AVS Forum banner

There are many surround speakers out there now, but the ones below would have to get my highest reco

  • Mirage OMD5 (or any other Mirage Omnipole)

    Votes: 40 15.8%
  • JBL P520WS / Infinity ES-250 / Infinity Classia C255ES (Dual-monopole for 4 channels from 2 speake

    Votes: 41 16.2%
  • Axiom QS8 or QS4 (Unique Quadpole design)

    Votes: 52 20.6%
  • Paradigm ADP (Many models available with this design, where the tweeters run Dipole, but the woof

    Votes: 56 22.1%
  • Monitor Audio BXFX or RXFX (Single woofer, but the tweeters can switch to either Dipole or Bipole)

    Votes: 28 11.1%
  • Monitor Audio GXFX (6 drivers, including a ribbon. (Monopole / Dipole switchable)

    Votes: 20 7.9%
  • KEF 26/2DS (Dipole only, alas... but with two 6.5 inch side woofers and a front-firing 8 inch!!! )

    Votes: 22 8.7%

  • Total voters
    253
21 - 40 of 1089 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electric_Haggis /forum/post/0


Actually...no!


Currently, I'm using a pair of Infinity ES-250's on my side walls on either side of the usual listening positions. (Or very slightly behind, for those sitting closer to the screen.)

I've previously tried them in both Dipole and Bipole mode for 5.1, but I settled on using them in Dual-Monopole mode in 7.1.

Oh wait you started this thread but you're not using your surround speakers in either di/bipole modes? Kidding aside, how do you like your Infinity's? I am thinking about getting a pair of them or the similar Revel S12. I love the flexibility of using them in either dipole, bipole, monopole and dual monopole configurations.


I've had monoples, dipoles and bipoles and I prefer the latter. I find monoples a bit distracting and the null area created by dipoles not very engaging. Bipoles give me both senses of direction and immerssion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
I dunno bout all this bipole dipole talk. Spaciousness? All I want is speakers that disappear. At the listening area, I want whatever is happening onscreen directionwise to be mimiced accurately aurally, in my listening area.


Properly positioned and SPL measured at 0 db to the listening area sweet spot (for movies that is) is nopt creating a spacious sound. The idea is to deliver/recreate the sound of the recorded onscreen action to the watcher.


I think for 5.1, the main surrounds/center/front let/right... normal speakers would be good. But when ya start to add those speaker ala the 6th and 7th and so on, those might be a good place for the dipoles. Imho.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
Discussion Starter #23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Alcasid /forum/post/0


Oh wait you started this thread but you're not using your surround speakers in either di/bipole modes? Kidding aside, how do you like your Infinity's? I am thinking about getting a pair of them or the similar Revel S12. I love the flexibility of using them in either dipole, bipole, monopole and dual monopole configurations.


I've had monoples, dipoles and bipoles and I prefer the latter. I find monoples a bit distracting and the null area created by dipoles not very full filling. Bipoles give me both senses of direction and immerssion.

WOW. Those Revel S12's are VERY similar to the Infinity's, aren't they?

Again, JBL make an identical speaker to the Infinity ES-250 (same parent company)....
http://www.jbl.com/home/products/pr...cat=SSS&ser=PER


And yes... Personally, I love the Infinity ES-250. I reckon they're one of the best-kept secrets in surround sound. So the same would go for the JBL and these Revel's, I guess. Using them in dual-monopole mode in 7.1 gives you the same diffuse sound-field as dipole-mode, but with better bass (as the woofers are in phase), better effects steering and better phantom imaging.


My only real gripes with all these three speakers are:

1. Driver size. If I had my way, they'd have 8 inch dual woofers, rather than 5.5 inch woofers. Of course that'd also mean MASSIVE boxes on the walls. But then, I'm a big-woofer kinda guy - I have three VAF Research DC-X's as the front trio.

2. In Dipole mode, it'd be great to have the bass in-phase below 150Hz or so, like all Paradigm dipole speakers do. Of course, Monitor Audio, Triad and others offer this by way of a single front-firing woofer. The Monitor Audio surrounds offer the advantage of being dipole/bipole-switchable.


As I said above, when I move to a setup where we sit closer to the back wall, I'll go for dipoles as side-surrounds, and dipoles or bipoles as rear-surrounds. Perhaps two pairs of Paradigm ADP190 or ADP390.......?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Paul, I agree with you 100% about the early Dolby days. I've been in the motion picture

post production profession for 25 years, doing Dolby Print Masters involving

there DS-4 matrix hardware. Not only were the steering circuits annoying but at best

channel separation was about 15 db. Ah, the good old days!

