# Sticky  SURROUND SPEAKERS - Bipole, Dipole, Quadpole, Omnipole... WHICH ONE?



## Electric_Haggis


I think it's time to start a thread discussing & promoting the use of DIPOLE surround speakers in 5.1 and 7.1 systems.


I've used many different types of speakers as surrounds. But until recently, I always thought that regular front-firing speakers were better for the surrounds, as they were a closer match to the fronts.


Damn... was I wrong!


After trying out a few types of dipoles and bipoles, I wonder why everyone doesn't have dipoles in their system. I'm also amazed that more hi-fi shops don't sell or push them... or even KNOW about them, as is all too often the case here in Australia !


Quick Definitions....


BIPOLE :

A good bi-pole speaker will have two sets of drivers facing away from each other, firing sound out into the room. This sound will then cover a wider area, and bounce off the side and back walls, helping to create a bigger sound that allows more people in the room to "get surrounded".


DIPOLE :

The same as bi-pole , but the drivers on either side of the speaker will run out-of-phase with each other. THX recommend this. The advantage is that it's harder to tell exactly where the speaker is as it sounds more diffuse. It's also harder for you to get ear-bashed by one of the surround speakers if you're stuck sitting off to one side. So opens up the "sweet spot".


So here are some advantages...


1. A wider, bigger sound - much closer to the result you get from multiple surround speakers in a movie theatre.

2. A much wider listening sweet spot for everyone in the room.

3. They're easy to wall-mount.

4. They're often more compact than a regular bookshelf speaker, and a lot more wall-friendly.


Here's an interesting shoot-out between dipoles and front-firing speakers. There are six pages with pictures. This will link to the summary...
http://www.hometheatermag.com/bootcamp/25/index5.html 


Here's some more blurb: "The Case for Dipole surrounds":
http://www.paradigm.com/en/pdf/dipolar_confusion.pdf 


One issue dipoles can have compared to bipole or front-firing speakers, is reduced bass. This is because the bass drivers are running out-of-phase with each other. Be aware though, that several manufacturers make dipoles that avoid this problem....


PARADIGM really know how to make great surround speakers. Their ADP190 would have to be my favourite all-round surround speaker for the majority of people. Paradigm design all their surround speakers so that the deeper bass is kept in phase....
http://www.paradigm.com/en/paradigm/...ounds.paradigm 


MONITOR AUDIO also make nice surround speakers. The less expensive models have only one bass driver, but they can be switched between dipole and bipole, like this one...
http://www.monitoraudiousa.com/produ...e=3&product=21 


JBL make some THX-approved models...
http://www.jbl.com/home/products/cat...=US&Region=USA 


INFINITY make a unique speaker called the ES250. I own a pair of these. They can be switched between dipole, bipole and dual-monopole, where they operate as two separate speaker channels in one wall-mounted unit. Handy for 7.1 where you can't mount rear-wall speakers....
http://www.infinitysystems.com/home/...USA&Country=US 


JBL now make one just like the Infinity...
http://www.jbl.com/home/products/pro...at=SSS&ser=PER 



ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR SUGGESTIONS?


----------



## Alimentall

Ummm, I didn't know Australia was 15 years behind the rest of the world.


Time for a "The Packard is the best car ever" thread........


> Quote:
> 1. A wider, bigger sound - much closer to the result you get from multiple surround speakers in a movie theatre.



No, not really, that's entirely different dispersion techniques. Only multiple monopoles will get you close.


> Quote:
> 2. A much wider listening sweet spot for everyone in the room.



Not necessarily true. With dipoles, you get out of the sweetspot much more quickly.


> Quote:
> 3. They're easy to wall-mount.



So are most monopoles.


> Quote:
> 4. They're often more compact than a regular bookshelf speaker, and a lot more wall-friendly



Often, but that means they're putting drivers into a box that is too small for the drivers, assuming that you won't notice, and clearly, they must be correct as you didn't notice.


----------



## Bing

John,


you're just being difficult.



> Quote:
> 3. They're easy to wall-mount.
> 
> 
> So are most monopoles.



I don't recall bookshelves having holes built into the cabinet, as well as a template to show you exactly where to drill holes.



> Quote:
> Often, but that means they're putting drivers into a box that is too small for the drivers, assuming that you won't notice, and clearly, they must be correct as you didn't notice.



Basically, you're saying multi-directional surrounds are "afterthoughts" to a manufacturer. Just recycle the drivers from the rest of the lineup, and stuff'em into a box that is easy to wall-mount. Then charge double because J6P sees a pair of tweeter/woofer and can rationalize the premium.



> Quote:
> 1. A wider, bigger sound - much closer to the result you get from multiple surround speakers in a movie theatre.
> 
> 
> 
> No, not really, that's entirely different dispersion techniques. Only multiple monopoles will get you close.



"How" they achieve the effect is secondary to me. What matter is, di/bi create surr effects that do not call attention to themselves. I don't care how accurate monopoles may be in comparison, but if there are two clusters of pirates over my shoulders instead of a boatload, they don't go on my walls. Music is a different story entirely as there is no visuals for the brain to process.



You started a thread some time ago about 10 things a "real" HT should have. I agree with everyone of them except this.


----------



## Alimentall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bing* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> 
> you're just being difficult.



Oh, I'm being more than difficult!


> Quote:
> I don't recall bookshelves having holes built into the cabinet, as well as a template to show you exactly where to drill holes.



I do. Heck, many of our bookshelf speakers can be hung on a wall as fast as you can screw a screw.


> Quote:
> Basically, you're saying multi-directional surrounds are "afterthoughts" to a manufacturer. Just recycle the drivers from the rest of the lineup, and stuff'em into a box that is easy to wall-mount. Then charge double because J6P sees a pair of tweeter/woofer and can rationalize the premium.



That is correct. But it's also true.


> Quote:
> "How" they achieve the effect is secondary to me. What matter is, di/bi create surr effects that do not call attention to themselves. I don't care how accurate monopoles may be in comparison, but if there are two clusters of pirates over my shoulders instead of a boatload, they don't go on my walls. Music is a different story entirely as there is no visuals for the brain to process.



You should hear a correctly setup theater someday.


> Quote:
> You started a thread some time ago about 10 things a "real" HT should have. I agree with everyone of them except this.



All in good time. All in good time.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alimentall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ummm, I didn't know Australia was 15 years behind the rest of the world.



Actually we are not, but I have even made that statement from time to time...


> Quote:
> Time for a "The Packard is the best car ever" thread........



What is a Packard?











> Quote:
> No, not really, that's entirely different dispersion techniques. Only multiple monopoles will get you close.



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...



> Quote:
> Not necessarily true. With dipoles, you get out of the sweetspot much more quickly.



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.



> Quote:
> So are most monopoles. Often, but that means they're putting drivers into a box that is too small for the drivers, assuming that you won't notice, and clearly, they must be correct as you didn't notice.



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...


Mark


----------



## Lawguy

I have used both dipoles and monopoles. I am now using dipoles and think that, on balance, they sound better to me. I mostly watch movies and TV. There are some kinds of scenes in which monopoles sound better to me, but on most material, dipoles do a better job. My answer would likely be different if I listend to a lot of multi-channel music (I don't).


----------



## Paul Scarpelli

I could have predicted where this thread would go.










I've chimed in on the dipole debate before, and here's my spiel again. If your room is smallish and/or acoustically dead and/or you have multiple seats, dipoles _tend_ to work better, with an even but compromised listening window. If you have a larger and/or more live room with less seating, or seating away from the surround speakers, direct-radiating surrounds can be better. 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.


All rooms are different, and no generalization can be made about surround speakers without considering the room.


Now back to the bickering. I am enjoying it.


----------



## Rijax

AH! The voice of reason, as usual.


----------



## Eddie Horton

Paul, that's one of the funniest things I've read on here in a while. There's nothing like a dry sense of humor with good delivery slapping you upside the head.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Nicely put, Mr Scarpelli !!


Over the years, I've used a bunch of different surround speaker types in a bunch of different configurations in a bunch of different rooms....bookshelf speakers, even towers, angled in, out, up, down, etc, in 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 configurations.


Mostly, I made the mistake of not seriously considering dipoles (or even bipoles) based on theory over practice. Finally HEARING good dipoles - properly placed and calibrated - has changed all that. If they're dipoles that have the bass running in-phase like the models I mentioned above (or Triad!), then better still.


Of course, it's always going to be room-dependent (same goes for any speaker).

But the bottom line is this... MOST people, in MOST rooms, whether 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 setups, tend to get better results with diffuse-radiating dipole speakers - especially for the side-surrounds. Every time I go to someone's house and am not sitting in the absolute sweet spot, I'm reminded of this. And every time I've persuaded someone to change over to dipoles, they've been very happy they did...


----------



## CAVX

Electric_Haggis,


Are you running a 7.1 system at present and are you using dipoles as back surrounds as well as side surrounds?


Mark


----------



## Paul Scarpelli




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Are you running a 7.1 system at present and are you using dipoles as back surrounds as well as side surrounds?



That brings up a good point. While I sometimes favor dipoles for the sides, I rarely like them in the back. A diffuse soundfield is not desireable when the speaker is firing into a deflector of pink cartiledge...the back of your ear.


----------



## Paul Scarpelli

Useless information department...


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. Dolby Stereo was passive with no steering logic, and separation was 3 dB from front to back. It was derived by subracting one front channel from the other and shoving that info into the rear channels. Dialog could still be heard in the back. Pro Logic was a crude matrix which actively steered sounds and derived a center channel. It was bandwidth limited like an AM radio, throwing out the baby with the bath water. If there was little high frequency content, the sounds were less likely to be localized in the rears. Also, the attack and release times of the control voltages was slowed tremendously to try to smooth out artifacts. I never liked Pro Logic, although in the early days of it (1986) it masked lots of it's own flaws and flaws in crappy movie soundtracks. I thought it was pretty good until I heard Jim Fosgate's propriotary surround technologies of the late '80s, which had fast response times, full-range rear channels, and stereo rears. As Jim continued to improve his surround technologies through Citation 6-Axis, the antiquated Pro Logic looked older and more outdated. At this point, Dolby adopted Jim's latest surround version as Pro Logic II. (Now Jim and Norma are rich, and I am here.)


Pro Logic II steers signals with few enough artifacts that you can use direct-radiating surrounds. DD and DTS, which use discrete multichannel, not two channels processed into five or seven, work very well with direct-radiating speakers, but in the appropriate situation.


----------



## otk




> 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.


----------



## caesar1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think it's time to start a thread discussing & promoting the use of DIPOLE surround speakers in 5.1 and 7.1 systems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR SUGGESTIONS?



After years of direct side surrounds, I'm still getting used to my Paradigm ADP dipole/bipole side surrounds (ADP 590s); which I've had now for 3 months.


I still sometimes miss the more direct side sounds I was used to (particularly in DVDs I'm familiar with) -- but it is more all enveloping. Its weird when I cant' tell that's its coming directly from the side -- I actually have to physically put my ear near the side surround to tell that the sound is coming from that speaker.


Because basically it now sounds like its coming from all over the left side -- not just the left side middle.


----------



## otk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Paul Scarpelli* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Useless information department...
> 
> 
> 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. Dolby Stereo was passive with no steering logic, and separation was 3 dB from front to back. It was derived by subracting one front channel from the other and shoving that info into the rear channels. Dialog could still be heard in the back. Pro Logic was a crude matrix which actively steered sounds and derived a center channel. It was bandwidth limited like an AM radio, throwing out the baby with the bath water. If there was little high frequency content, the sounds were less likely to be localized in the rears. Also, the attack and release times of the control voltages was slowed tremendously to try to smooth out artifacts. I never liked Pro Logic, although in the early days of it (1986) it masked lots of it's own flaws and flaws in crappy movie soundtracks. I thought it was pretty good until I heard Jim Fosgate's propriotary surround technologies of the late '80s, which had fast response times, full-range rear channels, and stereo rears. As Jim continued to improve his surround technologies through Citation 6-Axis, the antiquated Pro Logic looked older and more outdated. At this point, Dolby adopted Jim's latest surround version as Pro Logic II. (Now Jim and Norma are rich, and I am here.)
> 
> 
> Pro Logic II steers signals with few enough artifacts that you can use direct-radiating surrounds. DD and DTS, which use discrete multichannel, not two channels processed into five or seven, work very well with direct-radiating speakers, but in the appropriate situation.



yup and THX was a "band-aid" for that horrible pro-logic format


but i do love the old THX trailers used on AC3 laserdiscs


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Electric_Haggis,
> 
> 
> Are you running a 7.1 system at present and are you using dipoles as back surrounds as well as side surrounds?
> 
> 
> Mark



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.

Here's a picture of the ES-250's again...
http://www.infinitysystems.com/home/...OPE&Country=AU 

The front-most drivers are outputting side-surrounds, and the back-most drivers are outputting rear-surrounds. So of course I've got 2 sets of wires (and amps) running into each speaker, and I use ProLogic IIx to convert all 5.1 Dolby soundtracks to 7.1.

This has the advantage of offering better steering and spaciousness than the alternatives... at least in my room.


I have in the past used various types of speakers at the back of the room in 6.1 and 7.1 modes. But my problem is that we're just sitting too damn far forward from the back wall, and IIx processing steers too much surround into the rears. So I could never get the balance right - even with properly mixed EX or ES films. In my current room, this particular arrangement works just PERFECTLY.


Having said all that - it isn't ideal. If I had a different room (or a bigger projection screen) and we were sitting closer to the back wall, I'd much rather go for 4 speakers. Definitely dipoles on the side walls, and probably dipoles (or perhaps bipoles) for the back wall.



Again, here's a link to the dipole/bipole/monopole shootout I mentioned earlier...
http://www.hometheatermag.com/bootcamp/25/index5.html


----------



## 6SpeedTA95

I much prefer the sound of decent bookshelfs as the surrounds than a dedicated "surround" speaker. I think the bookshelfs sound far better in all the applications I've heard them in.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *6SpeedTA95* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I much prefer the sound of decent bookshelfs as the surrounds than a dedicated "surround" speaker. I think the bookshelfs sound far better in all the applications I've heard them in.




Really? In what way?


----------



## CAVX

Interesting...


Mark


----------



## Ron Alcasid




> 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.


----------



## Shaitan

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.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> 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.......?


----------



## drbobt

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?


----------



## smithb

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.


----------



## sdurani




> 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


----------



## Alimentall




> 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.


----------



## Lawguy




> 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!


----------



## Alimentall




> 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.


----------



## oztech

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.


----------



## Paul Scarpelli




> 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.


----------



## jaseman




> 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


----------



## Zissou




> 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?


----------



## bayn




> 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).


----------



## Bing




> 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.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> 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.......?* "


----------



## smithb




> 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.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> 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)


----------



## smithb

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.


----------



## CAVX




> 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


----------



## mnn1265




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Paul Scarpelli* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If your room is smallish and/or acoustically dead and/or you have multiple seats, dipoles _tend_ to work better, with an even but compromised listening window. If you have a larger and/or more live room with less seating, or seating away from the surround speakers, direct-radiating surrounds can be better.



So, for those of us that are not lonely and don't selfishly dwell within some multi-channel monopole cocoon (or passionately debate the advantages of di/bipole speakers on speaker forums







) what are we to make of this in practical terms?


