall? Can you mount two sets of bipoles along your side walls?

My room is 13' wide and about 26' long. The viewing area is along the first 14 feet and opens up to a bar area behind the theater seats. I really can't put monopoles on stands behind the seats (they'd be in the way)....

Would it work to have two sets of bipoles along each side wall (a total of 4 bipole speakers)? One set acting as side surrounds and another set acting as rear surrounds? Or should I be using a set of monopoles for my rear surrounds mounted on the walls but angled forward?

This mono/bi/di/omni pole stuff can drive you crazy!

Any advise / help would be greatly appreciated!

Chris

^^^

FWIW, I'm running a pair of Klipsch, KSP-S6 bipoles which are an earlier version of Klipsch's RS-62 II's and for the make-up of our lvrm, the bipoles are the best solution because we're not able to place the surrounds in an ideal position. And FWIW, the WAF has pretty much bottomed out on the issue of speakers, speaker placement and what the speakers are doing to the symmetry of "HER" living room.

The problem with the speaker placement is, one surround "HAS" to be on a side wall as opposed to tucked into the corner of the left back wall and the other is more appropriately placed to the back right of the seating area on the back wall. The point, my opinion, bipoles make up for a multitude of architectural sins when the ideal is just not possible.

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 7/31/12 at 10:39am

I just read the first page of this thread, and I think a quote from Paul Scarpelli matches up beautifully with that picture!

I have read thru this thread, but still a little confused. I have a smaller office, about 12x12, in which i have recently bought energy speakers (rc-lcr center- rc 30 front, outlaw lfm-1 plus sub), and was trying to use rc-10's as my surrounds in a 5.1 set up. The couch is up against the wall, and the Rc10s were only a few feet to each side of the couch but produced a direct sound. So last night, I decided to order a pair of energy Vs surrounds, which I believe a switchable from bipole and dipole. Ideally I would like to mount these 2 vs speakers on the back wall, towards the corners of each wall. I do have the ability to mount to the sides of each couch, but already had satellite speakers mounted on back wall, and hate to mess with custom paint job. any thoughts on these speakers, my setup ? Should receive the vs surrounds by tommorrow.

Here is the link.. http://www.vanns.com/shop/servlet/item/reviews/542021944/energy-vs-surround-speaker

Electric, just looking to run 5.1, not sure what I'll do with the almost new rc10s. In the energy thread people seem to really like the Vs surrounds. Currently I have rc10s about 3 feet from each end of couch on sides . Figured the vs surrounds would be farther from my ear since I can wall mount. I can mount each across from each other to the sides of the couch, but I had some small htib speakers wall mounted near the corners or the back wall , that I was hoping I could put the vs there , and sound good. Any thoughts ?

I prefer dipoles to monopoles or bipoles. I used to have a pair of small Kenwood dipoles that I enjoyed very much. While the overall quality of the drivers can be debated, they did an excellent job of spreading the sound and creating a diffuse atmosphere. One thing I've noticed is that many of the speakers that are sold as dipoles today are not labeled left or right where as my Kenwoods where. The kenwood did have one big driver facing forward but the other drivers on the sides faced forward and back.

When I moved to a set of Definitives I also got their BP bipole surrounds thinking that those would be just as good if not better than the Kenwoods. Well, they did spread the rear sound out but I felt that there was something missing. There were too many times when sound from movies was plain awkward and annoying because I could tell were it was coming from. When I got a pair of iQ8 dipoles to go with my KEF set I was expecting to experience the sound I had with the Kenwoods. The iQ8s weren't labeled left/right but I figured that since they were "dipole" it wouldn't matter. I was wrong. While they too could spread out sound like the Definitives they still didn't have that nice diffuse sound like the Kenwoods. I was pretty disapointed again. Later I learned that dipole speakers should have one driver set in-phase facing forward to the front speakers and the other one out-of-phase facing back. So, why is it that companies are selling dipoles that aren't marked left/right? My guess is that it's to make manufacturing more easy. I found a post by Paul Scarpelli here at AVS where he said that it matters. I agree. http://www.avsforum.com/t/792578/do-dipole-surrounds-come-with-left-and-right-option#post_9550575

I haven't been able to find many dipoles that are labeled and even the Energy dipoles I'm looking at don't seem to be labeled. I did check out Atlantic Tech's 2400 and 1400 dipoles and they are labeled left and right, probably, as they should be. So what's up, are these companies that are selling unlabeled dipoles actually selling pseudo-dipoles? It would be nice to see some documentation from the people that developed the design.

