AVS Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
As I am slowly building my home theater system I am encountering questions that I was hoping somebody might be able to help me with. As of right now I have Direct Radiating speakers as my rear speakers in my 5.1 setup. However, I am now looking to add a second zone to my system in another room.

Ultimately my question is whether I should stick with direct radiating as my rears or Bipole (from what I understand Dipole would not work in my situation)? I was thinking of buying new rears, and moving my current Direct Radiating speakers to the second zone.

I know my setup is not ideal, but I am doing the best I can with my situation. This has been a growing hobby, and I am enjoying learning more and more about HT's. So an explanation why would be greatly appreciated as well. My system information, budget, and even a pic of my room is available below. Thank you guys.

System:
Receiver - Pioneer Elite VSX-80
Center - B&W LCR60 S2
L/R - B&W Matrix 2 Series 2
Rear - Rock Solid Monitor (150W)
Sub - Outlaw LFM1-EX

Budget: $300 (Not afraid to buy used)
Usage: 40% HT, 40% Gaming, 20% Music, Zone 2 100% Music
 

Attachments

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,183 Posts
Di-Pole vs direct radiating is really personal preference. In my theater I have some speakers that can be direct or dipole with the flip of a switch. I have a pretty ideal room that is treated pretty heavily and I find that dipole sounds better to me. Running them in direct mode gives you more base, but I find it destracting because it's more obvious where the sound is coming from during a movie. In di-pole mode the speakers disappear and the sound is just back there some where. So you probably need to hear some to see if it's right for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Di-Pole vs direct radiating is really personal preference. In my theater I have some speakers that can be direct or dipole with the flip of a switch. I have a pretty ideal room that is treated pretty heavily and I find that dipole sounds better to me. Running them in direct mode gives you more base, but I find it destracting because it's more obvious where the sound is coming from during a movie. In di-pole mode the speakers disappear and the sound is just back there some where. So you probably need to hear some to see if it's right for you.
I do like the sound of the idea, but I would still need to test it out. I know Bipole and Dipole are recommended for certain situations. Seeing the setup of my room would one work better than the other?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
If your surrounds are directly to the side then you want dipole. With Dipole the drivers are out of phase with each other. This creates a null zone and a nice open enveloping surround sound. But you need to be right in the null zone so seated directly to the side.


Bipole drivers are in phase. They can sound more localized. You do not want bipole directly to the side. Behind and to the side is good.


And of course some people prefer regular direct-radiating surround speakers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
That is what I am gathering from reading the various threads on here. However, would Bipole work in my current room setup as seen in the pictures from the first post? I am worried about that opening being a problem. Also, I think the Klipsch RS-42 II are bipole but can anyone confirm that?
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top