If I interpret your post correctly the tendencies are as follows:

Small room = Dipoles

Acoustically dead = Dipoles

Multiple seats = Dipoles


Large room = Direct (Monopole)

Acoustically alive = Direct (Monopole)

One or "less" seating = Direct (Monopole)

Seating not close to speaker = Direct (Monopole)


Ok, assuming I've interpreted you somewhat accurately please indulge me and clarify a few things for this neophyte. What constitutes a small or large room? Would a 23' x 19' room be considered large?


What constitutes acoustic "life" and how does it die? I didn't realize it could live.










As far as seating goes are you talking about rows of seating or absolute numbers? Would a sofa sectional (with a single row) in a HT be considered multiple seats?


Finally, what happens if you have conflicting tendencies? For example a very large room with just a Lazy Boy in it... which characteristic trumps the others?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Paul Scarpelli* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> All rooms are different, and no generalization can be made about surround speakers without considering the room.



That sounds very reasonable but then how do we really ever make intelligent decisions? If buying speakers depends almost exclusively on personal preference (as seems to be the consensus) and every room has unique sound characteristics then how can we possibly choose a speaker brand (especially without auditioning in our own room) much less know what type?


Should I just go buy a Bose cube system and call it a day? Or maybe just a Bose wave? Never mind, I know the answer to that question.... buy a Triad system and call it a day!










All kidding aside, thanks for the information and I look forward to some enlightenment - I wish to achieve HT Nirvana!!


----------



## Alimentall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 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).



That's not how it works. All you're doing, effectively, is using 4 monopoles, but locating them badly and aiming them improperly. You can do this more easily and often for less money with two pairs of speakers.


I wonder if more than 1% of the population of the AVS forum has ever heard a well setup HT system.


----------



## smithb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alimentall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I wonder if more than 1% of the population of the AVS forum has ever heard a well setup HT system.



My first response would be an attempt at sarcasm and say "No John, only you have." However, you would probably just follow it up with something like "that appears obvious" and I don't particularly want to feed into your arrogance.


As a result, I will take the more straight forward approach. Based on some of the designed systems we have all seen in this forum I would say that there are quite a few that have well designed and setup systems. Based on response I would also say there are some very knowledgeable and experienced members here. From past threads as well as this one, some agree with you and some don't.


It amazes me at times how some around here like to impose their opinions as if they are hardcore facts. Everyone talks about how subjective it is to choose a speaker because of individual preferences. Why should this topic be any different? Why is this one suppose to be thought of as an absolute?


Just curious John, you did not respond in anyway to my argument that both concepts are flawed to some degree because of the different types of effects we are trying to simulate. Therefore, it is all a compromise regardless of choice. Do you have any OPINION on that or was it just FACTUALLY wrong and not worth commenting on?


You obviously have plenty of knowledge and experience to share like others here, but why does it usually come off as "your way or the highway" so to speak? Just curious.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mnn1265* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What constitutes a small or large room? Would a 23' x 19' room be considered large?



Rooms below 3000 cubic feet should be considered as "small" and rooms above 3000 cubic feet should be considered large. To answer your question you also need a ceiling height. If I was to Ass-U-Me 8 feet, then your room is over the 3000 cubic feet, [3496] so to be considered as "large".


This does not automatically state that you have to use either type of speaker though...


Mark


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alimentall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That's not how it works. All you're doing, effectively, is using 4 monopoles, but locating them badly and aiming them improperly. You can do this more easily and often for less money with two pairs of speakers.
> 
> 
> I wonder if more than 1% of the population of the AVS forum has ever heard a well setup HT system.



Well as I said before - it's a compromise. In the next room, I'll make sure it can be done right. I've tried various speakers at the back, but in this room, I can't permanently station them there for a bunch of reasons.

In the meantime, you'd be VERY surprised how well this works. Certainly, every HT-nut who comes through my place is...


----------



## Adz523

I have four Triad Onwall Gold (Di-pole) Surrounds in my treated demo-room which is about 22Lx17.5Wx8H with two rows of theater seating leaving about 2.5 feet to the sides and back wall. They are close to 2 feet above the listening position. I also have Def Tech's BPVX bi-polar surround speakers. The room has seen its share of direct radiating /monopole surrounds and the resulting theater experience between the two approaches is significant.


Both the di-pole or bi-pole set-up practically disappear to yield a remarkable surround sound immersive experience as the front soundstage appears to extend above and all around the listeners, and you feel like you are in much bigger venue. I have never been able to create that sense of spaciousness with monopole speakers which simply do not work well when you are a couple of feet from the drivers resulting in a muddled experience at times. I do callibrate the surrounds about 2 dBs higher than the front soundstage which is something you wouldn't want to do with mono-poles.


----------



## Rudman

This is not the audio gospel according to Rudman, but simply my personal subjective experience in trying to grapple with this issue.


Approximately 4 years ago and after some input from one of the respondents here, S Durani (thanks), I decided to conduct my own experimentation with various rear and surround speaker configurations. This lasted for more than a year and as a result I have come to the conclusions below.


The opinions of various listeners were consulted throughout this period. Speakers used were Magneplanar M1.4s, B&W 603s, Mission 735s, B&W DS6s, M&K LCR55s all driven by 200W per channel Rotel, Musical Fidelity and NAD amplifiers using a Lexicon DC1v3 processor in all its surround modes, but mostly Logic 7. M&K 150THX LCR were used as mains with eventually six M&K LCR55s as surrounds. Low pass was 80 Hz. Yamaha and Kenwood THX receivers were also used. This was not a proper scientific study. Speakers similar to the Axiom QS8 or Paradigm 590s were never tested. I had no access to such. BUT > I don't think my conclusions would have differed.


In the end the shape of the room was the most important factor as it determined the speaker distances from the listener ear and influenced every listener's preferences. This was determined by moving the main speakers from the narrow width wall onto the wide sidewall in a 24 by 16 ft room, and repositioning surrounds and rears accordingly.


As soon as the point source became within 7 feet of the listener ear for sides and rears, dipoles would be most preferred with bipoles a close second and monopoles would be almost objectionable. As soon as the 7 feet distances were increased, the results became subjective and inconclusive with monopoles perhaps the most preferred.


What was interesting is that a small monopole was clearly second to one with a large woofer. So much so that placing large fullrange floorstanders in place of monopole surrounds were often preferred. This indicates much support for an Axiom QS8 type speaker. A large woofer area that moves more air than standard small surrounds is definitely preferred.


When the bipoles and dipoles were placed at ear level they were not liked. 2 feet minimum above ear level was preferred. In the case of monopoles the firing direction was of interest. With a 8 foot ceiling and more than 7 feet away from the ear aiming the speakers down to the floor 3 feet to the side of the listener was preferred. Playing into the ceiling was next, then aiming them at the sidewall next with playing directly over the head of the listener being the least preferred! (the position in which most monopoles are used!!)


While doing this a lady remarked the obvious. Why are there fewer speakers on the short walls than the long walls? Why only 1 speaker to create the sound field on the longest wall (side wall) with 2 over the short rear wall and 3 across the short front wall? Even applicable to Mr Scarpelli's man without friends.


Well I split the outputs from processor to power amp for the side surrounds and added a side surround so that there were 2 on the ceiling next to the side wall firing down. This has been preferred by +/- 80% of all listeners to the system when doing any type of A/B comparison involving surrounds. I wanted to add a 3rd side surround by running them into a pro-logic pre and then into additional power amps as well as add a center back, but time and resources put an end to this. For me departing from only one side surround to two monopoles was the major improvement.


Consequently I cannot understand why 3 fronts, 2 side and 2 rear speakers are the point of departure while it is so easy to have more than one speaker on the sidewalls, if you really wish to improve.


Would be wonderful if an Audio journal would attempt a more scientific test of this theory.


To summarise:


1) IF surrounds are within 7 feet, then dipoles and bipoles are preferred.

2) IF more than 7 feet away, then monopoles are at least equal.

3) Any full range surround that moves much air such as a floorstander is preferred (even if you have to mount them on the roof or up on the sidewall! - just how serious are you about your sound?)

4) Multiple side monopole speakers offer by far the most improvement. More than moving from monopole to dipole or bipole.

5) Positioning side (not rear) monopoles firing over the head of listeners were considered inferior.

6) Dipoles have a narrow edge over bipoles. This appears to be material dependent. If explosions, rain etc. If single voice, then the other way round.

7) Having to switch speaker mode depending on material - not for me.

8) Using different speaker brands for main LCR > disliked.

9) Using different speaker brands for surrounds > hardly noticed, unless mixing point source and electrostatics.


I am not likely to repeat this exercise. Drove me up the wall!


My 2c >> Spurge


----------



## ggunnell

ADZ523 and Rudman have saved me a lot of typing -- that's exactly the experience I've had.


One consequense of this on room design is that the rear end of the room needs to be left relatively reflective -- if you at all subscribe to the 'Live End - Dead End' theory of acoustic design more large panel suppression needs to be ahead of the first reflection point than to the rear of it.


Adding just a little of my own experience, the main problem I have with direct radiators is the mixing problem. I have many current mixes where a sound is suddenly 'sent' to a channel, and the localization with direct radiators makes such lazy mixing very distracting. Unfortunately I find such mixing very common, even on the most recent format soundtracks.


Whereas I hope all readers here agree that 'dumbing down' audio equipment to mask recording errors like FR, low sample rate, poor mic placement etc. is wrong, when it comes to spacial cues I'm forced to say that until the art improves most folks are better off with something other than monopoles for surrounds for movie soundtrack reproduction. Of course the larger and more varied (and older) your catalog, the more this is true.


What the OP is getting at (I think) and what Rudman commented on is that mutipole speakers usually suck at bass. I've also seen them suck at >10kHz treble, probably to reduce localization cues.


The Axiom QS8 needs to be crossed to at 100Hz. Most folks working in this area know a 60Hz global x-o is desireable -- all it would take is Axiom upsizing the QS8 to double the internal volume of the M3, using the M3's 6 1/2" woofers and front porting it, to solve this problem, but Axiom, like most manufacturers, still assumes that over 100Hz performance is all thats required of surrounds.


----------



## Alimentall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smithb* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> As a result, I will take the more straight forward approach. Based on some of the designed systems we have all seen in this forum I would say that there are quite a few that have well designed and setup systems. Based on response I would also say there are some very knowledgeable and experienced members here. From past threads as well as this one, some agree with you and some don't.



There are a few, but many of the "show" theaters certainly aren't among them.


> Quote:
> It amazes me at times how some around here like to impose their opinions as if they are hardcore facts. Everyone talks about how subjective it is to choose a speaker because of individual preferences. Why should this topic be any different? Why is this one suppose to be thought of as an absolute?



I don't believe in the "it's all subjective" BS. There is better and there is worse. Speakers, setup, whatever. "it's all subjective" is an excuse for making poor, highly colored products or doing things badly.


> Quote:
> Just curious John, you did not respond in anyway to my argument that both concepts are flawed to some degree because of the different types of effects we are trying to simulate. Therefore, it is all a compromise regardless of choice. Do you have any OPINION on that or was it just FACTUALLY wrong and not worth commenting on?



I can if you'd like, I've just been *really* busy, so haven't had a lot of time.


> Quote:
> You obviously have plenty of knowledge and experience to share like others here, but why does it usually come off as "your way or the highway" so to speak? Just curious.



Because it's not "my way", it's *the* way (for the most part). The goal should be to do it right, once you can't do it properly, you have to make your own compromises, but people want to muddy the waters with "it's all good" and it's not "all good". People should know the right way to do this stuff and back off as they need to, but this whole "this bad speaker worked for my bad setup" isn't exactly helpful from a real educational standpoint.


One thing isn't disputable. Dipoles seriously color the sound of the rear channels, almost to the point of unintelligibility. Put on a music disc and play through the rears and then realize it does that to everything you put on your speakers.


90-95% of our customers can't or won't do things ideally and we work to make it close. BUT, all of them walk away knowing what they could have done better too and they're glad they know because if they ever can do a more ideal room, they'll likely do it that way (wife permitting).


An ideal theater system is when you have 5-7 identical wide dispersion speakers with well matched subs (preferably sealed), with all of the speakers placed at ear level, aimed at you and with the fronts 2.5-3' from any room surface and you 5' or more from any speaker.


Or, next less ideal for a smaller room is an all high quality inwall system such as Triad with identical speakers so that the bad placement issue is minimized.


7.1's *entire* purpose is to allow monopoles to also create a holographic experience *while* allowing for proper placement of surround effects. It is not to have what I call "discrete diffusion" where you put all 4 rear channels in a blender and scatter it to the winds.


Why aren't dipole fans using dipoles for front and center speakers on the walls in front? If it is better, than you should match your fronts to the better rears. Try it, see how good it sounds.


----------



## Ron Alcasid

Here's unique solution from Energy the V2.0Ri. It appears to be a monopole with two side firing drivers that can be toggled between dipole or bipole modes. In addition the level of the two side drivers can be attenuated to control the direct/ambient mix.

http://www.energy-speakers.com/v2/pr...age.php?id=14#


----------



## Warpdrv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> To summarise:
> 
> 1) IF surrounds are within 7 feet, then dipoles and bipoles are preferred.
> 
> 2) IF more than 7 feet away, then monopoles are at least equal.
> 
> 3) Any full range surround that moves much air such as a floorstander is preferred (even if you have to mount them on the roof or up on the sidewall! - just how serious are you about your sound?)
> 
> 4) Multiple side monopole speakers offer by far the most improvement. More than moving from monopole to dipole or bipole.
> 
> 5) Positioning side (not rear) monopoles firing over the head of listeners were considered inferior.
> 
> 6) Dipoles have a narrow edge over bipoles. This appears to be material dependent. If explosions, rain etc. If single voice, then the other way round.
> 
> 7) Having to switch speaker mode depending on material - not for me.
> 
> 8) Using different speaker brands for main LCR > disliked.
> 
> 9) Using different speaker brands for surrounds > hardly noticed, unless mixing point source and electrostatics.




Amen Brother......

As stated by a few others here... sometimes one has to allow the room setup decide... Every room is different, and you have to fight the battles you can win.


----------



## otk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alimentall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That's not how it works. All you're doing, effectively, is using 4 monopoles, but locating them badly and aiming them improperly. You can do this more easily and often for less money with two pairs of speakers.
> 
> 
> I wonder if more than 1% of the population of the AVS forum has ever heard a well setup HT system.



Alimentall, what is your HT like?


what brand/model speakers subs and equipment are you using?


any pics?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ggunnell* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The Axiom QS8 needs to be crossed to at 100Hz. Most folks working in this area know a 60Hz global x-o is desireable -- all it would take is Axiom upsizing the QS8 to double the internal volume of the M3, using the M3's 6 1/2" woofers and front porting it, to solve this problem, but Axiom, like most manufacturers, still assumes that over 100Hz performance is all thats required of surrounds.



*I absolutely agree with you about the Axiom QS8.


The other thing missing from the QS8 (and QS6) is the option to run the tweeters in or out of phase like, say, the Monitor Audio BFX or SFX.

I think I'll suggest this to Axiom..... THE NEW QS10 !!


Ggunnell, I've not heard the QS8's. How have you found them compared to traditional dipoles and bipoles? The tweeters look to be angled out around 45 degrees - a less severe angle than many - and the top-&-bottom woofer arrangement is pretty unusual...*


----------



## Alimentall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *otk* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Alimentall, what is your HT like?
> 
> 
> what brand/model speakers subs and equipment are you using?
> 
> 
> any pics?



