Sorry filmnut, I thought it was clear that I was referring to surround speakers, not L,C Rs. Dipole main speakers are simply another of several directivity alternatives in the marketplace and, well done, can be rewarding. Large panels are not practical for surrounds, especially if the null is directed to the listener, which was the original argument for using them in 5.1 systems. The small bidirectional-out-of-phase, a.k.a. "dipole" surrounds are not true dipoles, and they are not advantageous in modern systems. Both of my books present evidence why.

I will modify the quote...

"I thought it was clear that I was referring to surround speakers, not L,C Rs"

Actually no. You were quoted to have said "He also points out that he (and Harman) strongly discourages the use of dipoles - in any application."

I presumed that to mean, "any application"

If you were misquoted, I apologize.

That's a swift kick in the [insert anatomical location here] from Harman for all of the suckers who purchased multiples of the patent protected JBL S4Ai dipole/bipole/awkward monopole THX Ultra2 certified surrounds for their JBL-calibrated Synthesis® systems, included as standard kit in most Synthesis® systems until the recent site update (including my Synthesis® One Array.) They're still offered on the Web site as of today.

http://www.jblsynthesis.com/productdetail/s4ai.html

This, I agree with.

Already acknowledged and clarified. If you look at the context of the discussion, the OP was asking about surround speakers - that's the context of the quote. I can understand, though, why someone might interpret it more broadly, which is why I edited the original.

And I removed most of my comment in the earlier post.

Yes conventional speakers are potentially more accurate timbrally when aimed at the listener. Multiple pairs of them can be deployed to cater to multiple rows of listeners - so long as they are appropriately aimed and time delayed from each other to reduce interference effects. However for immersive audio, each channel is potentially a discrete sound source which means that the direct sound needs to be strongly delivered to all members of the audience, or some of them will not experience some directional effects. This is used as one argument for having so many immersive loudspeakers in cinemas - if one misses part of the audience, another may hit. Coverage is a serious problem. In several of the very small, especially narrow, HTs I have seen discussed in these forums it seems that very wide dispersion side surrounds would be advantageous - even if there is a small compromise in timbral accuracy - or not, if the alternative is listening to a direct radiator far off axis.

Purists of course care only for the prime listening location - i.e. "me". In which case all of this is academic chatter.

Not really - let's remember that the S4Ai was created in the days before immersive audio, so having the flexibility in the speaker to switch between monopole, bipole, and dipole was / is a good idea, depending on the surround format being decoded. There is also the fact that research marches on, and some ideas that seemed good at the time - like the THX approved and recommended dipole surround - have not proven themselves out over time. The S4Ai was designed to be a maximally flexible surround speaker, suitable for just about any surround format, for music or movies.

Can understand your overall sentiment, but I hardly think the S4Ai was a product designed for "suckers." Check out Dr. Toole's response to filmnut above - he mentions the THX ideal and the fact that dipoles are not really suitable for "modern systems."

Boy, are we all touchy tonight?



Goodnight everyone! Sorry for the misleading quote!

No worries at all. Stuff like this makes for interesting discussion which can benefit us all, especially if it prompts another nugget of wisdom from the eminent Dr. Toole. This place might get boring without the occasional argument or misunderstanding.

I may take a beating for this but. The conversation is mainly about surround speakers. For the most part they supply sound effects that enhance the movie. Such as F16 fly overs, bullet whizzes, creaking doors etc. My point is that they are effects and yes having accurate reproduction is fine but how many people actually know what an F16 fly over really sounds & feel like? Most of the effects are created by Hollywood any way.

Just for food for thought, no need for anyone to get overly emotional.

Have fun with this hobby.

Gary

I have a 5.1 system and the new Atmos mixes on UHD disks are excellent on even on limited surround layouts.


For example, the opening of Star Trek Into Darkness 4K/UHD scene when the spears fly over was much improved over the original BD.
The scene where the shuttle spins around the room benefited from capable surrounds.
I chose quality over quantity (also for SAF and logistical issues).


- Rich

When will the C228be be released? or the F226be?

im pulling the trigger on the Revels but not knowing if there will an center speaker in the same line up its hard to know wich one to buy:/

please give me an helping hand here kevin!

//Mike

You are absolutely right about sound effects, Gary. They are artificial creations for the most part and nobody really knows what they should sound like, so the utmost of "fidelity" in surround speakers may go unnoticed. However, background music is also radiated by these same loudspeakers, and delayed "reflections" of sounds radiated from the front loudspeakers - both are intended to create impressions of acoustical space and envelopment. These delayed sounds should closely resemble the timbres of front loudspeakers or the illusions will be degraded.