Anyway, question about direct firing rears. If I'm using dipoles for my surrounds where the rear facing driver is out of phase with the fronts and I now introduce direct firing rears which are in phase with the fronts but out of phase with the dipole, is this going to cause any sound field problem?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
Having read threads on this debate in the past there always seems to be the same arguments presented. Just because Dipoles were originally designed to overcome issues from the past does not mean they do not still have a place today. Just because someone is biased to one approach over the other does not make it fact. I always like the "well you haven't heard a properly setup arrangement." How can anyone make that statement of another with no information on the person and their experiences. Maybe they just like a different approach to the sound. We must remember also that commercial theaters are not perfect in surround imaging either so saying an approach either does or does not mimic a Theater does not support a good argument, IMO.


I always see the discussion resolve too much around the speakers themselves and the differences between the technological approaches and not enough about the sounds we are trying to replicate. Dipoles/Bipoles create a more diffused sound while monopoles a more direct sound. Each of these can have pros or cons depending on the sound one is emulating. We want accuracy but my argument would be that neither can inherently be accurate because we are trying to emulate different types of sounds.


If the sound is a door opening, foot steps, or voices coming from directly to the side or back I can see where a monopole would provide more accuracy from a positional and height perspective. However, who wants all sounds coming from exactly the same position every time.


When I hear explosions, airplanes, or helicopters I expect it to be more enveloping. I also believe that with a more diffused sound the brain can fill in the gaps. For example, a helicopter flying overhead should not sound like it directly at your side but instead above. A diffused sound will let your brain to locate it where you would expect it to be so long as the directional sound does not confuse that issue. How often in real life do we hear a sound coming from above and have to look around to find it.


My conclusion, is that Monopoles handle some types of sounds better and Dipoles/Bipoles handles others. Until there is a technology to handle both equally well we have to compromise. Some compromise to the Monopole camp and other to the Dipole/Bipole camp. For anyone to say otherwise is just an opinion and not fact no matter how errogantly it may be argued.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,102 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Scarpelli /forum/post/0


Originally, dipole surrounds were developed to open up a large surround field, but mostly to mask or compensate for the gross flaws of early consumer surround, which was analog.

Holman/THX also used dipoles to mimic the surround arrays that stretch along the entire length of the side walls of a mixing stage or commercial theatre. Caesar1 described it in his post: "...sounds like its coming from all over the left side -- not just the left side middle". Decorrelation prevented mono surround information from imaging in between the speakers or in your head, and kept it sounding externalized.


If that is the specific effect you're looking for (emulating what the mixers heard is certainly a valid goal for HT), then it's difficult to do with a single direct-firing monopole speaker on each side. Of course, if your goal is to do something different and/or better than what a mixing stage sounds like, then the options are wide open.


Sanjay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,091 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/0


What is a Packard?

An antique.
Quote:
He is referring to the fact the sound is very diffuse when using dipoles - like in a movie theatre. Tom Holman actually made that decision and it became a standard feature of the Home THX audio system. When dipoles are mounted on the side wall with the "null" aimed at the listening position, what you hear is mostly reflected sound energy. This is described as emulating the movie theatre surround arrays (which are made up of many direct radiators). The reason the surrounds sound the way they do in a cinema, is that the sound reaching your ears comes from many different locations and at different arrival times - the result is spaciousness...

It's "described" as emulating, but it doesn't. Totally different principle and the "precedent effect" comes into play in a theater. Besides, the goal should be emulating what the guy who mixed the film hears, not what a busload of people are forced to hear in a theater. People keep referencing movie theaters as the goal. That's like building sports cars to emulate buses.
Quote:
I would have to disagree having used them for a number of years. FIY, I don't use them today, but rather BIPOLES set up the same way that dipoles would be positioned.

I say this a lot, but a side mounted "bipole" is really just a wide dispersion monopole. It only radiates over 180 degrees. A wide dispersion monopole will actually perform the same job, but do it more accurately.
Quote:
The size of the box really depends on the TS parameters of the drivers, but in a similar fashion to an isobaric sub-woofer (the gap between the drivers), a dipole (without a dividing wall) does not compress the air inside, so the drivers can operate in a much smaller volume...