Kinda boring right now, in a way and certainly not ideal (that will have to wait for the next house). 5 NHT L5s wall mounted with a U1 sealed subwoofer and 110" screen in between. All the speakers about 3' off the ground with two L5s on the back wall.


I don't hear the rear speakers very often as point source, but when I do, it's because my couch is against the back wall. But, with well mixed stuff, it *almost* sounds like an ideal 7.1 system. Superman Returns was mindboggling on it (not that the plot was, mind you). I have had my system more ideal in the past, this one is temporary and only for movies.


----------



## Bing

Rudman,


Awesome post man! Yours is the most comprehensive surround speaker comparison i've read. Thank you.



> Quote:
> monopoles the firing direction was of interest. With a 8 foot ceiling and more than 7 feet away from the ear aiming the speakers down to the floor 3 feet to the side of the listener was preferred. Playing into the ceiling was next, then aiming them at the sidewall next with playing directly over the head of the listener being the least preferred! (the position in which most monopoles are used!!)



Basically, even if monopoles are used, reflected sound is preferrable. The more on-axis, the more annoying it became. Even bipoles at ear-level is not liked.



> Quote:
> 4) Multiple side monopole speakers offer by far the most improvement. More than moving from monopole to dipole or bipole.



You're describing a side array. My difficulty with this has always been volume control for each pair. It's like having two pre stages for each pair of side surrounds so that the furthest pair outputs the same level as the closest pair. How did you deal with it?



> Quote:
> 2) IF more than 7 feet away, then monopoles are at least equal.



More than 7ft from a single chair in the middle is attainable by many. But how many HTs have "end" seats 7+ ft from the nearest side surround? Nobody. What I don't get is how people enjoy surrounds at both ends of the couch?!?!?!? I guess that what J6P sees at Best Buy.



> Quote:
> 9) Using different speaker brands for surrounds > hardly noticed, unless mixing point source and electrostatics.



That's been my experience too.


----------



## Bing




> Quote:
> Why aren't dipole fans using dipoles for front and center speakers on the walls in front? If it is better, than you should match your fronts to the better rears. Try it, see how good it sounds.



You seem to be firmly grounded in the ideal that the presentation/FR/Dispersion should be the same 360degs. That's cool, if you were wearing goggles with the LCD panels an inch from your eyes or in the future, when the entire perimeter is the screen. Otherwise, in 2007, the action is 14ft in front of you. The LCR anchor the action in front. The surrounds support the front and should never compete for attention. Their job is to immerse you so that you feel you're in the same area as the characters on-screen, but it's the LCRs that tell the story.


the same distraction problem could be had if you had a 15ft stereo separation but your screen is 32". L and R material won't match on screen activity.


----------



## Alimentall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The opinions of various listeners were consulted throughout this period. Speakers used were Magneplanar M1.4s, B&W 603s, Mission 735s, B&W DS6s, M&K LCR55s all driven by 200W per channel Rotel, Musical Fidelity and NAD amplifiers using a Lexicon DC1v3 processor in all its surround modes, but mostly Logic 7. M&K 150THX LCR were used as mains with eventually six M&K LCR55s as surrounds. Low pass was 80 Hz. Yamaha and Kenwood THX receivers were also used. This was not a proper scientific study. Speakers similar to the Axiom QS8 or Paradigm 590s were never tested. I had no access to such. BUT > I don't think my conclusions would have differed.



I'm assuming 4 speakers? Were they all the same? How were they setup? Where were they setup? Where was the couch? What was the room like?


----------



## Alimentall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bing* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You seem to be firmly grounded in the ideal that the presentation/FR/Dispersion should be the same 360degs. That's cool, if you were wearing goggles with the LCD panels an inch from your eyes or in the future, when the entire perimeter is the screen. Otherwise, in 2007, the action is 14ft in front of you. The LCR anchor the action in front. The surrounds support the front and should never compete for attention. Their job is to immerse you so that you feel you're in the same area as the characters on-screen, but it's the LCRs that tell the story.



Then one would assume that movies are all mixed with dipole side speakers in the studio, right?


Also, you're making an assumption that the sound engineer never wants to localize a source or give it immediacy in the rear. That it's all just random noises for effect.


I used different scenes to prove that monopole was more accurate, more involving, more revealing of what the engineer was trying to accomplish, but I remember one particular scene where a plane takes off in front of you and flies off behind you. With matching monitors, the effect was achieved with no change of timbre and amazing realism. With dipoles, the sound when from intense to ghostly, more like the plane was going into the twilight zone, but not into the air space behind you. Not a single person ever preferred the dipoles. And it was an NHT setup with either SuperZeros or the HDP-1s based on the SuperZeros, so it was an even, matched fight. And this was in 5.1, before 6.1 and 7.1 existed. These formats simply cemented the performance differential to the point where no further demonstration was needed.


----------



## Zissou




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alimentall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Then one would assume that movies are all mixed with dipole side speakers in the studio, right?
> 
> 
> Also, you're making an assumption that the sound engineer never wants to localize a source or give it immediacy in the rear. That it's all just random noises for effect.
> 
> 
> I used different scenes to prove that monopole was more accurate, more involving, more revealing of what the engineer was trying to accomplish, but I remember one particular scene where a plane takes off in front of you and flies off behind you. With matching monitors, the effect was achieved with no change of timbre and amazing realism. With dipoles, the sound when from intense to ghostly, more like the plane was going into the twilight zone, but not into the air space behind you. Not a single person ever preferred the dipoles. And it was an NHT setup with either SuperZeros or the HDP-1s based on the SuperZeros, so it was an even, matched fight. And this was in 5.1, before 6.1 and 7.1 existed. These formats simply cemented the performance differential to the point where no further demonstration was needed.



You may have missed this but I have been told you are closing your store?


----------



## ggunnell




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> . . . The other thing missing from the QS8 (and QS6) is the option to run the tweeters in or out of phase like, say, the Monitor Audio BFX or SFX.
> 
> . . .
> 
> Ggunnell, I've not heard the QS8's. How have you found them compared to traditional dipoles and bipoles? . . .



Gee, most of us just switch wires on one of the tweeters










If you do this, _label the speaker on the back which tweeter is reversed_ (voice of experience).


I've not heard the QS8s -- they would not work for me due to the aforementioned low frequency limitation. If you want more info on the QS8s, search the Axiom forum http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php on QS8.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ggunnell* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Gee, most of us just switch wires on one of the tweeters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you do this, _label the speaker on the back which tweeter is reversed_ (voice of experience).
> 
> 
> I've not heard the QS8s -- they would not work for me due to the aforementioned low frequency limitation. If you want more info on the QS8s, search the Axiom forum http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php on QS8.



By switching wires on one of the tweeters, do you mean reversing the polarity on one of the speakers? This would just put the two speakers out of phase with each other (including reduced bass), rather than the tweeters on each speaker?


Also, which surround speakers do you own?


----------



## Alimentall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zissou* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You may have missed this but I have been told you are closing your store?



Just the retail portion. Too many aggressive burglars here. Time for something completely different. Why?


----------



## jaseman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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)



I only have heard two other individual's HT setup. Like them I used to use direct firing monopole speakers for surrounds, side and back. I never heard any bi-pole, di-pole, tri-pole, or quad-pole speakers until I got my QS8's. I simply do not have the time to audition all these different types of speakers. So, I read as much as I could on the pros and cons of those who are using these types of speakers. Since I was getting my new 7.1 system from Axiom I decided to get what they offered. As for bass response from the QS8's... do not let the specs fool you. These things rock! Highs and lows are clearly heard! Remember, that there really isn't that much low frequency sent to the surrounds anyway. The dual 5.25" woofers are more than adequate for getting down low. They are rated at 65Hz. In my case I went from an 8 Ohm two driver design per box to a 6 Ohm four driver box. The increased power to them along with the quad design makes my old monopoles sound like cheap garbage.


Again because I have never had the opportunity to hear any other di-pole or bi-pole speakers I cannot compare them. I can say though that my wife, who cares little about sound quality has even commented (without any prodding from me) that the new setup sounds really good and clear.


My room is about 20L x 13W x 7H. It's a finished basement with a drop ceiling dedicated to HT. The surrounds are mounted 5.5' high at the top of the speaker. The sides are 12' back from the front wall. The rears are mounted on the back wall 3' in from either side leaving about 7' between them. That gives all the QS8's about 1.5' of space above them to the drop ceiling. Because the rears sit in 3' from the side wall there is about 10' of space between the side surrounds and the rears. Right now my couch sits right against the back wall. I do need to pull it out at least 1.5' to 2'. As of yet I have not done so due to limits in the other furnishings. Sitting on the couch makes the speakers a little too easy to localize but I know it's because the couch needs to be pulled out. But it's still better than with the monopoles. After calibrating with my trusty Radio Shack SPL meter the sound of movies and music is just beautiful.


I highly recommend di-bi-tri-quad-pole's over direct radiators any day.


----------



## sdurani




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> By switching wires on one of the tweeters, do you mean reversing the polarity on one of the speakers? This would just put the two speakers out of phase with each other (including reduced bass), rather than the tweeters on each speaker?



I think he may have meant switching the two tweeters out of phase while leaving the woofers in phase, so you don't get reduced bass.


Sanjay


----------



## Paul Scarpelli




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sdurani* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think he may have meant switching the two tweeters out of phase while leaving the woofers in phase, so you don't get reduced bass.
> 
> 
> Sanjay



By the way, that's a mistake, Big Time. Information from the woofers would be IN phase WELL up into the midrange, and I would expect an obnoxious directional "honk" in the 1 kHz region.


A properly designed dipole does not have the front array out of phase with the back array over the _full_ frequency range. If there is one common woofer, one of the arrays may be highpassed at 300 Hz or so to avoid bass cancellations. If there are separate woofers for each array, they are most likely in phase to 300 Hz-500Hz with the rear array shifting to out-of-phase above that. Some 4-driver dipoles simply highpass the rear array somewhere in the lower midrange, which is not a good solution because it reduces upper bass/lower midrange headroom. There are a dozen different ways of wiring a dipole, and some are worse than others.


----------



## Alimentall

Yes, Paul, but it clearly wouldn't matter since any pretense of accuracy or phase is completely thrown out as a consequence of choosing dipoles anyway. How would one notice a little more inaccuracy in something completely inaccurate?


----------



## Paul Scarpelli




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alimentall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes, Paul, but it clearly wouldn't matter since any pretense of accuracy or phase is completely thrown out as a consequence of choosing dipoles anyway. How would one notice a little more inaccuracy in something completely inaccurate?



It would shift the frequency response off by 5-10 dB in the midrange, throwing off the spectral balance. It would take the compromised concept of a dipole surround and turn it into a sonic horror show.


----------



## Alimentall

That's like saying putting ketchup on a Taco Bell burrito turns it into into a culinary horror show. I say "what's the difference?"


----------



## NHTkiller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alimentall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just the retail portion. Too many aggressive burglars here. Time for something completely different. Why?




LMAO!!! Awesome!


----------



## ggunnell

Paul is correct that a typical two-way x-o is a couple octaves higher than you really want to split the signal in a dipole -- the well designed dipoles (in John's honor, I will say the 'better' designed dipoles







) I think of are three-ways with a common woofer.


Haggis, my movie surrounds have been out of production for a long time: the NHT dipoles that went with the VT-2's. They're 3-ways with a single 6' woofer, and a midrange and tweeter on each end.


If you are looking for a product rec, I'll give you two. Under $600 the QS8's -- despite the limited under 100Hz response, they're probably the most liked multi-way surrounds and have been enjoyed by folks with much more expensive front speakers.


Under $1k the Polk LsiFX, which will do a 60Hz global cross and uses the Vifa XT25 tweeter, a personal favorite of mine.


Esit: I forgot to include the DefTech bipoles.

Remember that a high-wall-mounted conventional speaker aimed either down at the floor or up at the ceiling, as Rudman described earlier in this thread, may be all you need to non-localize the sound field.


Or you can hire a pro to design some and build the cabs yourself. You've got some great talent Down Under -- up here I'd probably ask Dannie Richie
http://www.gr-research.com/index.asp...TS&Category=14 

or Rick Craig
http://www.selahaudio.com/ 


Good Luck!


----------



## Paul Scarpelli




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alimentall* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That's like saying putting ketchup on a Taco Bell burrito turns it into into a culinary horror show. I say "what's the difference?"



John, I understand the concept of "You can't polish a turd."


----------



## uberanalyst

I've got a question about 7.1 system dipole deployment -- in particular, how to mount rear dipole surrounds relative to the rest of the system.


I'm about to install 2 pairs of Triad In-Wall Gold Surrounds (the newer ones with 7 drivers each) in my 7.1 dedicated theater, and trying to figure out the best way to orient the surrounds.


It's pretty clear how to mount the side dipole surrounds in columns on the side walls, since Triad nicely labels its speaker cabinet with an arrow that is supposed to point to the front of the room. (I'm interested in determining if this makes the front-facing or the rear-facing midrange/tweeters out-of-phase). I'm also assuming these side surround dipoles should be mounted "upside down" with the woofer on top/tweeters on bottom, so the tweeters are closer to ear level, right?


But my biggest question is how to mount the rear dipoles. Do left dipoles go still go on the left side of the back wall, and right dipoles still go on right side of the back wall? Or should their positions be reversed? (I can't rely on the arrow labels on these rear speakers, since with mounting them on the back wall, they can't point to the front of the room.) Again, I'm assuming the woofer belongs at the top to make tweeters closer to ear level, right?


(And for those of you questioning why I chose dipoles for the rear wall, my rear row of seats would be too close to direct radiating speakers.)


Any guidance on dipole surround speaker orientation would be appreciated.


Thanks,

- Dave


----------



## Paul Scarpelli

Left dipoles still go on the left side of the back wall. Also, I would not turn the surrounds upside-down, unless they have to be mounted very high, and then you have to use a left speaker for a right and vice versa.


Normally I'd prefer direct-radiating in the back, but in your installation, dipoles will not hotspot as bad as direct-radiating surrounds. BTW, you will get directional cues from the new Gold Surround. The null is not quite as deep as some other surrounds, and strong surround information can be localized.


You are to be commended for using four $1500 surround speakers.


----------



## ekb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Paul Scarpelli* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Left dipoles still go on the left side of the back wall.



Paul - is there a reason for not following the conventional advice of swapping the left and right dipoles for the rear position?


To the OP, if there is an arrow that is supposed to point to the front of the room for side surrounds, then the usual recommendation for the rears is to swap positions such that the arrows would point toward each other and also point toward the center of the back.


Ed


----------



## uberanalyst




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Paul Scarpelli* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Left dipoles still go on the left side of the back wall. Also, I would not turn the surrounds upside-down, unless they have to be mounted very high, and then you have to use a left speaker for a right and vice versa.



Paul:

Thanks for your rapid response!


But I'm still confused a bit. The PDF drawings (on your website) for the Triad In-Wall Gold Surrounds show them being mounted woofer on top/tweeter on bottom, and if I place the left surround on the left side of the room and have the arrow on the speaker point forward towards the screen as indicated on the label, it also means I should mount the side surround dipoles with the woofer on top/tweeter on bottom.


