AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
From what I have read on several forums, active speakers seem to have some great advantages over their passive counterparts. Considering I finally have the budget, I became very disappointed to find that Paradigm discontinued their active speaker line.


I would like to implement a 7.1 system (80%HT/20%Music). For the processor, I was considering the B&K Reference 50. The active speakers by M&K are out of my budget. I was considering using Mackie HR824's for the L/C/R and 2 rear channels. I could not find any dipole's by Mackie.


In order to obtain a diffuse sound, has anyone tried to split the side surround xlr outputs and run 2 or 3 of the HR624's (or similar small active speaker) on EACH side (9-11 total speakers + sub)? Would 2 speakers emulate a traditional dipole setup? Would 3 emulate the M&K tripole sound? Would it be easy to invert phase (bipole/dipole)? Any placement suggestions?


Thanks!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
SurroundPro.com stated that you can utilize an array of more than 3 speakers along the sides...

http://www.surroundpro.com/2001/07_08/ctech.shtml

Quote:
For the surround speakers in a pm3 facility, THX specifies that they create the diffuse-type of sound that is encountered when listening to an array of speakers along the side and rear walls in a theater. This could be accomplished using speakers with dipole-type radiation or an array of direct radiators (at least three per channel). (M&K is currently the only pm3-approved manufacturer offering a speaker with dipolar radiation.)
Anyone have any experience with this type of setup????
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,947 Posts
Multi, you're asking about using the feed through an XLR connector to act as a phase splitter. It's theoretically possible, but only if the output of the preamp is genuinely split, as some are not, and only use the signal - as an insulated signal ground.


However, all you need to do to get di-polar sound from more than one speaker is to connect them electrically out of phase, so one speaker compresses the air while the other one rarefies.


Active speakers are a different story; you will need to swap the polarity of one. If you only have line-level feeds, the only non-elecronic way is to open the speakers and swap the wires on each driver.


It's also easy to make a one-transistor phase splitter, which can also be used for genuine amplifier bridging. Let me know if you want me to post the circuit.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks Larry,


In order to clarify, I was considering using a splitter like the following:

http://www.life-effects.citymax.com/...4679/54812.htm

Quote:
Split 6 1x6 Parallel Line Splitter - Use this handy box when you need to split a line level* signal up to 6 times. Features 1 female XLR input wired to 6 male XLR outputs. Perfect when adding extra amplifiers to a system, connecting multiple powered speakers, splitting intercom lines, etc.
Would it be appropriate to plug the XLR output from the reference 50 side-surround channels into the split six in order to hook up 2-3 active speakers per side? What are the drawbacks with this approach?


Thanks again!!!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,947 Posts
Oh, that kind of splitting. Well, it's obviously a passive device, which in this case, means it's merely seven connectors wired in parallel. You could build the same thing if you wanted.


Yes, it should work, but you may find a low signal level, but you should beable to compensate with the individual channel-output level control in the pre/pro, and/or the speaker input contrtol.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Thanks for the help!!!


Any suggestions on placement? I was thinking of using 3 Mackie HR 624's on each side and 2 in the rear.


I was thinking of placing the 3 sides high on the wall (with omni-mounts) angled about 45 deg down. My room is rectangular about 18' wide and 24' long with 8' ceilings.


How far apart would you suggest? Should I have them 1 or 2 feet apart close to my sofa (about 13' from the front wall) or should I space them farther apart evenly distributed along the wall. Should I face 2 of them toward the front/rear wall like a bipole?


This is a great forum. I really appreciate the help!!!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Fine
Active speakers are a different story; you will need to swap the polarity of one. If you only have line-level feeds, the only non-elecronic way is to open the speakers and swap the wires on each driver.
Whatever you do, I really don't think it would be a good idea to do this to these speakers... Since they are servo controlled, this would create positive feedback into the amplifier, and probably blow the drivers (If I'm not mistaken.) Most likely, you'd be best off just switching the pins on the input XLR connector. Whatever you do, let me know how these babies work out for you... I was considering the HR626's for a stereo pair, but am a little confused as to how the same servo feedback can correct for distortion in two separate drivers. Now I am leaning towards the HR824's, but am a little worried about those 8's going all the way up to 2kHz. Tho I probably shouldn't be... did you SEE that frequency response? Could that line BE any straighter?

http://www.mackie.com/products/hr824/index.html


Anyway, I was asking some questions about studio monitors in this thread if you care to check it out...