True, but either way, there's no bass. Either you have cancelled bass in dipole, or those that do "hybrid" models have boxes that are too small to provide bass. Better to have one driver in the right sized box than two drivers jammed into a small one for looks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,668 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by smithb /forum/post/0


My conclusion, is that Monopoles handle some types of sounds better and Dipoles/Bipoles handles others. Until there is a technology to handle both equally well we have to compromise. Some compromise to the Monopole camp and other to the Dipole/Bipole camp. For anyone to say otherwise is just an opinion and not fact no matter how errogantly it may be argued.

Well put!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,091 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electric_Haggis /forum/post/0


I've previously tried them in both Dipole and Bipole mode for 5.1, but I settled on using them in Dual-Monopole mode in 7.1.

IOW, monopole.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,608 Posts
i think speaker type is dependant on room size and shape along with seating

posistion so there is no one particular type that will suit all.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,900 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by drbobt /forum/post/0


Anyway, question about direct firing rears. If I'm using dipoles for my surrounds where the rear facing driver is out of phase with the fronts and I now introduce direct firing rears which are in phase with the fronts but out of phase with the dipole, is this going to cause any sound field problem?

In most cases, no. The only cure would be to invert the phase of the 7.1 surrounds, and that would most likely cause greater problems under 300 Hz. So much of the surround information is out of phase anyway (by the time it reaches your ears), it doesn't make a lot of difference.


Incidentally, do an A/B of Dolby Digital and Pro Logic II (movie mode) and you may not hear that big a difference. Jim Fosgate nailed analog surround pretty good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Scarpelli /forum/post/0


If you are a sad, lonely, pathetic little man who sits in his solitary, cushy theater chair, five identical direct-radiating speakers, equidistant from your ears, can provide an absolutely holographic movie experience, allowing you to momentarily forget that you are lonely and unliked, with no friends.



Now back to the bickering. I am enjoying it.

I have to stop reading this stuff at work, people are starting to wonder what I am laughing at!



But for my $.02 I just recently purchased QS8's from Axiom. They are what is referred to as quad-pole speakers. I have 4 of them in a 7.1 system. They replaced 4 direct radiators. They sound ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC!!!! Music, dialog, and especially sound effects are more lively than ever before. Again, just my $.02
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,527 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/0


An antique.


It's "described" as emulating, but it doesn't. Totally different principle and the "precedent effect" comes into play in a theater. Besides, the goal should be emulating what the guy who mixed the film hears, not what a busload of people are forced to hear in a theater. People keep referencing movie theaters as the goal. That's like building sports cars to emulate buses.


I say this a lot, but a side mounted "bipole" is really just a wide dispersion monopole. It only radiates over 180 degrees. A wide dispersion monopole will actually perform the same job, but do it more accurately.


True, but either way, there's no bass. Either you have cancelled bass in dipole, or those that do "hybrid" models have boxes that are too small to provide bass. Better to have one driver in the right sized box than two drivers jammed into a small one for looks.

Is it true you're closing your store?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by smithb /forum/post/0


Having read threads on this debate in the past there always seems to be the same arguments presented. Just because Dipoles were originally designed to overcome issues from the past does not mean they do not still have a place today. Just because someone is biased to one approach over the other does not make it fact. I always like the "well you haven't heard a properly setup arrangement." How can anyone make that statement of another with no information on the person and their experiences. Maybe they just like a different approach to the sound. We must remember also that commercial theaters are not perfect in surround imaging either so saying an approach either does or does not mimic a Theater does not support a good argument, IMO.


I always see the discussion resolve too much around the speakers themselves and the differences between the technological approaches and not enough about the sounds we are trying to replicate. Dipoles/Bipoles create a more diffused sound while monopoles a more direct sound. Each of these can have pros or cons depending on the sound one is emulating. We want accuracy but my argument would be that neither can inherently be accurate because we are trying to emulate different types of sounds.


If the sound is a door opening, foot steps, or voices coming from directly to the side or back I can see where a monopole would provide more accuracy from a positional and height perspective. However, who wants all sounds coming from exactly the same position every time.


When I hear explosions, airplanes, or helicopters I expect it to be more enveloping. I also believe that with a more diffused sound the brain can fill in the gaps. For example, a helicopter flying overhead should not sound like it directly at your side but instead above. A diffused sound will let your brain to locate it where you would expect it to be so long as the directional sound does not confuse that issue. How often in real life do we hear a sound coming from above and have to look around to find it.