So based on all this, Gold Surround dipoles SHOULD be mounted "up-side down" (unless you mean I shouldn't turn them over to have the tweeter on top/woofer on bottom). But hey, you're the expert on Triad speakers here, so I really value your advice.


Separately, let's see if I understand the rear dipole mounting strategy: Mounting the rear dipoles per your recommendation will cause the in-phase drivers to face the back corners of the room (where their sound will face and mix with the out-of-phase sound from the side dipole surround speakers). The out-of-phase drivers of the rear dipoles will face each other towards the centerline of the rear wall.


Is this what you intended? Again, thanks for the help.


- Dave


----------



## jimbobwe

Here's a cut and paste from a cached Goggle site:


Some make a blanket recommendation of dipolar speakers with no serious discussion of their limitations and flaws. Dipole speakers were designed specifically to hide the poor rear channel sound of Dolby Pro-logic surround. In Pro-Logic, the rear channels are monophonic and extremely low fidelity, essentially equivalent to AM radio. The thought was to make take the monophonic sound and spread it across the back of the room to make it more spacious and less noticeable. However, with the advent of 5.1 soundtracks with essentially CD-quality stereo rear channel sound, spaciousness is dramatically improved and, because of the dramatic improvement in quality, there is no reason to hide the rear sound any more. And, with the ability to further split two rear channels into three, precision and spaciousness are enhanced to levels no dipole speaker could possibly match. Interestingly, dipole speakers are the most difficult to setup because there is only one way to set them up at all - directly to the side of the couch, several feet above the listening position with the couch 5-10' from the back wall. Any deviation from that setup yields even lower quality rear channel sound. Also, many proponents back dipole speakers because "it mimics the more diffuse sound of a movie theater." This is like buying a sports car that performs like a bus. Movie theater sound is awful compared to a good home theater system. More to the point, sound engineers use two or three discrete directional speakers behind them, not dipoles. If you want to hear what the sound engineer hears in his mixdown studio avoid dipole loudspeakers at all cost. Movie theaters sound the way they do because they have to play decent sound to hundreds of people, where as a home theater can focus its performance on just a few people. Also, many dipolar proponents insist that dipolar speakers are less noticeable and allow you to concentrate more fully on the TV screen "as the director intended". But they don't know what the director intended.. Dipolar sound is an "effect" that seriously modifies and dilutes the sound of the rear channels. Only true monitor speakers allow you to hear exactly what the sound engineer heard when he mixed the soundtrack. If he mixed for a diffuse effect, that is what you will get. If he wanted an intense, distracting effect, that is what you will get. If you own dipolar speaker and want to understand more of what I mean, hook them up to the stereo front channels of your receiver and play stereo music through them. If that doesn't convince you of the low fidelity of dipolar speakers, I don't know what will. Although I could go on forever on the dipole subject, I can say that we have switched dozens of people out of dipolar rear speakers purchased elsewhere because the customer simply did not get the performance that he had expected from their new DVD player. All of them are extremely happy with the far more accurate and intense surround sound of high quality monitor speakers.


----------



## caesar1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jimbobwe* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here's a cut and paste from a cached Goggle site:
> 
> 
> Some make a blanket recommendation of dipolar speakers with no serious discussion of their limitations and flaws. Dipole speakers were designed specifically to hide the poor rear channel sound of Dolby Pro-logic surround. In Pro-Logic, the rear channels are monophonic and extremely low fidelity, essentially equivalent to AM radio. The thought was to make take the monophonic sound and spread it across the back of the room to make it more spacious and less noticeable. However, with the advent of 5.1 soundtracks with essentially CD-quality stereo rear channel sound, spaciousness is dramatically improved and, because of the dramatic improvement in quality, there is no reason to hide the rear sound any more. And, with the ability to further split two rear channels into three, precision and spaciousness are enhanced to levels no dipole speaker could possibly match. Interestingly, dipole speakers are the most difficult to setup because there is only one way to set them up at all - directly to the side of the couch, several feet above the listening position with the couch 5-10' from the back wall. Any deviation from that setup yields even lower quality rear channel sound. Also, many proponents back dipole speakers because "it mimics the more diffuse sound of a movie theater." This is like buying a sports car that performs like a bus. Movie theater sound is awful compared to a good home theater system. More to the point, sound engineers use two or three discrete directional speakers behind them, not dipoles. If you want to hear what the sound engineer hears in his mixdown studio avoid dipole loudspeakers at all cost. Movie theaters sound the way they do because they have to play decent sound to hundreds of people, where as a home theater can focus its performance on just a few people. Also, many dipolar proponents insist that dipolar speakers are less noticeable and allow you to concentrate more fully on the TV screen "as the director intended". But they don't know what the director intended.. Dipolar sound is an "effect" that seriously modifies and dilutes the sound of the rear channels. Only true monitor speakers allow you to hear exactly what the sound engineer heard when he mixed the soundtrack. If he mixed for a diffuse effect, that is what you will get. If he wanted an intense, distracting effect, that is what you will get. If you own dipolar speaker and want to understand more of what I mean, hook them up to the stereo front channels of your receiver and play stereo music through them. If that doesn't convince you of the low fidelity of dipolar speakers, I don't know what will. Although I could go on forever on the dipole subject, I can say that we have switched dozens of people out of dipolar rear speakers purchased elsewhere because the customer simply did not get the performance that he had expected from their new DVD player. All of them are extremely happy with the far more accurate and intense surround sound of high quality monitor speakers.



This quote seems to be referring to strictly a 5.1 set up, with an emphasis on the rear sound stage.


In a 7.1 setup -- with directs for the rears, but dipole/bipole for the side surrounds, I think you get the best of both worlds.


If I was the only one listening, I think directs for sides would be good. But with 7 seats in my theater, I think dipoles are better for the side surrounds (coupled with directs for the rears).


----------



## swgiust

This is an article posted in the FAQ section of the Paradigm websited. It pretty clearly disputes what is being said.

http://www.paradigm.com/en/pdf/dipolar_confusion.pdf 


I am a firm believer in di-pole speakers. I feel they give me a much more enveloping soundfield. If your room is big enough that you can get some distance between yourself and a direct radiating speaker, that might change. But in my room, di-poles win.


----------



## caesar1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *swgiust* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is an article posted in the FAQ section of the Paradigm websited. It pretty clearly disputes what is being said.
> 
> http://www.paradigm.com/en/pdf/dipolar_confusion.pdf
> 
> 
> I am a firm believer in di-pole speakers. I feel they give me a much more enveloping soundfield. If your room is big enough that you can get some distance between yourself and a direct radiating speaker, that might change. But in my room, di-poles win.



That Paradigm article may be outdated though -- its from 1998.


That being said, I think dipole wins if you have multiple seats too.


----------



## MCATUCCI

Tag for reading later.


----------



## SeanCJ

I know this is an old thread, but I need to clarify for my room.

I have a 24' wide by 26' long room with 12' ceilings. I sit about 13' from the rear surrounds. They are about 8 feet high.

According to most, my rear surrounds should then be set to direct or bipole?

I own the Infinity Beta 250s so I can change their effect.

I sit 13' from the right side surround and 12' from the left side surround. I assume they should be set to dipole?

Thanks all.

Excellent read, but still confusing to someone relatively new to this.


----------



## Alimentall

Bipole


----------



## SeanCJ

Thank you Alimentall!


----------



## fireman325




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeanCJ* /forum/post/15960890
> 
> 
> I know this is an old thread, but I need to clarify for my room.
> 
> I have a 24' wide by 26' long room with 12' ceilings. I sit about 13' from the rear surrounds. They are about 8 feet high.
> 
> According to most, my rear surrounds should then be set to direct or bipole?
> 
> I own the Infinity Beta 250s so I can change their effect.
> 
> I sit 13' from the right side surround and 12' from the left side surround. I assume they should be set to dipole?
> 
> Thanks all.
> 
> Excellent read, but still confusing to someone relatively new to this.



I would favor bipole as Alimentall suggested, but since you can switch modes on your speakers, why not try both ways and see which way you like it better?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeanCJ* /forum/post/15960890
> 
> 
> I know this is an old thread, but I need to clarify for my room.
> 
> I have a 24' wide by 26' long room with 12' ceilings. I sit about 13' from the rear surrounds. They are about 8 feet high.
> 
> According to most, my rear surrounds should then be set to direct or bipole?
> 
> I own the Infinity Beta 250s so I can change their effect.
> 
> I sit 13' from the right side surround and 12' from the left side surround. I assume they should be set to dipole?
> 
> Thanks all.
> 
> Excellent read, but still confusing to someone relatively new to this.



So you have the ES250's on the back wall, and you are sitting half way down the room? Is that right?


How far in from the side walls are they?


The ES250's can be set to:
*Bipole:* Both drivers firing in phase

*Dipole:* Both drivers firing, but OUT of phase - This gives you a more diffuse sound that's harder to localise, but with less accuracy and reduced bass. Only use this if you've got them to either side of you and relatively close to seating.... and even then, test first!

*Dual-monopole:*: This is what makes these speakers special. Hook in two pairs of wires to each (surrround + rear-surround), switch your receiver to 7.1 speakers and run everything in Dolby ProLogic IIx Cinema, and you'd swear everything was mixed that way... Better soundstaging, smoother pans, etc.


Ideally, you should have 4 separate speakers: 2 side-surrounds (dipole or bipole) AND 2 rear-surrounds (bipole).

But if you *really* can't, then this is the next best thing.


This is how I *used* to have things, back in the last place whe I had a room more like yours...











*Click on my signature below to see how this has been down-graded in the new place....*


----------



## SeanCJ

Thank you Electric Haggis and fireman 325!

I only have one wire run through the ceiling and walls to my rear surrounds so I can't easily do what you've suggested with the two wires to those speakers.

I could run two separate wires to the side surrounds though easy enough.

I sit 13' from the right side surround and 12' from the left side surround. Should I still do the bi-wiring to them and run them monopole? Or just keep them di pole?

Thanks again everyone for the advice.

Its very difficult to get everything to sound just right in this large a room, sitting so far away from the speakers. Being all the surround speakers are so far away from my prime seating, should I invest in 4 larger direct radiating speakers?

I do appreciate the advice and suggestions.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeanCJ* /forum/post/15990013
> 
> 
> Thank you Electric Haggis and fireman 325!
> 
> I only have one wire run through the ceiling and walls to my rear surrounds so I can't easily do what you've suggested with the two wires to those speakers.
> 
> I could run two separate wires to the side surrounds though easy enough.
> 
> I sit 13' from the right side surround and 12' from the left side surround. Should I still do the bi-wiring to them and run them monopole? Or just keep them di pole?
> 
> Thanks again everyone for the advice.
> 
> Its very difficult to get everything to sound just right in this large a room, sitting so far away from the speakers. Being all the surround speakers are so far away from my prime seating, should I invest in 4 larger direct radiating speakers?
> 
> I do appreciate the advice and suggestions.



There's nothing wrong with having a big room. In some ways it's easier to get the surrounds to dissapear - especially when you're sitting that far away from them. Remember, commercial cinemas and studio mixing theatres are still WAY bigger than your room.


Why on earth would you think that direct-radiating will give you "more sound" than bipoles or dipoles?

With a larger room, you want _more_ drivers, so you can fire & bounce _more_ surround information around in _more_ directions to make up for not having arrays of surround speakers, like a cinema/mixing theatre does.



In your situation, basically what you want to be doing is running you ES250's in BIPOLE (2 wires only), and buying another pair of BIPOLES for the sides - The larger the better.

Maybe another pair of ES250's. Axiom Audio QS8 quadpoles are well-loved by many. They fire in four different directions - Good for big rooms.

Paradigm's larger ADP speakers in their Monitor range are also worth considering. But in your case, I'd probably go for the QS8's. Maybe even replace your rear Infinity's with them, too (although it isn't critical).


Let me get this straight...

1. You have only two surround speakers on the back wall (Infinity ES250's).

2. You have two pairs of wires at the back of the room, and can run two more to the sides?

3. You haven't bought side-surrounds yet?

4. You're sitting around 13 feet from the rear surrounds?

5. You're sitting 12-13 feet from where the side surrounds would be if you bought a pair?

6. Surrounds speakers are/would be 8 feet from the floor?


Questions...

1. Do you have an Audyssey-equipped 7.1 receiver? What is it?

2. How far are you from the front speakers, and how widely spread out do you have them, relative to the TV / projector screen?

3. What front speakers are you using?

4. How far in from the sides are your rear surrounds?

5. How high are your walls?


----------



## SeanCJ

Thanks again for the extra help. I've answered your questions below within your quote.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/15991122
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight...
> 
> 1. You have only two surround speakers on the back wall (Infinity ES250's).
> 
> Yes, at present I only have the two rear surrounds, but only because I sold the side surrounds a few weeks ago. I'm looking to replace all four surrounds, but may consider keeping the Infinity Beta 250s.
> 
> 2. You have two pairs of wires at the back of the room, and can run two more to the sides?
> 
> Wiring is run to the side and rears. I can not run any more wires to the rear speakers, but can run another set of wire to the side surrounds if needed.
> 
> 3. You haven't bought side-surrounds yet?
> 
> No. I'm still looking at all options, but I keep coming back to the Axiom QS8's. I'd really like to find a great deal on the Niles PRO870FX speakers. I heard them at Nebraska Furniture Mart this weekend. They are very nice and very large multi pole surrounds (18"x18").
> 
> 4. You're sitting around 13 feet from the rear surrounds?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 5. You're sitting 12-13 feet from where the side surrounds would be if you bought a pair?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 6. Surrounds speakers are/would be 8 feet from the floor?
> 
> Yes. I could mount them higher if need be. The ceilings are 12 feet high.
> 
> 
> Questions...
> 
> 1. Do you have an Audyssey-equipped 7.1 receiver? What is it?
> 
> Yes, I have the Onkyo 805.
> 
> 2. How far are you from the front speakers, and how widely spread out do you have them, relative to the TV / projector screen?
> 
> I sit 13 feet from the 120"x67", 16:9, movie screen. Front 3 are directly behind my DIY AT screen. There is 7 feet in between the left and right fronts. Center channel is in the middle of these two.
> 
> 3. What front speakers are you using? 3 Klipsch KL-650 Ultra 2 THX speakers. Bought them as demos from a home theater store. Great price. Great speakers.
> 
> 4. How far in from the sides are your rear surrounds?
> 
> They are about 4 feet in from the side walls, 16 feet apart from each other.
> 
> 5. How high are your walls?
> 
> 12 foot ceilings. Walls go all the way up



My thought was the larger the surround speaker, the better, for my room's volume. I know I want dipole for the side surrounds and bipole for the rears.

If I can find two more white Infinity Beta 250s (they are hard to find now), I'd try them first before investing in 4 completely new speakers.

Thanks again for all of your time and help!


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Firstly, it's good that you've got all the speakers at a decent, equal distance and that you have a projection screen with the front trio well-spaced.

Fronts are beefy and well-suited to the room and the receiver is up to the challenge. Good stuff.


* Sounds like the side-surrounds you had were the matching Klipsch dipoles. *What made you get rid of them?*


* 8 feet high is more than enough.


* Wasn't aware of the Niles PRO870FX, but seems like it'd fit the bill nicely - It's pretty efficient, has multiple drivers, a large woofer and a large cabinet. Having dipole/bipole switchability with the bass always in phase gives it an advantage over the Infinity.