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=246288
 

· Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
rpverret,


Great thread. The frequency response is certainly impressive.


I may decide to go with HR626s throughout because I will be crossing at 80hz to a good sub. I think I read somewhere that the 6" drivers were a little quicker throuh the bandwidth I will require.


I am concerned about my main listening position being so far away from near-field speakers.


Now, if I could just find someone who has attempted to set-up a side-surround array. It seems like an array would more closely approximate the setup of an actual cinema.


Thoughts?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
What does "quicker" mean??? Less phase lag, or something. It makes sense that a smaller speaker would move quicker, so I guess so... and I'm sure they are cheaper. hehe... Speaking of, where have you found the best prices on these things? AS for the surround setup, sounds really expensive.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
What the heck would you want to emulate a dipole for? The entire POINT of 6.1 and 7.1 is to remove the need for dipoles, although the original need is HIGHLY debatable. Done properly, having 4 rear speakers will already be "diffuse" with more sound coming at your ear than your brain can track. If you set up the speakers in the proper 7.1 configuration you WILL get precision AND enveloping sound simultaneously. I could go on, but putting dipoles in a 7.1 system is like putting 4 tires on a motorcycle for stability. Of course, if your movie selection is stuck in the 80's, it MAY be appropriate :)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Quote:
What the heck would you want to emulate a dipole for? The entire POINT of 6.1 and 7.1 is to remove the need for dipoles, although the original need is HIGHLY debatable. Done properly, having 4 rear speakers will already be "diffuse" with more sound coming at your ear than your brain can track. If you set up the speakers in the proper 7.1 configuration you WILL get precision AND enveloping sound simultaneously. I could go on, but putting dipoles in a 7.1 system is like putting 4 tires on a motorcycle for stability.
I disagree... The THX ultra2 specification calls for dipole side channels and direct radiators for the rears. Since I will be utilizing the ultra2 cinema mode and because THX defined the processing standard, I first assumed that dipole side channels and direct rears would work better.


Then, I found another article stating that dipole side surrounds are attempting to emulate the sound of an actual cinema. Actual cinemas have an array of side surrounds to accomplish diffuse sound. Some actual cinemas, also have an array of rear surrounds for EX processing.


These mackies can be had for around $400 each. 3 of them are far less expensive than 1 M&K active tri-pole surround speakers ( around $2400 each and the only active speakers I could find with a multi-polar design).


Originally, I didn't want to get into a debate over the legitimacy of this part of the THX Ultra2 specification; but, I welcome any input anyone has on the subject... Maybe the specification is misguided :)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
rpverret,


I am not exactly sure what quicker means (in this case). I read the review the other day and will try to post the link. I think it stated that the 6" driver would sound slightly less "muddled" above 80hz than the 8" due to the 6" being "quicker". It certainly sacrificies low end range though.


Since I really don't need the low end range, I think the hr624 will be a better fit for me. I found a couple of sites advertising the hr624s for around $420 each.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
rpverret,


I found a similar review... Apparently, it is the cabinet (not the driver size) that improves the transient response in the midrange for the HR624.

http://emusician.com/ar/emusic_mackie_hr/

Quote:
The HR624 is not simply a smaller version of its predecessor: it has been modified to optimize its sound quality. One of the benefits gained from the new design is a more accurate transient response. Also, the cabinet is not being pushed to the limit to reproduce low frequencies. Overall, this yields a more accurate midrange response; inaccurate midrange response was one of the few criticisms I had of the original HR824. When used without a subwoofer, the HR624 still disperses a smooth, accurate frequency response from top to bottom. However, the bass frequencies obviously don't dive as low as the original HR824.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
Actually, yes, THX is both misguided AND an incredible money making machine. George Lucas likes making money. Rember the scam "NOW is your LAST chance to own the ORIGINAL Star Wars!!!!" Of course! They were about to come out with the "new, improved Star Wars". I didn't fall for that either. Look, the concept behind THX and dipoles is the biggest line of BS I've ever seen. Here's why....


1) "Sounds like a movie theater". Well, in case you haven't noticed, movie theaters sound like crap. Even the "good" ones. If someone told you that a sports car should handle like a bus, would you buy it?


2) Dipoles were designed to create "diffuse" rear channel sound to compensate for having only two speakers. Now we have up to four. Trust me, if you have four rear speakers that are identical, you won't hear where one stops and the others begin.