Add to this reproducing multichannel music and upmixing stereo music and there is good reason to ensure that the surround loudspeakers sound as close as possible to the fronts. Those of us who have experienced it can vouch for the persuasive sense of boundless space that can be achieved when all speakers are comparably good. It is an interesting fact that when a simulated "space" is reproduced through a multichannel sound system in a small room, it is the larger spatial illusion that wins. In other words we can make a small room sound large, but a large room cannot be made to sound small. However, timbrally flawed loudspeakers draw attention to themselves, making them a permanent reminder that one is in the room the eyes see, not the artistic space created for the multichannel sound system.

Sorry, a comment turned into a lecture

Can I ask for help with surround speakers specifically with the Revel M105 and S206s since we are on the topic? I'm upgrading all 7 channels in my dedicated room and already have the F206s in place. I'm debating on a C205 or a C208 and for the rears I'm questioning what to use on the sides and which ones on the rear wall. I'm not wired for atmos and will leave that out of the discussion for now.

M105 on side
S206 on rear

M105 on rear
S206 on side

Only use M105 or only use S206

Can I get some opinions?

I decided to go C208 (center) and M106 (surrounds) to go with my F208's.

It may be a while before it happens (have to sell a house first), but I spent a lot of time researching the decision on what to get.

C205 and M105 were under consideration, but based on everything I read in this thread, I'm going bigger for both center and surrounds.

If it were me, I'd go with S206 for both sides and rears, assuming you'll be mounting all 4 of them on a wall. The M105 wasn't designed for wall or shelf mounting. For the center, I'd choose the C208 if budget allows, because it's the most important speaker in the room.

I will say this about that.
Certain posters have a consistent edge to their posts that may belie the intended tone but it still comes across as such.
Another was plainly accusatorial and wrong to boot.

I have just finished your excellent book. Thanks for the comments.
My room will be approx 5 x4 m and I will be approx 2/3 back, in the centre when listening. To be honest, it will mostly be me listening or perhaps 2 or 3 friends or family in a row, say in the centre 1.5 m.
In this situation am I better off with the monopole?
I don’t suppose their are spinoramas available for the two speakers?
Best wishes

I was not considering the multichannel music aspect. Thank you for brining it to attention. My music listening revolves around two channel and I didn't consider how much multichannel music there is now days. I must be getting old.

Gary

I’ve been liking 5.1 music for a while. Brings a dimension to music.

Need some better side surround monopoles now that I have the Revel 208 fronts.

Multichannel music is to stereo what 3D movies are to 2D, only it works much better. I never listen in stereo anymore, unless I'm using headphones. I'm even finishing a room in my basement strictly for multichannel music.

I am upgrading game room system.

Currently, there is a pair of Revel M20s driven by an Oppo BDP-105D and Yamaha RX-A820 receiver.

The location is not great. The gear is wall mounted as are the speakers to allow folks to walk under them (but I can move them a bit).
An image is attached.

Under consideration:

Oppo BDP-105D (remains as the preamp)
Apple TV 4K (Streamer)
Amp: ATI AT522NC or AT4002 (I'd rather have the AT4002 but the size and weight are pushing the limits of the wall shelf).
Speakers: Keep M20's or M106 or M106be
Subwoofer: Martin Logan Grotto-I (remains)

What is the list price for a pair of the M106be's?

- Rich

Attached Thumbnails

 

I'm in the not-too-fast process of upgrading my system. I'm seriously entertaining going with M106s across the front, since I do have the room to put an upright M106 in the center at ear level and still fit below my 65" OLED. Movies are significant for us, but multi-channel music is absolutely my top priority -- I think probably 75% of the blu-rays I own are operas and concert videos.

FWIW, my first step was to buy an Anthem 720 in anticipation of wanting its bass management capabilities as I rely more on subs to provide bass.

Eventually, I'll go at least to a 7.1 system, but most likely 7.2.4.

Does anyone have any experience or just informed thoughts about this plan?

Thanks.

How are you enjoying the F206? I'm seriously considering using them for fronts and surrounds, but curious about the F226's before moving forward with anything. I'm not a fan of wall mounts speakers and that's my opinion from experience Have to use too much EQ and placement is limited once mounted. It would be interesting to see how a S206 would compare to a M105 on a stand, but I would just go with F206's even if I had to settle for 5.1 instead of 7.1

I'll vote for a pair of Salon 2's. Why compromise in the game room system?

Channeling my Italian grandmother: Wise-a-guy.
I suspect that the M106 would be a great/sufficient upgrade, but just knowing the M106be exists tempts me

- Rich

How about the JBL active monitors?

The LSR308P MKII would be a reasonably price option at $249 list each.

The with a compression mid/tweeter and more sophisticated woofer, but smaller woofer than the 308P, the LSR705P likely has somewhat more output than the LSR308P.

The LSR708P would seem more than ample at $1,999 list each.

These speakers would make good use of the XLR outputs from your OPPO 105. They do need 120V power of course.

The LSR705P are interesting. They have mounting holes on the bottom and front ports.
It's probably safe to assume the analog inputs are digitized for processing and it is not clear if that can be defeated.


I can't find a manual for these online.


- Rich