My only gripe with the Niles would be the front-firing tweeter/squawker. I've found that the side-drivers tend to get completely overwhelmed when you have a frontal drivers firing toward you. *So I'd wonder if it's possible to dial down or switch off the front tweeter/squawker?* Probably not.


* In your room, with your distances, I really wouldn't be running Dipole at the sides. It's nice to have the option, and it's worth a try, but you'll probably find (as I did) that the combined effect of the 7.1 processing, the rear surrounds, the room dimensions and speaker distance/height give you all the diffusion you need.

Having dipoles with drivers running out of phase is mostly handy for reducing localization when you're stuck sitting nearer to side-surrounds than you'd like. But sonically, dipoles aren't as pure as bipoles.


* If another pair of ES-250's are hard to find, don't forget JBL makes the identical *P52OWS* (same parent company).

If I were you, I'd do one of the following...

_1. Buy a pair of Niles, but use them for the rears (in Bipole). Their driver arrangement is better suited to that. Move the Infinities to the sides and run them in Bipole.

(Try Dipole if you like - but test carefully.)


2. Buy another pair of Infinities/JBLs for the sides. Run all four surrounds in Bipole.


3. Use Axiom QS8's for all 4 surrounds. What I'd definitely do *before all else* is buy a pair of QS8's on the 30-day trial offer .

Try them at the sides (and/or rear) and see how they go. If you're as impressed as most people are, then buy another pair and lose the Infinities._


----------



## SeanCJ

Great advice!

I've priced the Niles and unfortunately, they are way out of my price range at this time. I'll order the Axiom QS8's and while I wait for them, continue my search for another pair of Infinities.

You've been a great resource and I thank you again!


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeanCJ* /forum/post/16021761
> 
> 
> Great advice!
> 
> I've priced the Niles and unfortunately, they are way out of my price range at this time. I'll order the Axiom QS8's and while I wait for them, continue my search for another pair of Infinities.
> 
> You've been a great resource and I thank you again!



No worries.


No big loss, not getting the Niles.


I've tweaked a few small things in the above post, so maybe read it again.


Let us know how you go.... and send some pics of your room sometime!


----------



## SeanCJ

Placed the order for 4 QS8's! Should be here next Wednesday.

I've been told by the sales rep to rest assured that these speakers will fill my large room without question. Fingers are crossed!

Thanks again all for the advice and experiences.

I'll post when I get them and test them out!


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Great!


PS: What made you get rid of the Klipsch surrounds?


----------



## SeanCJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/16022239
> 
> 
> Great!
> 
> 
> PS: What made you get rid of the Klipsch surrounds?



Never had Klipsch surrounds. Don't like the look or price of the RS 62's and couldn't afford the KS-525 THX Ultra 2 surrounds.

Maybe some day I can find a used set of the Ultra 2 surrounds and have the complete Ultra 2 set up, but if the Axioms sound as good as everyone is reporting, there will be no need to look any further.


----------



## GregLee

Very interesting thread, but this puzzles me: when I see people talking about comparing dipole vs bipole vs monopole by switching speaker modes, I don't see anything about setting up the receiver with different equalizations for the different speaker modes. I'd think it would be important to do that.


----------



## djgcue

I just purchased Paradigm ADP-590 v.5 to complete my 7.1 speaker set-up.


Could anyone please tell me how you mounted your dipoles/bipoles onto the wall? For example: 1. did you screw/nail into a stud? 2. did you use anchors or 3. did you screw/nail into bare dry wall?


The stud I found will only fit one of the two screws from the mounting bracket.

I'm worried that only one screw supported by a stud will not hold the 17.5 lbs. weight of the ADP-590s.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djgcue* /forum/post/16023732
> 
> 
> I just purchased Paradigm ADP-590 v.5 to complete my 7.1 speaker set-up.
> 
> 
> Could anyone please tell me how you mounted your dipoles/bipoles onto the wall? For example: 1. did you screw/nail into a stud? 2. did you use anchors or 3. did you screw/nail into bare dry wallhttp:// www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=16023732 ?
> 
> 
> The stud I found will only fit one of the two screws from the mounting bracket.
> 
> I'm worried that only one screw supported by a stud will not hold the 17.5 lbs. weight of the ADP-590s.



Best bet is to contact Paradigm directly. They're usually very quick to respond.

(But put "URGENT!!" in the subject line, anyway...)


----------



## Warpdrv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djgcue* /forum/post/16023732
> 
> 
> I just purchased Paradigm ADP-590 v.5 to complete my 7.1 speaker set-up.
> 
> 
> Could anyone please tell me how you mounted your dipoles/bipoles onto the wall? For example: 1. did you screw/nail into a stud? 2. did you use anchors or 3. did you screw/nail into bare dry wall?
> 
> 
> The stud I found will only fit one of the two screws from the mounting bracket.
> 
> I'm worried that only one screw supported by a stud will not hold the 17.5 lbs. weight of the ADP-590s.




No need to contact Paradigm.... I only caught 1 stud with my ADP's and the other hole you can either use something like this...



#1







or you can use this... #2










I used the #1 for the ADP. I used 4 of the #2 to hold up a metal wine rack that holds 10 bottles of wine... They work just fine... either one...


----------



## djgcue




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warpdrv* /forum/post/16024671
> 
> 
> No need to contact Paradigm.... I only caught 1 stud with my ADP's and the other hole you can either use something like this...
> 
> 
> 
> #1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or you can use this... #2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used the #1 for the ADP. I used 4 of the #2 to hold up a metal wine rack that holds 10 bottles of wine... They work just fine... either one...



Thanks! Yeah, I going for #1 too.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeanCJ* /forum/post/16022150
> 
> 
> Placed the order for 4 QS8's! Should be here next Wednesday.
> 
> I've been told by the sales rep to rest assured that these speakers will fill my large room without question. Fingers are crossed!
> 
> Thanks again all for the advice and experiences.
> 
> I'll post when I get them and test them out!



Sean! Howzit going !


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Is everything alright?


How did you go with the QS8's?


----------



## mrtbig

I am setting a new home theater in a spare bedroom and would like some input on a speaker decision.


I have PMC DB1+ across the front. I am considering getting the Axiom QS8's as side surrounds and I have 2 in ceiling speakers for the rears for 7.1.


I was also maybe considering getting the PMC GB1's for the front and moving my DB1's to the side surrounds.


Would like input on which way might be the best?


----------



## grunt11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrtbig* /forum/post/16395912
> 
> 
> I am setting a new home theater in a spare bedroom and would like some input on a speaker decision.
> 
> 
> I have PMC DB1+ across the front. I am considering getting the Axiom QS8's as side surrounds and I have 2 in ceiling speakers for the rears for 7.1.
> 
> 
> I was also maybe considering getting the PMC GB1's for the front and moving my DB1's to the side surrounds.
> 
> 
> Would like input on which way might be the best?



My first suggestion is that if you are willing to risk eating a $30.00 return shipping (Axioms estimated cost to return 2 surrounds) then order them for a 30 day trial. This is the only real way you will know if you will like the way they integrate with your other speakers and room.


Otherwise it boils down to a few things. Your preference between multi-polar surround vs direct radiating surround speakers. Whether tonal differences between your main, surround and rear speakers bothers you (most people notice this more with music than movies). Also how much do you want to upgrade your front speakers since if you go that route you might as well give the DB1+s a shot as surrounds and see how you like them.


I use QS8s for surrounds and love them. They can be both enveloping and directional as needed. I've found that using them as surrounds they are so good that when I added rear speakers for 7.1 the improvement was marginal at best.


Cheers,

Dean


----------



## deepstang

Electric_Haggis...great thread!! It is interesting how in 2007 when this thread was on fire, (1) although bipole and dipole was defined, half the posters used the term bipole and dipole interchangeably, (2) I felt that it was not really clarified or recommended to use bipoles on a rear wall (especially if seating is close to the rear wall) and dipoles on side walls. If I am not mistaken, that is what a lot (if not most) AVS members currently recommend. Actually, a lot of the suggestions that were made was to use dipoles on the side and back postions.


To clarify, I want to bring up the specific (and common) scenario of when the main seating postion is along or close to the back wall of the listening room/area. The advice that I have heard that it is best to have a 5.1 set-up and use BIPOLE speakers positioned wide on the back wall, 2 feet above the listening plane. If dipoles were used on the back wall the sweet spot would be small and more than likely the listener would be sitting in a null.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deepstang* /forum/post/16931045
> 
> 
> Electric_Haggis...great thread!! It is interesting how in 2007 when this thread was on fire, (1) although bipole and dipole was defined, half the posters used the term bipole and dipole interchangeably, (2) I felt that it was not really clarified or recommended to use bipoles on a rear wall (especially if seating is close to the rear wall) and dipoles on side walls. If I am not mistaken, that is what a lot (if not most) AVS members currently recommend. Actually, a lot of the suggestions that were made was to use dipoles on the side and back postions.
> 
> 
> To clarify, I want to bring up the specific (and common) scenario of when the main seating postion is along or close to the back wall of the listening room/area. The advice that I have heard that it is best to have a 5.1 set-up and use BIPOLE speakers positioned wide on the back wall, 2 feet above the listening plane. If dipoles were used on the back wall the sweet spot would be small and more than likely the listener would be sitting in a null.



Further back, I posted a pic of the 7.0 setup in my old place.


If you click on my signature, you'll see that the new place pretty much fits your description.


I've gone through many different types of surround setups over the ages - dipole, bipole, towers, bookshelves and combos of each. Nine times out of ten, a 7.0/7.1 setup with bipoles/quadpoles on the back wall, and bipoles, quadpoles or dipoles on the side walls is the way to go.


If my side walls permitted it, ideally I'd cram in a pair of either Axiom QS8s, or Paradigm ADP-190's.

Alas, they won't quite fit. But I'm getting surprisingly good results running the Infinity ES250's in dual-monopole, with some bounce off the side wall/window helping somewhat.


If you can't accommodate speakers on the side walls, then I'd strongly suggest you either do what I'm doing, or even better - have 4 separate speakers along the back wall (the Axioms would probably be the best for this).


Dipoles are a little finicky about where you place them and where you sit.

If you can't place them on either side of you and consistently be able to sit in the null-zone, then most of their benefit is lost, and you can often end up with "phasey" sound and less spaciousness.


At any rate, the common problem with dipoles is when the woofers also run out of phase, resulting in compromised bass. So if you do use dipoles, make sure they're something like the Paradigms, which only run the tweeters out of phase.


I'm usually finding that matching quadpoles or bipoles are better for the sides unless you're forced to sit uncomfortably close, in which case dipoles can help.

It really is a try-before-you-buy situation...


----------



## deepstang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudman* /forum/post/11028856
> 
> 
> 
> What was interesting is that a small monopole was clearly second to one with a large woofer. So much so that placing large fullrange floorstanders in place of monopole surrounds were often preferred. This indicates much support for an Axiom QS8 type speaker. A large woofer area that moves more air than standard small surrounds is definitely preferred.



Rudman, thanks for taking the time to share you experiences as they are very valuable!!


As you have said, room dynamics largely dicatate surround dynamics. Like many people, my listening room is a family room where the main seating/listening area is against a back wall. With this type of set-up, I think I have decided that I will stay with a 5.1 set-up for now vs a 7.1.


With your concepts in place it seems that bipoles on the back wall, at least 2 feet above the listener's ear and spaced as wide as possible may be my best option..right? Here is a room pic of my OLD sofa and set-up:










Here is the new sectional. The MAIN seating area is only against the back wall.


















From what I understand, you picked monopoles in situation due to its potential to perform down to 80hz. I agree that it is probably hard for speakers with dual drivers in a small enclosure to perform those frequencies; however, there are a few good single driver bipole/dipole speakers. A couple of examlpes include the Energy RC-R , Energy C-R-100 , and the Polk Fxi-A6 . I was thinking of something along the lines of the Polk Fxi-A6 because that steep angle would seen to create a little more envelopment, and the opposing tweeter may create a diffuse effect from wall/room reflection. Also cool that the tweeter alone can be used in a dipole configuration...with out an opposing driver fighting for airspace.


----------



## fireman325

Deepstang, my experience sounds like it's almost identical to yours. What I found to provide great results are bipoles high and wide on the back wall for a 5.1 setup. Doing the same should produce a great surround field. Also, my Klipsch bipoles have no problem playing down to 80 Hz. You can pics at the link in my sig.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Agreed.


But if you only want 2 speakers on that rear wall, have a very good think going 7.1 using dual-monopoles like the ones JBL or Infinity make. (The Infinity BETA series have now been superseded with the Classia, which are very easy on the eye.)


Both brands use dual 5-inch woofers - better in many ways than a single 6.5-inch, especially when it's facing away from you.


My two Infinity ES-250 's are rated down to 60Hz (-3dB).

In two different rooms, I've tried them as Large, and then Small, with the crossover set to 80,100,120 and 150Hz.


Obviously, the higher I set the crossover, the less bass they generated.


But in the end I went with 120 or 150Hz.

Why?


As a previous poster said, it's all very room-dependant.

In my case, I found the bass was a lot cleaner, smoother and tighter when the surrounds weren't putting out the lower frequencies (and that was with a serious power amp driving them).


Two things to remember:

1. Deeper bass from wall-mounted speakers can often be an ugly thing to hear.

2. I've yet to hear a single deep-bass surround effect, and I've yet to speak to one sound-mixer who uses them!


----------



## davehale

Rear in walls,

Just found this thread.

After referencing all the links, the experts determine di poles where the most usefull with blind testing. You on the other hand are saying bi/monopoles - and you have expeienced all types. Anyway I will be going 5.1 in a small room with my seating position on the couch right at the back wall. I cannot use side walls so it must be in walls on the back wall. Since I have never had 5.1 and will use movies 70% and music 30% I believe di poles would be best. Will I need pivoting tweeters. I am worried about the null area but the experts say the bounce back from the front wall covers the null area. Would I be wrong with this di pole arrangement as I have a very small room.

Dave


----------



## deepstang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davehale* /forum/post/17009015
> 
> 
> Rear in walls,
> 
> Just found this thread.
> 
> After referencing all the links, the experts determine di poles where the most usefull with blind testing. You on the other hand are saying bi/monopoles - and you have expeienced all types. Anyway I will be going 5.1 in a small room with my seating position on the couch right at the back wall. I cannot use side walls so it must be in walls on the back wall. Since I have never had 5.1 and will use movies 70% and music 30% I believe di poles would be best. Will I need pivoting tweeters. I am worried about the null area but the experts say the bounce back from the front wall covers the null area. Would I be wrong with this di pole arrangement as I have a very small room.
> 
> Dave



From what I have been reading from AVS members, a general rule of thumb is when placing a speaker on the back wall it is better to use bipoles. If you use dipoles and the seating position is against the same wall of the speaker, the listener will be sitting in the null. If you ARE mounting them on the side wall, than dipoles will produce a nice effect where the listener will not be in the null. I know I have read great info from Fireman325 in the past on this subject area.