3) Don't you want to hear what the engineer hears when mixing the sound? Does he use dipole monitors? NO! He uses two or three discrete, directional rear speakers. He *might* have some dipoles to see what it sounds like, but I've never seen a dipole in a movie studio. And I set up the playback system for Wyatt Earp when it was shooting here and there were NO dipoles anywhere.


4.) I've done A/B demos for people who INSISTED they needed dipoles because George Lucas said so. It took about 30 seconds to disprove that. A simple A/B with different rear channel effects and they were shaking their heads in disbelief. The dipoles cost twice the price too!


5.) Dipole speakers are inherently utterly inaccurate. Set up some dipoles on the side walls, then put music through it. It sucks. BADLY. Do you REALLY want to put your sound, even your rear sound through the stereo equivalent of a cheese grater? Heck, you could put a pillow over a pair of rear speakers and get a better effect!


6) Most speaker designers I've seen interviewed such as Bob Stewart, Albert Von Schweikert, Ken Kantor, Jack Hidley and a bunch more state that they believe in 5 or 6 matched, directional monitors.


7) Proper surround is predicated on matched sound from all of your speakers. If not, you hear one thing up front and something different from behind you. If you do 7.1 with dipoles in the middle, front to rear pans are going to get really bizarre sounding. Things will go from precisely located to unlocalizable to precisely located.


8) MOST people couldn't set up dipole right if their life depended on it. Dipoles to work properly (which is to say, to suck the least) need to be directly beside the couch about halfway up the sidewalls. Then, you have to have the couch seated between the walls at least 5-10 feet into the room. Then you need a nice, live, reflective FULL wall behind you. If you don't have this situation, do not pass go, do not foolishly spend $200 (let alone $2400).


I could go on and on as this is a subject about which I know much and have argued over and over with guys like Robert Harley who still insists having FOUR dipoles (two on the back wall which does some REALLY funky stuff) is the "way to go".


Trust me, if you set up 7.1 properly with matched, directional speakers, listen awhile, and THEN try dipoles, you'll think George Lucas is some crazy old hack with only one good idea that he's trying to milk til he dies. Oh, wait..........


John Ashman
 

· Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
John,


Thanks for the advice. I really like the idea of having fewer speakers :)


A couple of questions...

Quote:
Actually, yes, THX is both misguided AND an incredible money making machine.
Is it just the dipole aspect? How about eq compensation for overly bright sound tracks and other features? Is THX ultra2 cinema mode (as implemented on the B&K Reference 50) a sound mode I should be interested in? If not, what processing mode is best for 7.1?

Quote:
2) Dipoles were designed to create "diffuse" rear channel sound to compensate for having only two speakers. Now we have up to four. Trust me, if you have four rear speakers that are identical, you won't hear where one stops and the others begin.
My understanding was that the back channels were playing different things than the side-channels. Will the sound of raindrops in the soundtrack come from the sides or the rears or both? If the answer is both, I certainly would agree with you.


If certain ambient sound is ONLY sent to the side surrounds (understand that I don't know if this ever happens) would 1 direct radiator on each side be enough? Would 2 or 3 on each side sound better or worse? I guess a potential negative aspect of having 2 or 3 speakers for EACH side surround channel would be the interference effects (cancellations and such). What do you think???


Thanks again!
 

· Banned
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
Not just dipoles, THX is insipidly greedy. Funny you should mention the "Re-EQ" function. You'll like this. See, most engineers started remixing the movies for a home environment as the mixes would be too bright for the home and contain an "X-curve" that compensates for having to punch through a perforated screen. THX said "no, wait, that's altering the vision of the movie. See, you should pay us for THX movie certification and we'll *certify* that your movie is obscenely bright and harsh. Yeah, THEN we'll charge manufacturers to use our patented EQ for removing this harshness by rolling it off." And it worked, to a point. They did it. Of course, most movies aren't THX, only a relative few. BUT, it's just enough that having that function saves your ears fron being ripped off every once and awhile. A perfect example is Jurassic Park. WOW. It is BRIGHT. Even with DTS. THX processing sure helps out there. Too bad they got paid to create the problem and then got paid to solve it! True fact.