I have almost the same space you have and my couch is against the back wall just as yours. I am searching for the best option for surrounds. The only place I can mount the surrounds are the corners at about 7 feet high. My roof is 9 feet. Does anyone have an input that can help us??? Monopoles, bipoles, dipoles......??????

Much appreciated!!. They look nice!!! Any reason to choose those in particular?.

Ps:
I want my rear speakers to be "invisible" in a way that makes it dificult to point them as many of the guys say. That is why I was looking for dipoles. Maybe is ignorance by my part but that is what I used to believe.

6.5" or 8" would be sweet!!.. I'll read a few pages as you suggested. Thanks!

Yeah. You'll want to mount those to the side walls just a bit above ear height and angle them downward slightly. See if you can give a least a few inches of clearance from the rear of the tweeter and the wall so that it can reflect off the wall. The magic of that setup is the big image those dipole tweeters can throw up.

You might not like this suggestion. Based on those images, my suggestion would be to tear the room apart, set your speakers and then move the furniture back into place to suit the speaker placement. The point, too often our thinking gets locked by furniture placement as opposed to speaker placement.

(It's just a suggestion.)

This thread is very confusing......for a simpleton like myself. I think we should add to the front page, a list of the best surround speakers in order.....thats just my opinion.

Two problems, "best" at best, is subjective and "best" for a room, is also quasi at best.

(And FWIW, no, I'm not playing on the word "best.")

Depending on the room and how the walls and opening are laid out, direct radiating might be best as the wall is open, away from the listening position. Then you have wide surrounds, vs back surrounds and in this case, a 7.1 system, in use together, for me, both is the correct answer. So the point, the best answer, when it comes to which is the best to use is, it depends, and I'm not trying to give a cute or flaky response. In the simple, in my opinion, there is no correct answer as to which is "best" because "depends" is the correct answer.

(We don't travel further than local; 1,200 mile, local road trip radius. Barbados sounds like a beautiful, peaceful place we'd love to come visit.)

Hi,i'm in the same dilemma about surround.My room size is 11.5' x 15' and 11.5' height.Now i'm using 5.2 set up,is it necessary i add 2 surrounds to make it 7.2?

In doing so, many report a noticeably larger sound field and see the improvement in a very positive fashion. What's your room set up, as in, furniture placement and walls to hang speakers on? Will the room handle two more speakers hanging around. Our room won't. A word to the wise, after so many speakers, if the room is not a dedicated home theater room, the place starts looking more like a speaker demo room then a living room.

I not trying to discourage you from adding another pair of surround speakers, I'm just sharing as to how this additional pair of speakers will affect the overall look feel of the listening room.

Even your 5.2 set-up isn't "necessary", but adding 2 surround speakers does have some noticeable advantages: greater wrap-around envelopment, better rear-vs-side separation, more stable imaging in the surround field. The only way this works is if your seating area is a few feet away from the back wall. If your seating is at or near the back wall, then better to stick to your current 5.2 layout.

Thanks for at least trying to assist. It is much appreciated.

I did not read the whole thread, but I thought there was some agreement that dipoles are no longer required. Dipoles were used initially because Dolby Surround was frequency limited and it was a monaural channel. Dipoles were used to give the illusion of spaciousness. Today our surround systems are designed with full range frequency response in addition to being discrete. IOW, the need for dipole is not as great as it once was. A mixer can do phase tricks between the channels if they want to hide the origination point of the sound. That doesn't mean that dipoles are wrong, but as others have pointed out, finding a true dipole speaker today is hard.

I have used bipolars for surround, but I have recently moved to all direct radiators and personally I find that I am liking that setup more.

You make a vital point. Room acoustics add such a variable to it all that flat out statements regarding what is best are really impossible.

I think it's possible to judge speakers on how the drivers, crossovers and cabinet perform...in other words, the quality of a particular speaker.

In a highly reflective room it might be safe to say that direct radiators would be best.

Are the mirage omd5 being closed out? I would like to get these to replace my current bookshelf speakers that I am using as rears. Ideally I'd like to get 4 of them to go to 7.1.

My couch is about a foot away from the back wall and I do not have a wall to the left of me.

Would I benefit from placing 2 omd5 on behind the couch on some stands and then the other 2 mounted on the wall with the tweeter facing down to the sitting area?

i have finally decided (and bought) my rear speakers in a 7.1 set up which are the Energy CR-10s. The price was great and i was VERY sure thats what i wanted for the rears. Now i still have not purchased any sides as yet and was wondering if the OMD 5s could work in my case. My LP is about 9ft away from where the side surrounds will be, are the OMD-5s good enough for a case like that?