----------



## deepstang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/17007764
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> But if you only want 2 speakers on that rear wall, have a very good think going 7.1 using dual-monopoles like the ones JBL or Infinity make. (The Infinity BETA series have now been superseded with the Classia, which are very easy on the eye.)
> 
> 
> Both brands use dual 5-inch woofers - better in many ways than a single 6.5-inch, especially when it's facing away from you.
> 
> 
> My two Infinity ES-250 's are rated down to 60Hz (-3dB).
> 
> In two different rooms, I've tried them as Large, and then Small, with the crossover set to 80,100,120 and 150Hz.
> 
> 
> Obviously, the higher I set the crossover, the less bass they generated.
> 
> 
> But in the end I went with 120 or 150Hz.
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> As a previous poster said, it's all very room-dependant.
> 
> In my case, I found the bass was a lot cleaner, smoother and tighter when the surrounds weren't putting out the lower frequencies (and that was with a serious power amp driving them).
> 
> 
> Two things to remember:
> 
> 1. Deeper bass from wall-mounted speakers can often be an ugly thing to hear.
> 
> 2. I've yet to hear a single deep-bass surround effect, and I've yet to speak to one sound-mixer who uses them!



Audyssey rates my current JBL in-wall surrounds at Full Range. I think they can handle 80 Hz and higher ok, so that is where I have them crossed. IMO, I have noticed that some of the newer movies incorporate lower frequencies in the surrounds. It seems to keep better continuity in sound when items transition from front to back or vice-versa. A couple of quick examples is the thunder rolling in the beginning of "300", where it seems that the surrounds are intended to reproduce the deep rolling thunder sound. Also, in Spider-Man 3, where the sandman is in the garbage disintegrator.when the machine is spinning, the low frequencies from the machine is meant to do a 360 around the listener.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deepstang* /forum/post/17009724
> 
> 
> From what I have been reading from AVS members, a general rule of thumb is when placing a speaker on the back wall it is better to use bipoles. If you use dipoles and the seating position is against the same wall of the speaker, the listener will be sitting in the null. If you ARE mounting them on the side wall, than dipoles will produce a nice effect where the listener will not be in the null. I know I have read great info from Fireman325 in the past on this subject area.



Agreed again.


Davehale, could you copy some links to those articles?

I think you'll find the "experts" preferred dipoles only at the side positions, and when seated in the null.


If you can go to a shop and have a listen for yourself, it may be helpful.


Personally, if I were you I'd be playing it safe and getting speakers that can be _switched_ between dipole and bipole (and preferably dual-monopole).

It's very, very hard to be sure until you've got them into your own room.


JBL, Infinity and Monitor Audio make switchables. *(Can anyone suggest others?)*


If you m_ust_ get dipole-only, Paradigm ADP's have the edge as the woofers aren't out of phase. *(Any other brands do this?)*


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deepstang* /forum/post/17009772
> 
> 
> Audyssey rates my current JBL in-wall surrounds at Full Range. I think they can handle 80 Hz and higher ok, so that is where I have them crossed. IMO, I have noticed that some of the newer movies incorporate lower frequencies in the surrounds. It seems to keep better continuity in sound when items transition from front to back or vice-versa. A couple of quick examples is the thunder rolling in the beginning of "300", where it seems that the surrounds are intended to reproduce the deep rolling thunder sound. Also, in Spider-Man 3, where the sandman is in the garbage disintegrator.when the machine is spinning, the low frequencies from the machine is meant to do a 360 around the listener.



Cheers - I'll have to check them out sometime. Let me know if you think of others.


At any rate, with my particular room, it still isn't worth the extra booming & resonance issues to have the surrounds putting out the lower frequencies.


But as I've recently put in a couple of bass traps, I may have another go...


----------



## deepstang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/17009989
> 
> 
> 
> JBL, Infinity and Monitor Audio make switchables. *(Can anyone suggest others?)*
> 
> 
> If you m_ust_ get dipole-only, Paradigm ADP's have the edge as the woofers aren't out of phase. *(Any other brands do this?)*




Mr. E_Haggis, first, I want to thank you for being so kind and helpful with all this GREAT info!!


I want to also add the Polk Fxi-A6 and the Energy RC-R to the list of surrounds that have switches that can be toggled between bipole and dipole. I posted links to those speakers a few posts up. It is kind of cool how the Polk has the angled single driver, but with 2 tweeters that can be toggled between bipole and dipole. I agree that dipoples with 2 larger drivers struggle (due to out of phase competition) with lower frequency accuracy and reproduction.


----------



## davehale

The very first post with the very first link, Home Theater says all the tests were the best for di poles on the rear wall- unless I am interpreting the article wrong. I am ready to buy but will wait for some of your responses. I may try the audition route as suggested

Dave


----------



## davehale

OK, Now that I read the whole thread, for my 5.1 rear speakers I-

A forget about Dipoles

B Use bipoles

When a jet plane flys from front to rear I dont want the plane going into the twilight zone

C 3/4 monopoles?

If A then place speakers 3 to 5 feet above listener spread well apart on rear wall. I cannot use side wall as my room is only 14 feet at the rear wall.

For musis I will stay with 2 channel hi rez

Now I do want a clean diffuse movie like sound so what are a few suggestions? No one has mentioned Speakercraft, Def Tech in walls if so which ones?

Dave


----------



## filecat13

My smallish (2,250 cu. ft.) dedicated HT has had both direct and Bipole surrounds in it. The Bipoles are in the permanent installation.


I've got four of the JLB Synthesis® S4Ai THX units. Yes, boo-hoo they're THX-certified. They're also switchable to Dipole, Direct, and Dual Drive configuration. They're also in small enclosures containing six drivers. Let's see, any other deficits--ah, they're in-walls that can also be mounted on-wall.


In a properly set up room, they sound fantastic. The judicious placement of diffusers helps a lot, as does the fact that the 8" anodized woofer and one of the three Ti tweeters sends sound direct into the room.


Thus, when Legolas shoots arrows over your head, they whiz over your head and zing behind you until they thump into an Orc.


----------



## deepstang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davehale* /forum/post/17010734
> 
> 
> The very first post with the very first link, Home Theater says all the tests were the best for di poles on the rear wall- unless I am interpreting the article wrong. I am ready to buy but will wait for some of your responses. I may try the audition route as suggested
> 
> Dave



Dave, I am glad that you brought that up b/c when I re-read through this whole thread I had the same questions in the beginning. As I read the entire thread I realized that most of those questions (such as using dipoles or bipoles on the back wall) were answered. It is cool how technology keeps advancing, and as such we need to change our thought/concept process.


To answer your next post, I must first admit that I am just reciting things that I have read. I currently have in-wall monopoles positioned high (look at my pics above) that do a decent job as my rear surrounds. From what I have read and discussed I have decided on bipoles on my rear wall because I feel that it will help to create a wide and diffuse sound, but will still be relatively directional and accurate.


With the advent of all the new audio codecs, I agree with you in that it is not just ambient sounds that come from the rear surrounds but specific information that is meant to create the intended effect. That is why you probably saw dipoles recommended in most situations in the beginning of the thread. IMO, I think the whole concept of how content should be reproduced by the surrounds was in a transitional period (in the minds of audiophiles) due to the non-directional and non content specific use of surrounds 20 years ago.


----------



## fireman325

When you're using dipole speakers, you are meant to sit in their "null" area so you receive the proper effect. The only way this is really possible is to use them on the side walls. This is why dipoles are position sensitive. That's not to say that putting them on the back wall won't produce results you find pleasing, but remember when you're not in the null area you're getting sound more directly from one side or the other of a dipole, rather than the out of phase sound waves converging in the null area. For all practical purposes, when this is happening, you might as well be using monopoles or bipoles.


Bipoles, on the other hand, are essentially two monopole speakers in one housing firing out in multiple directions to create a wide sound field. As a result there is no null area, and they are very forgiving when it comes to placement. This is why they work well on side walls or the rear wall.


----------



## JChin

Can one dipole or bipole be use in a 5.1 or 7.1 setp? Or do a pair has to be use in the setup?


----------



## fireman325




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JChin* /forum/post/17012789
> 
> 
> Can one dipole or bipole be use in a 5.1 or 7.1 setp? Or do a pair has to be use in the setup?



You need one pair for 5.1 and two pair for 7.1. I think there are some out there that have double monopole connections, but you would still need more than one so you could place them appropriately.


----------



## JChin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fireman325* /forum/post/17012933
> 
> 
> You need one pair for 5.1 and two pair for 7.1. I think there are some out there that have double monopole connections, but you would still need more than one so you could place them appropriately.



Thanks for the information.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JChin* /forum/post/17012789
> 
> 
> Can one dipole or bipole be use in a 5.1 or 7.1 setp? Or do a pair has to be use in the setup?



A single bipole/dipole would give you 4.1, with a mono surround.


If you were to use a single dual-monopole, you could get away with that.

But the two surround channels would be awfully close together. Ideally, you'd need to be sitting very close to the rear wall, with each channel reflecting quite a lot of the side walls.

*For the record, this is a compact way of getting 7.1 with just three surround speakers (as long as one also has speakers on the side walls).*



Click on my signature to see my dual-monopole setup....


----------



## davehale

I spent years wondering about proper placement and types. Now I understand that I need bipoles (switchable if possible).

Next question- I have Kef Reference 201/2 bookshelf fronts. I read somewhere else that If I have metal tweeters in front I should have metal tweeters in rear. My fronts are 1 in. titanium. Would really any metal do such as aluminum or is there a proper tweeter so that there would be little imbalance from front to rear in my 5.1.system? As you notice I am a quick learner. I am thinking (2) 5.5 in.opposing woofers and 1 or 2?? tweeters for each of my my rear speakers

Dave


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davehale* /forum/post/17015393
> 
> 
> I spent years wondering about proper placement and types. Now I understand that I need bipoles (switchable if possible).
> 
> Next question- I have Kef Reference 201/2 bookshelf fronts. I read somewhere else that If I have metal tweeters in front I should have metal tweeters in rear. My fronts are 1 in. titanium. Would really any metal do such as aluminum or is there a proper tweeter so that there would be little imbalance from front to rear in my 5.1.system? As you notice I am a quick learner. I am thinking (2) 5.5 in.opposing woofers and 1 or 2?? tweeters for each of my my rear speakers
> 
> Dave



Well in principal, one should always get as close a match as possible to the fronts.


In practice, however, you're dealing with areas of the room that sound _completely_ different, with speakers that will be placed very differently to the fronts.


There are metal tweeters and metal tweeters of course, and the voicing and crossover of the speakers will be different as well.


Personally, I wouldn't be too fussed, unless perhaps I had horns at the front.


For what it's worth, in the past I've used same-brand tower speakers for surrounds with nearly identical voicing and tweeters as my fronts.

But these days I have no problems at all mixing brands, so long as the overall tonality and quality is similar.


If you have Audyssey, this will EQ for the differences as well.


By the way, have you looked at Monitor Audio BFX and RSFX surrounds?
http://www.monitoraudiousa.com/produ...x/your-speaker 
http://www.monitoraudiousa.com/produ...x/your-speaker


----------



## nybroker

Was wondering if you can place 5.1 setup rear speakers on the back wall. This is where the 7.1 speakers normally would go. I ask this because I have an open room with no wall on the left side and the right side is a window.


The only other option it to place them on stands or on the window sill and table on left side


Any thoughts


----------



## davehale

I would prefer in walls such as the Def tech UIW bpz/a. They show up on Ebay occasionally for $400 a pair. I woul have bought them then if I knew then I needed bipolars unfortunately I was waiting for dipolars.


----------



## fireman325




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nybroker* /forum/post/17016699
> 
> 
> Was wondering if you can place 5.1 setup rear speakers on the back wall. This is where the 7.1 speakers normally would go. I ask this because I have an open room with no wall on the left side and the right side is a window.
> 
> 
> The only other option it to place them on stands or on the window sill and table on left side
> 
> 
> Any thoughts



Yes you can put them on the rear wall. Try to place them a couple of feet above ear level.


How far behind your seating area is the rear wall?


----------



## Zeta09

I have enjoyed this thread.


I am considering some of the points here in finishing my 5.1 HT setup.


I have a Family Room that is acoustically challenged as the actual viewing/seating area is 13 X 15 x 10 (ceiling) but the back of the couch opens to the kitchen and the room/area is asymmetrical as one side opens to the walkways to the living room/bedrooms. Regardless of all that the speaker lines where the speakers will be placed are roughly 30 degrees behind and ~8' above the listeners ear (10' from the floor). Can't place the speakers directly to the side of the listeners ear(s) as one side has an arcadia door/glass and the other side is a light switch/corner turn (architectural feature of the house)


In any case I guess I am leaning ever more with the bi/dipole camp and am interested in those Axiom QS8s' My home is prewired and I wanted to throw those bad-boys on the ceiling for my surrounds.


I have Def Techs Mythos STs for fronts and M10 center powered by an Onkyo 906. My SVS PC-13 sub is on it's way and I might go with a two sub setup so the lows will be well taken care of.


Asking the gurus for advice on this setup and if the Axioms or JBLs (or Def Tech's UIW bipolar) ON the ceiling is a plausible setup


----------



## mike2060

Axiom does have ceiling mounts available so that wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davehale* /forum/post/17016839
> 
> 
> I would prefer in walls such as the Def tech UIW bpz/a. They show up on Ebay occasionally for $400 a pair. I woul have bought them then if I knew then I needed bipolars unfortunately I was waiting for dipolars.



If you're after in-walls, then they look excellent. The 6.5" woofers and deep response hold a lot of promise.


Let us know how you go!


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zeta09* /forum/post/17018040
> 
> 
> I have enjoyed this thread.
> 
> 
> I am considering some of the points here in finishing my 5.1 HT setup.
> 
> 
> I have a Family Room that is acoustically challenged as the actual viewing/seating area is 13 X 15 x 10 (ceiling) but the back of the couch opens to the kitchen and the room/area is asymmetrical as one side opens to the walkways to the living room/bedrooms. Regardless of all that the speaker lines where the speakers will be placed are roughly 30 degrees behind and ~8' above the listeners ear (10' from the floor). Can't place the speakers directly to the side of the listeners ear(s) as one side has an arcadia door/glass and the other side is a light switch/corner turn (architectural feature of the house)
> 
> 
> In any case I guess I am leaning ever more with the bi/dipole camp and am interested in those Axiom QS8s' My home is prewired and I wanted to throw those bad-boys on the ceiling for my surrounds.
> 
> 
> I have Def Techs Mythos STs for fronts and M10 center powered by an Onkyo 906. My SVS PC-13 sub is on it's way and I might go with a two sub setup so the lows will be well taken care of.
> 
> 
> Asking the gurus for advice on this setup and if the Axioms or JBLs (or Def Tech's UIW bipolar) ON the ceiling is a plausible setup



Well in your setup, you could do a lot worse than putting surrounds like these on the ceiling.

By all accounts, the Axioms seem worth a try, especially with their money-back guarantee.


But being a 7-channel fan, I'd be going for dual-monopoles any day.

If ceiling-mounting them, I'd fire the rear channels against the back wall. That should work nicely.


----------



## deepstang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nybroker* /forum/post/17016699
> 
> 
> Was wondering if you can place 5.1 setup rear speakers on the back wall. This is where the 7.1 speakers normally would go. I ask this because I have an open room with no wall on the left side and the right side is a window.
> 
> 
> The only other option it to place them on stands or on the window sill and table on left side
> 
> 
> Any thoughts



I am so glad that you asked this question, because there are MANY people in this situation (including myself) where the listening area is against the back wall. You bring up a GREAT point in that DOLBY and THX recommends the SURROUND speakers almost to the side of the listener, and the REAR surround to the back. I agree that in this described room layout it seems that speakers mounted on the rear wall may be the easiest and most room friendly.