My conclusion, is that Monopoles handle some types of sounds better and Dipoles/Bipoles handles others. Until there is a technology to handle both equally well we have to compromise. Some compromise to the Monopole camp and other to the Dipole/Bipole camp. For anyone to say otherwise is just an opinion and not fact no matter how errogantly it may be argued.

SOMEONE get this man a cookie.

To simplify it more, Mono seems best for Music, Di/Bi for movies, and both are fine for other types of sounds unless your a stickler (Like the lonly guy with 5 speakers in the exact distances setup for just 1 person to enjoy at a time).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,533 Posts

Quote:
People keep referencing movie theaters as the goal.

Others keep referencing the mixer's studio as the goal. If I was a mixer or sound designer I would want my artistic intention to be most accurately portrayed in a first-run/high-end commercial theater. Why? Because that's who we're making the movie for and that's where they'll see it! I don't understand why I would want my work to be appreciated only by one lonely, pathetic guy in a small room sitting equidistant from 5 identical speakers. Until Gary Rydstrom chimes in, we'll just agree to disagree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
Discussion Starter #36

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/0


IOW, monopole.

Repeated from my earlier post...


"And yes... Personally, I love the Infinity ES-250. I reckon they're one of the best-kept secrets in surround sound. So the same would go for the JBL and these Revel's, I guess. Using them in dual-monopole mode in 7.1 gives you the same diffuse sound-field as dipole-mode, but with better bass (as the woofers are in phase), better effects steering and better phantom imaging (due to the IIx processing extracting the extra 2 channels).


As I said above, when I move to a setup where we sit closer to the back wall, I'll go for dipoles as side-surrounds, and dipoles or bipoles as rear-surrounds. Perhaps two pairs of Paradigm ADP190 or ADP390.......?
"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,366 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bing /forum/post/0


Others keep referencing the mixer's studio as the goal. If I was a mixer or sound designer I would want my artistic intention to be most accurately portrayed in a first-run/high-end commercial theater. Why? Because that's who we're making the movie for and that's where they'll see it! I don't understand why I would want my work to be appreciated only by one lonely, pathetic guy in a small room sitting equidistant from 5 identical speakers. Until Gary Rydstrom chimes in, we'll just agree to disagree.

I think you may have missinterpreted the intent of that statement. It wasn't about who the mixer of the sound track should mix it for, home or theater. But just that theaters has limitation in their ability to provide the best surround sound experience based on their inherent design to satisfy a large number of individuals. Therefore, from a home theater perspective to argue a point of best configuration for sound reproduction by trying to emulate how it would sound in a commercial theater is flawed since we should be able to do better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
Discussion Starter #38

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaseman /forum/post/0


I have to stop reading this stuff at work, people are starting to wonder what I am laughing at!



But for my $.02 I just recently purchased QS8's from Axiom. They are what is referred to as quad-pole speakers. I have 4 of them in a 7.1 system. They replaced 4 direct radiators. They sound ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC!!!! Music, dialog, and especially sound effects are more lively than ever before. Again, just my $.02


Thanks Jaseman!
That's actually why I REALLY started this thread..... so people could suggest speaker models, approaches, confgurations, etc.


* Tell us what models of dipoles and bipoles you've listened to?

* What did or didn't you like about them?

* How have you placed them?

* How far does everyone sit from them?

* What would you rather own (in a different room or with more funds)?

* What test material do you use?

.......all this sort of stuff.



Jaseman, I've long been interested in the QS8's. How diffuse are they compared to dipoles you may have heard? (I notice they have woofers firing at the floor and the ceiling)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
I actually use four M&K 200s for the sides and back, which are based on a Tripole configuration. A tweeter and woofer in the front and a pair of mid-tweeters on each side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Scarpelli /forum/post/0


The only cure would be to invert the phase of the 7.1 surrounds

So long it is done acoustically, not electrically.


A DIPLOLE is assigned as either Left or Right, and when 4 are used in a 7.1 system, there are phase errors between LS/LBR and RS/RBS if the two left and the two right speakers are positioned according to their Left and Right assignment.


To fix the problem, simply tuning the LBS and RBS up side down will correct the phase error. The other way is to swap the Left Right assignment of the two speakers.


The incorrect way would be to reverse the polarity of the wiring.


I honestly believe that THX adopted a dual monopole for their back surrounds based on the easier set up rather than a better set up...


Mark
 
21 - 40 of 1089 Posts
Top