THX has three functions. It rolls off the sound of the fronts. But many processors have non-THX ways of doing this. It provides "decorrelation" which is a slight, nearly imperceptable dithering of the rear signals to give a *slight* stereo effect in the rears (PLII kicks the hell out of this) and an EQ to make dipoles sound more like directional speaker, which is impossible and therefore pretty useless. After that, it's just a "good housekeeping seal of approval". However, as we all know, THX doesn't mean it will sound good. Just that it meets certain specs. Many THX speakers sucked to high heaven and very few exist today.

As for what is best for 7.1, well, it depends on the processor. Meridian and Lexicon have sophisticated 7.1 processing. I am in the process of confirming how Fosgate does theirs, but apparently, if you set it to 7.1 speakers, it will automatically produce 7 different channels of info from Dolby Surround, Dolby Digital and DTS sources, even stereo ones. I'll be investigating further once my customers allow me to keep one in the store for more than an hour. Most preamps and most receivers can't do anything more than 6.1 so be prepared to grill the HELL out of any salesman who claims 7.1. If he can't explain how it's done, forget it, it probably doesn't exist. Most units simply double up on the rear channels so you end up with mono rears and stereo sides.

As to what sounds come front what speakers, here's how it SHOULD work and I'm trying to find a processor that does this. The processor SHOULD look at the left front, look at the left rear, then using a logic processor similar to what is used by Pro-Logic to turn stereo fronts into three fronts, it would derive a side speaker. The same would happen for the right side. Therfore, you'd have three front channels, stereo sides and stereo rears. The sides would provide a transition for any sound that was in common to or is moving between front and rear speakers. Who does it this way? Ehhhhh, working on that. However, done this way, you would get good stereo imaging front, side, rear, with more or less equal or potentially equal emphasis on all speakers. In this case, you would have two speakers to the sides, slightly behind the couch so no one is blocking the sound to the people beside them and two speakers at about 30 degress from the center line behind you. That puts each rear speaker about 60 degrees apart. You only want ONE speaker PER channel. 7.1 - 7 speakers, 6.1 - 6 speakers! If your receiver only does 6.1 effectively, you're better off with three rears, one behind you and the left/right rears at 60 degrees to the sides of the center rear. ANY time you have different speakers playing the same signal, you get cancellation effects which suck. That's another reason movie theaters suck. They stress "even" distribution rather than proper imaging.

Strangely, many processors send the "rear" sound to the sides. Or, they derive dual center rears in mono. Or they put the sound to the sides, then add ambience in the rear. All three are stupid ways of doing it.


If you want to read up a little more, I do have some more general info on my site, I have one piece I wrote on speaker setup in the advice section and a "Guide to Home Theater" under my newsletter/PDF section. Hope that helps.


John
 

· Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Thanks for the advice! This is terrible!!!!!!!!!


As far as the B&K Reference 50 is concerned, what processing mode would you advise for a 7.1 setup (I am planning to use 7 Mackie hr624s + a good sub)????


Is the "Re-EQ" defeatable? How am I to know when to cut the "Re-EQ" off for DVDs that are re-mixed for home theater (not overly bright). Are DVDs labled as such?


I need a processor that has 7 XLR outputs, ability to perform room EQ adjustments and costs less than $3500 or so. Considering your input (and other threads) I now don't give a flip about THX; but, I still want to be able to compensate for overly bright soundtracks when they are present. Will the Reference 50 work for me???
 

· Banned
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
In short, yes. The Ref 50 is a good choice and the Re-EQ only comes on in the THX mode. My only reservation is that their "7-channel" may only be 6.1 with doubled rears. If you have the chance, go to a store, have them disconnect the fronts and then listen to just the rears and then just the right rear/side with 5.1 material to get a grasp on how they're doing it. There should be separation between ALL the channels.



John
 

· Registered
Joined
·
707 Posts
I wouldn't put dipoles in a good 5.1 channel system either. Buy five identical good speakers and the system will blow you away with the cohesiveness of the surround field.


This whole dipole nonsense started as a band aid to the horrible mono surround channel of matrix encoded Dolby Surround soundtracks. A reasonable band-aid, I suppose. But, the cut has healed with discrete, full-frequency, noise-free, stereo surround channels. There is absolutely no reason to buy dipole surround speakers. Dolby recommends IDENTICAL speakers for all positions and that is very good advice.


You wouldn't run a mismatched regular speaker and a dipole in a two-channel stereo system. Why would you want to run mis-matched speakers in a surround system? Nobody mixes 5.1 channel soundtracks with dipole surround speakers.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top