I would LOVE to hear input from you all, but this is the exact scenario I have been brain storming about. My best idea, and ultimate comprimise for this type of room layout is using BIPOLE as the surrounds. First of all, I think those surrounds should be designed like the Klipsch RS-62 , where the driver and tweeter is mounted on a steep angle on a triangle (or trapezoid) shaped box. That speaker should than be mounted AT LEAST 2 feet above the listener and placed very wide almost to the corner. The inside driver/tweeter would be at almost that side position that I talked about above. In addition, the other driver/tweeter would fire towards the side wall causing reflection. In theory that reflection would create a wider and more believable surround field. I think that is important, because THERE IS a large gap between the front LCR and these surround speakers. I recommend bipoles in this application because the speaker would be mouted on/near the back wall, and perhaps the reflection may cause the slightly out of phase effect where dipoles supposedly have their benifit. You also won't encounter the potential loss in lower freqency response that are somewhat inheriant with dual driver dipoles.


Notice that I did not recommend that tweeter-driver-tweeter surround design, because I think you may loose some of that side directionality (and wall reflection) that I was trying to create.

*Again, PLEASE comment on your thoughts of this idea for surround speakers in a back wall seated room layout.*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davehale* /forum/post/17016839
> 
> 
> I would prefer in walls such as the Def tech UIW bpz/a. They show up on Ebay occasionally for $400 a pair. I woul have bought them then if I knew then I needed bipolars unfortunately I was waiting for dipolars.



I am currently using my homes in-wall speaker as my surround speakers in my current 5.1 set-up. I actually kind of like (and get a lot of compliments) from those old JBL in-walls. They came with my used house and are actually 4 feet above the listener. I plan on adding those bipoles in the configuartion I described above and think that my rear wall mounted in-walls would be perfect for my REAR SURROUND speakers when I jump to 7.1. I have posted pics of my room several posts back. Companys like Speakercraft make bipole in-walls.


----------



## davehale

filecat

I want that whiz, zing and thump in proper order-LOL Why else would we want a 5.1. I just don't want to make a purchasing mistake.

In my small room, the consensus here so far is

(2) bipolars in rear wall, (sorry no on-wall)

opposing tweeters in each speaker if possible.

Now to slow down a little and backup, I could go 7.1 but

Here is my scenareo:

My 2 front very good stand mounted bookshelf speakers are 10 feet in front of me.

My rears will be 18 inches from the back wall to my ears

Question: does anyone think that I could go with side surrounds? They would be centerd above my side window L and R and would need to be laid lorizontally so as to clear my window and ceiling (10 in.) Keep in mind I must have in walss nor on walls

Dave


----------



## davehale

Sorry for the last post as I should be using my glasses. Nothing wrong with my hearing though - yet! It should read must have in walls not on-walls. I should also add the side walls if centered from front to rear would be at approx 4.6 ft equal distance from front speakers to my ears. Would this placement be correct or would the side surrounds be closer to my ears and further from my front speakers. If so, I take it equal distance dont matter.

Dave


----------



## Zeta09

Well I guess once again in my buying flurry it comes down to another showdown


The Paradigm ADP590s v. the Axiom QS8s for my surrounds.


Plenty of plugs for both online. Some of the Paradigms Pro reviews make me vomit. For the Axioms, like E.Haggis stated though it's hard to beat a 30 day MBG. Still I'd like to get the best option (as always right?)


Seems that the folks on other forums and places online promote same line of speakers due to timber balance and signal response but I had also read you can attempt to have the same driver material and things should work out.

-The STs are aluminum drivers

-the Paradigms are ferrofluid blah blah (WTF?!!!!????!!) snake oil, snakeleather housed die-cast blah blah (not trying to start flames but c'mon!!! In any case it's different from aluminum).

-The Axioms are Titanium.


Naturally the ADPs are almost double the cost MSRP. Don't know if we'll hear from Sean to see how his ADP's worked out. My main thing is are the ADPs and their in-phase bass THAT much better to justify the price? I had thought that surround speakers don't need to drive lower signals in most movies?


Why not go with the Def Tech surrounds? Well it seems that their offerings are Bipolar only and since, IF I am reading all these posts accurately it is best to have Bipolar speakers on each side of the listeners this is something I cannot do. Thus the dipole effect with my room acoustics and pre-wired lines may be the best option for me. Additionally, I have read the glorious reviews on the fronts and haven't heard to much clamoring about the rest of the Def Tech offerings.


Don't mind mixing and matching and have no quams with taking the time to do it right. This is my first HT though so I am hearing all this through rookie ears.


Again what do you guys think. Is there something I am missing? Thanks for the responses BTW.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Well hasn't this thread become popular!


Zeta, generally, bipoles are better than dipoles, especially when you're running 7.1 and have rear speakers to help spread the sound around.


Dipoles tend to come into their own if you're stuck a little closer to them than you'd like, and if you can reliably sit in the null area. This applies with 5.1 and 7.1.


Quadpolars like the Axioms have the advantage of being diffuse sounding while still in phase. Without having properly tested them, I'd give them the theoretical edge over both both dipoles and bipoles in most situations.


Again, I'm not sure why you wouldn't think about 7.1 with 2 dual-monopoles, like I'm doing. I'm stuck with only being able to have two speakers on the back wall, and I wouldn't have it any other way in my current room...... *except perhaps four QS8's along the back wall !*


But as always, it's very room dependent, and we haven't seen pics of your room and setup.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *davehale* /forum/post/17022038
> 
> 
> filecat
> 
> I want that whiz, zing and thump in proper order-LOL Why else would we want a 5.1. I just don't want to make a purchasing mistake.
> 
> In my small room, the consensus here so far is
> 
> (2) bipolars in rear wall, (sorry no on-wall)
> 
> opposing tweeters in each speaker if possible.
> 
> Now to slow down a little and backup, I could go 7.1 but
> 
> Here is my scenareo:
> 
> My 2 front very good stand mounted bookshelf speakers are 10 feet in front of me.
> 
> My rears will be 18 inches from the back wall to my ears
> 
> Question: does anyone think that I could go with side surrounds? They would be centerd above my side window L and R and would need to be laid lorizontally so as to clear my window and ceiling (10 in.) Keep in mind I must have in walss nor on walls
> 
> Dave



Given you want in-walls, I'd do this...


* Go 7.1.

* Put in the Def Tech bipoles at the rear, as far out and away as you can. (Pictures?)

* Put in two more of these on the side walls (laid horizontally), as low down as you can get away with, to either side of the seating area.

* Live happily ever after.


----------



## grunt11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zeta09* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> IF I am reading all these posts accurately it is best to have Bipolar speakers on each side of the listeners this is something I cannot do. Thus the dipole effect with my room acoustics and pre-wired lines may be the best option for me.



Why can't use bipolar speakers?


Just to clarify I think the QS8s are technically bipolar because all 4 drivers are in phase. However, their design does give them a more diffuse sound than other bipolar speakers IMO.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zeta09* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The Paradigm ADP590s v. the Axiom QS8s for my surrounds.



You might also consider the Emotiva ERD-1 if you can live with black speakers. They are selectable between bipolar and dipolar and have been compared favorably to the QS8s though there are very few reviews of them.


I believe Axiom charges $15 each return shipping on surround speakers so if you do want to do it right see if you can't get a hold of a set of each and demo them in your room returning the looser.


If you want, contact me over at the Axiom forum (username=grunt) if you want to give the QS8s a listen. I live over in Avondale and I've got a pair of QS8s sitting idle as I'm only using 5.1 right now. Might be able to arrange to bring them over to your place for a demo if you wish. Though spending some time A/B comparing your choices over time would really be best.


Cheers,

Dean


----------



## deepstang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *grunt11* /forum/post/17024792
> 
> 
> You might also consider the Emotiva ERD-1 if you can live with black speakers. They are selectable between bipolar and dipolar and have been compared favorably to the QS8s though there are very few reviews of them.



+1. I have never heard the Emotivas; however, they get some strong positive reviews (for surrounds) here on AVS. I have also read posts where people were not impressed with the QS8s and thought they were over rated. Of course everything in life will have its fans and critics; however, I have not seen the ERD-1s mentioned here much. The only thing that kept me from getting them is that they are 4ohms (my receiver can only handle 8ohms), and they are the tweeter-driver-tweeter design (I was trying to go with a more traditional bipole).


----------



## fireman325




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deepstang* /forum/post/17018887
> 
> 
> I am so glad that you asked this question, because there are MANY people in this situation (including myself) where the listening area is against the back wall. You bring up a GREAT point in that DOLBY and THX recommends the SURROUND speakers almost to the side of the listener, and the REAR surround to the back. I agree that in this described room layout it seems that speakers mounted on the rear wall may be the easiest and most room friendly.
> 
> 
> I would LOVE to hear input from you all, but this is the exact scenario I have been brain storming about. *My best idea, and ultimate comprimise for this type of room layout is using BIPOLE as the surrounds. First of all, I think those surrounds should be designed like the Klipsch RS-62 , where the driver and tweeter is mounted on a steep angle on a triangle (or trapezoid) shaped box. That speaker should than be mounted AT LEAST 2 feet above the listener and placed very wide almost to the corner. The inside driver/tweeter would be at almost that side position that I talked about above. In addition, the other driver/tweeter would fire towards the side wall causing reflection. In theory that reflection would create a wider and more believable surround field.* I think that is important, because THERE IS a large gap between the front LCR and these surround speakers. I recommend bipoles in this application because the speaker would be mouted on/near the back wall, and perhaps the reflection may cause the slightly out of phase effect where dipoles supposedly have their benifit. You also won't encounter the potential loss in lower freqency response that are somewhat inheriant with dual driver dipoles.



You described my setup almost exactly, right down the the model of surround speaker I use. IMO it works VERY well. I'm very pleased with the results I get from this setup. The sound field is wide and spacious and I have no complaints at all. If you want to see pics, click on the link in my sig.


----------



## deepstang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fireman325* /forum/post/17025340
> 
> 
> You described my setup almost exactly, right down the the model of surround speaker I use. IMO it works VERY well. I'm very pleased with the results I get from this setup. The sound field is wide and spacious and I have no complaints at all. If you want to see pics, click on the link in my sig.




Haha! Awesome! Fireman, you may be able to answer a few questions I had because it seems that your scenario will be very similar to mine....all the way down to your Onkyo 605 and possible MFW-15. I think that the surround in the corner is exactly what I was aiming for; however, the other surround is not firing next to a wall and into a more open space(much like my set-up).


(1) Is the surround field uneven due to strong reflection from one side, and not as much reflection from the other?


(2) Also, with the somewhat direct nature of Klipsch (and bipoles), can you localize the position of the surround speaker when listening??


(3) How did Onkyo dial in your surrounds? What frequency and level were they set to?


Thanks!!


----------



## fireman325




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deepstang* /forum/post/17025478
> 
> 
> Haha! Awesome! Fireman, you may be able to answer a few questions I had because it seems that your scenario will be very similar to mine....all the way down to your Onkyo 605 and possible MFW-15. I think that the surround in the corner is exactly what I was aiming for; however, the other surround is not firing next to a wall and into a more open space(much like my set-up).
> 
> 
> (1) Is the surround field uneven due to strong reflection from one side, and not as much reflection from the other?
> 
> 
> (2) Also, with the somewhat direct nature of Klipsch (and bipoles), can you localize the position of the surround speaker when listening??
> 
> 
> (3) How did Onkyo dial in your surrounds? What frequency and level were they set to?
> 
> 
> Thanks!!



IMO there's not a whole lot of difference between the left and right surround. I tried to intentionally pull the left one away from the corner as much as I could without getting too close to the sofa because as you pointed out the right one isn't in a corner. When I play the test tone from the receiver, the sound has a little different characteristic between the two surround, due most likely to one being in a corner. In real world movie watching, I can't tell a difference. While watching movies I never get the distracting feeling that I could point directly at either surround speaker without looking at it, but sounds that are supposed to be directional still are. I hope that makes sense, but I'm not sure if that answers your question or not. If you need further clarification just say so.


Audyssey set one of the surrounds 1 Db lower than the other (one at -1 and the other at -2, I don't remember for sure which was which), but I bumped them both up to 0 because I like plenty of surround sound in action movies, and IMO they're very very close volume-wise. It also set everything to full band, but I changed everything to 80 Hz, and LPF is set at 80 Hz. One day I'll get around to buying an SPL meter and getting them dialed in as good as possible. I'm hoping to upgrade my receiver to one of the new Pio Elite SC-27s in the next few months, and I'm curious how the MCACC will perform in comparison to Audyssey in the Onkyo. I guess it's not a fair comparison though, since the 605 uses the 2EQ instead of a "full" Audyssey setup.


Anyway, I hope this helps you out, but if you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

By the way, anyone in the market for in-wall or in-ceiling speakers should be aware that JBL and B&W both make dual-channel speakers with independant tweeters...

http://www.jbl.com/home/products/pro...at=ISP&ser=SPT 

http://www.bowers-wilkins.co.uk/display.aspx?infid=2062 

http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/display.aspx?infid=2056 



I'm sure there are other manufacturers doing this....?


----------



## Zeta09




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *grunt11* /forum/post/17024792
> 
> 
> Why can’t use bipolar speakers?



because....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zeta09* /forum/post/17018040
> 
> 
> Can't place the speakers directly to the side of the listeners ear(s) as one side has an arcadia door/glass and the other side is a light switch/corner turn (architectural feature of the house)





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/17024771
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not sure why you wouldn't think about 7.1 with 2 dual-monopoles, like I'm doing. I'm stuck with only being able to have two speakers on the back wall, and I wouldn't have it any other way in my current room...... except perhaps four QS8's along the back wall !



Remember E_H, I don't have a back wall. My family room opens right into our rather large Kitchen. So the "next" wall is the wall where the cabinets are....another ~15 ft back. Open concept and nice and spacious for living not great for acoustics. IF I had a dedicated room then I would do 7.1 but I just have the wiring for 5.1 so I'll have to go with the On (or In but not my preference) -ceiling speakers.


Leaning more and more towards the Axioms then....Still will post pics once it's all done and make a decision soon. I am still waiting to see if the Panny 65V10 will show up around me so I can take a look at it....


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Aha. Sorry, Zeta. Hard to keep track of everyone's rooms without pics.


Sounds like your best options are, from best to worst...


1. Two dual-monopoles (on _or_ in-wall), with the intention of laying two more wires in the future.


2. A pair of Axiom QS8's on the side walls or ceiling.


3. A pair of bipoles *in* the side walls or ceiling


----------



## Zeta09

Well.....


Finally have them up and everything balanced and setup. This is NOT the final version of my HT as I am STILL waiting for the Panny 65V10 that I have on order and once mounted and everything is moved to it's final resting place then I'll post pics.


Besides all that, The Axioms don't sound bad to me. I played with the EQ a bit had them set to 90Hz crossover. I guess to really tell the difference I would have to put up the Def Tech Gem XLs and/or the ADPs but with what I have I can say I don't mind them. I also would need a demo of what the "perfect" sound room/setup is as I am just ignorant to what that is at the moment.


For the acoustics of my family room/house I think I am pleased with them enough to keep them up there. But you never know......Thanks to everyone for the advice and interesting posts.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

G'day Zeta.


What interests me most about the Axioms is their supposed ability to be decent point-source speakers, yet magically diffuse when needs be.

What would you say about that?


The dual woofers firing up and down is an interesting twist, and what really sets them aprt from bipoles.

What sort of things do you notice as you move around the speakers while they're playing?


----------



## Zeta09

I guess


I would have to say at this point I don't feel comfortable speaking of their point source performance since I don't fully understand the difference. Don't misconstrue. I understand the concept (bread in pond analogy) but in my case I have the drivers facing toward the listeners ear.... .... for now. I did try to have them face the opposite way and felt it didn't seem diffuse just muffled. I may try it again though. I DID feel that I could ID where the sounds were coming from so in that case it seems I have set them up wrong but with different settings (PL II, Neo 6 Cinema, THX etc) I do feel that it does improve. I just have to play with it. I again don't have my final setup yet so once I do then I could truly give a more intelligent opinion.


The surround woofers are competent shall we say but I have a 46" SVS sub so again I am not as concerned about the surround woofers perfomance as the SVS can wholly handle all low frequency sound (and then some). I am hardly at a loss for low frequency sound and more would truly be overkill......so that means I just might get another sub....HEEHEHEHEEEEE!!!


I'll keep the information coming though once my setup is finalized.


----------



## deepstang

I watched U-571 on blu ray and was amazed at how hard that 10 year old movie works the surrounds!! There was definitely some low content being sent to the surrounds, because I have never heard my surrounds strain like that. Keep in mind that I have 8yr old in-walls that came with the house mounted on the rear wall 4 feet directly above (and right behind) the listener.


I have decided that since I can't place speakers on the side wall, I will get bipoles like:











Can someone recommend a speaker designed like this that can


(1) get to 80hz and yield a large/wide soundstage

(2) I don't want to spend more than $350 to $400

(3) Is a relatively effecient 8 ohm speaker/bipole


I don't want to get the Klipsch because they will be a bit too brite and too much of a mis-match for my AV123 mains.


----------



## sterryo

well here is my dilema.... i'm putting together a 9.2 system utulizing 11 speakers using both the new height and wide speakers. across the front sound stage there are 5 monopole identical speakers LR are 30 degrees off center and the Wides are another 30 degrees for a total 60 degrees off center. Also there will be timbre matched but smaller monopoles as height speakers at 45 degree off center and close to the ceiling. what i have left is a pair of monopoles( same as the heights ) and a pair of bi-poles.


My question is that since the Wides basically blend the fronts with sides as they sit between side and front ( the Wides are actually on the side walls to obtain the 60 degrees ), now opinions PLEASE, start with bi-poles as side surrounds and monopoles for back surrounds or monopoles for side surrounds and bi-poles for back. I'm thinking that the addition of the Wides will change the dynamics of the typical side surround ( I plan on the sides being mounted at 110 degrees and approx. 2 feet above the listeers ears )...

So guys what do you think?????


----------



## sterryo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sterryo* /forum/post/17242526
> 
> 
> well here is my dilema.... i'm putting together a 9.2 system utulizing 11 speakers using both the new height and wide speakers. across the front sound stage there are 5 monopole identical speakers LR are 30 degrees off center and the Wides are another 30 degrees for a total 60 degrees off center. Also there will be timbre matched but smaller monopoles as height speakers at 45 degree off center and close to the ceiling. what i have left is a pair of monopoles( same as the heights ) and a pair of bi-poles.
> 
> 
> My question is that since the Wides basically blend the fronts with sides as they sit between side and front ( the Wides are actually on the side walls to obtain the 60 degrees ), now opinions PLEASE, start with bi-poles as side surrounds and monopoles for back surrounds or monopoles for side surrounds and bi-poles for back. I'm thinking that the addition of the Wides will change the dynamics of the typical side surround ( I plan on the sides being mounted at 110 degrees and approx. 2 feet above the listeers ears )...
> 
> So guys what do you think?????



bump


----------



## deepstang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deepstang* /forum/post/17232010
> 
> 
> I watched U-571 on blu ray and was amazed at how hard that 10 year old movie works the surrounds!! There was definitely some low content being sent to the surrounds, because I have never heard my surrounds strain like that. Keep in mind that I have 8yr old in-walls that came with the house mounted on the rear wall 4 feet directly above (and right behind) the listener.
> 
> 
> I have decided that since I can't place speakers on the side wall, I will get bipoles like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone recommend a speaker designed like this that can
> 
> 
> (1) get to 80hz and yield a large/wide soundstage
> 
> (2) I don't want to spend more than $350 to $400
> 
> (3) Is a relatively effecient 8 ohm speaker/bipole
> 
> 
> I don't want to get the Klipsch because they will be a bit too brite and too much of a mis-match for my AV123 mains.



I can't believe that I have not seen this link before of Bipole/Dipole speakers







:

http://www.electronichouse.com/slide...egory/4476/727 


I am still open to suggestions, but that link is a GREAT resource for bipole/dipole options.


----------



## deepstang

I had an opportunity to listen to a pair of Infinity ES250 speakers.....which has been recommend here several times. IMO, they sounded pretty thin. Although it may be an unfair comparison, they had a pair of affordable Polk TSI-200 bookshelves with dual 5" drivers...and they blew the ES250 out of the water. I know it is unfair to A/B them, but the 5" driver from the ES250 really, IMO, could not perform. I tried the ES250 in bipole and monopole mode in the comprison. I am not sure if I believe that the ES250 can handle frequencies lower than 120 Hz, thus making explosions sound believable. I know the sub can handle lower frequencies; however, as I posted earlier I would prefer the surrounds to handle at least 100 Hz competently.


----------



## mike2060

I just bought Axiom QS8s but only have one of them installed currently (I'm new to drilling holes in walls!!!). I think it matches my Monitor Audio GS10s and LCR very well. The only annoying thing is that when watching TV some shows have the surrounds so low that to even hear them I have to boost the surround by 12db (my one surround is calibrated to the correct 75db)!! I swear the sound mixers of these shows have no clue about properly calibrated systems and probably just calibrate volume levels by ear.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mike2060* /forum/post/17285020
> 
> 
> ...The only annoying thing is that when watching TV some shows have the surrounds so low that to even hear them I have to boost the surround by 12db (my one surround is calibrated to the correct 75db)!! I swear the sound mixers of these shows have no clue about properly calibrated systems and probably just calibrate volume levels by ear.



Not really. TV show engineers are usually in mixing environments closer to your living room than film sound mixers, and most will know what they're doing.

Laziness and sameness tend to prevail, though.


Many shows are still monitored and mixed in straight stereo.

Sometimes, it'll be stereo with Dolby Surround (4.0) encoding.


Either way, ProLogic IIx processing will usually do the best job matrixing them to 5.1 or 7.1

(Not all sound engineers would like you doing this, of course.)



More and more TV drama is being done in 5.1, and reading reviews of such shows on say, Blu-ray.com , you tend to find that most are very competently put together, but still a bit light on the surrounds.



In Australia, Free-to-air Digital TV is broadcast with Dolby Digital, and this can accommodate 5.1 channels. Most of the time though, it'll be 2.0 - even for shows mixed in 5.1, which is a damn shame.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deepstang* /forum/post/17251211
> 
> 
> I can't believe that I have not seen this link before of Bipole/Dipole speakers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :
> 
> http://www.electronichouse.com/slide...egory/4476/727
> 
> 
> I am still open to suggestions, but that link is a GREAT resource for bipole/dipole options.




Nicely spotted. Great to have so many contenders on one page.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mike2060* /forum/post/17285020
> 
> 
> I just bought Axiom QS8s but only have one of them installed currently (I'm new to drilling holes in walls!!!). I think it matches my Monitor Audio GS10s and LCR very well.



Interesting that you didn't choose Monitor Audio surrounds!


How do you find the QS8's perform with respect to the spread of sound, height, width soundstaging, etc - compared to dipoles or bipoles.


Those vertically opposed woofers really make me curious...


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deepstang* /forum/post/17284911
> 
> 
> I had an opportunity to listen to a pair of Infinity ES250 speakers.....which has been recommend here several times. IMO, they sounded pretty thin. Although it may be an unfair comparison, they had a pair of affordable Polk TSI-200 bookshelves with dual 5" drivers...and they blew the ES250 out of the water. I know it is unfair to A/B them, but the 5" driver from the ES250 really, IMO, could not perform. I tried the ES250 in bipole and monopole mode in the comprison. I am not sure if I believe that the ES250 can handle frequencies lower than 120 Hz, thus making explosions sound believable. I know the sub can handle lower frequencies; however, as I posted earlier I would prefer the surrounds to handle at least 100 Hz competently.



Gee, that's weird. Sure haven't found mine thin-sounding.

I've found the Infinities very neutral and well-balanced, and roll mine off at 100Hz to keep it clean in my room.


Did you hear them in dipole, bipole or dual-mono mode?

Dipole will always sound thinner of course, because the woofers are running out of phase.

(Not crazy about this, which is why I'm partial to dipole designs like the Monitor Audios or Paradigms.)


Speaker placement, brick or plaster walls, your seating position and the amp's calibration would also have a huge effect.


Not sure if the Polks tend to exaggerate the low end, although I doubt it.


I've always found that generating loads of bass from wall-mounted speakers isn't exacting the last word in sonic accuracy. Similar keeping speakers away from the room boundaries to avoid boominess.


----------



## deepstang

Thanks for the feedback E. Yeah, the ES250s were on a carpeted shelf not against a wall Also, neither speaker were in the dipole setting. It just seemed that a lot of sound was not coming out of the speakers. I learned a while ago that you can't turn lead into gold. I am definitely not calling the ES250 Betas "lead", but it is hard to get a lot of sound from such a small enclosure and small 5" drivers. Still on the fence between the ES250s and the Energy RC-R. BTW, the tweeter on the ES250 was very natural and not nearly as bright as the Polks.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Not sure what Polks they were, but I'd steer clear of their 2-tweeter 1-woofer designs.


As I say, I was actually getting a little too much bass from my ES250's, but it's very room and wall dependent. Tonally, they're very accurate & neutral, and a near-perfect match for my VAF DC-X fronts.


Haven't heard the Energy's yet, but I'll be recommending them to a friend in a couple of months and should be able to try them out then.


As a guess though, I'd have a lot more faith in the accuracy of the Infinity.

Don't forget the ES250 has been superceded by the Classia, but JBL make the P52OWS .


----------



## mike2060




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/17293735
> 
> 
> Interesting that you didn't choose Monitor Audio surrounds!
> 
> 
> How do you find the QS8's perform with respect to the spread of sound, height, width soundstaging, etc - compared to dipoles or bipoles.
> 
> 
> Those vertically opposed woofers really make me curious...



I just installed the second one last night so I haven't had a good chance to listen yet. I really don't have a lot of experience with surround sound so I can't compare them to others. I didn't choose the MAs because they are $2k or I'd have to find them on Audiogon. Also I wasn't sure if they were as good as the Axiom QS8s in regards to the soundfield they create. But I am really curious as to how the MAs would sound in my room and I'm sort of having second thoughts as I really like the sound of my GS10s so I'm wondering how their equivalent surrounds sound.


----------



## deepstang

I finally got a set of used Infinty Beta ES250s....just like Electric_Haggis has been recommending







.


I must say it is nice to have the option to play between the different settings: MONOPOLE, DIPOLE, BIPOLE. I have decided to stay with BIPOLE because it is mounted on my rear wall. FYI, this is a 5.1 set-up.


To be honest, I am not that impressed with this upgrade. I was expecting a bigger improvement over my poorly positioned (_per DOLBY and THX positioning diagrams_) 12 year-old home-builder installed JBL in-walls. I think those old in-walls sounded pretty OK b/c they had 6.5" drivers compared to the dual 5" drivers with the ES250. I must admit, those Infinity CMMD tweets are smooth. I just don't have as much impact from the surrounds, and i am not sure if I feel like I am getting a larger surround effect. I guess I am hard to impress. I am sure they will warm up to me with a little more time. Read my question below the pics as maybe I may not have them dialed in properly with Audyssey.


OLD SURROUND pics:










NEW surrounds (ES250) w/ the in-walls disconnected:









*QUESTION:*


I ran Audyssey with the speakers in MONOPOLE mode, and than switched it to BIPOLE mode afterwards. Does anyone have a recommendation as the best way to calibrate BIPOLES with using Audyssey? FYI, I have an Onkyo 605.


----------



## craig john




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deepstang* /forum/post/17511961
> 
> *QUESTION:*
> 
> 
> I ran Audyssey with the speakers in MONOPOLE mode, and than switched it to BIPOLE mode afterwards. Does anyone have a recommendation as the best way to calibrate BIPOLES with using Audyssey? FYI, I have an Onkyo 605.



I would re-run Audyssey with them in "bipole" mode. This setting vs. the monopole setting could impact their in-room LF response and impact the crossover chosen by Audyssey. Also, the overall level measured by Audyssey could be different, which would affect their "trim" settings.


Craig


----------



## hawkdeca

I have been researching the best route to go with my surround and rear speakers and this thread has been a huge help. I am currently finishing the basement in my home and it will be a dedicated man cave with a theater setup. I currently have a Denon 2310, Klipsch RF-5 fronts and RC-62 center. I am unsure of the best route to mount my surrounds and rears and what speakers to use. The room is 36' long and 17' wide. The couch will be 13' from the TV. I plan to mount some RS-52's or QS-8's for sides but don't know what to do for rears. Mount them on walls just further back? I feel that would be pretty far away then is the issue. I don't have the luxury of a back wall because there will be a pool table behind the sofa. The walls currently without sheetrock so wiring or going in-wall or in-ceiling is still a possibility at this time and I want to make a decision so i can wire it accordingly. Thanks for the help.


Ryan


----------



## deepstang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hawkdeca* /forum/post/17563877
> 
> 
> I have been researching the best route to go with my surround and rear speakers and this thread has been a huge help. I am currently finishing the basement in my home and it will be a dedicated man cave with a theater setup. I currently have a Denon 2310, Klipsch RF-5 fronts and RC-62 center. I am unsure of the best route to mount my surrounds and rears and what speakers to use. The room is 36' long and 17' wide. The couch will be 13' from the TV. I plan to mount some RS-52's or QS-8's for sides but don't know what to do for rears. Mount them on walls just further back? I feel that would be pretty far away then is the issue. I don't have the luxury of a back wall because there will be a pool table behind the sofa. The walls currently without sheetrock so wiring or going in-wall or in-ceiling is still a possibility at this time and I want to make a decision so i can wire it accordingly. Thanks for the help.
> 
> 
> Ryan




Wow, that is a pretty long room. I may not be the best to give advice, but you may be able to get away from mounting BOTH the side and "rear" surrounds on the side walls. I am sure you have seen the diagrams for surround positioning from both the Dolby and THX websites (can easily be googled). You can position your side surrounds slightly in front of the seating position and the rear surrounds behind the seating position. I have even also seen people place the rear surround speakers on the floor (or short table) behind the sofa/listening area and have them pointed up. In the same regards, you can have some in-wall ceiling speakers positioned behind the seating area and function as the "rear" surrounds.


----------



## Knucklehead90




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hawkdeca* /forum/post/17563877
> 
> 
> I have been researching the best route to go with my surround and rear speakers and this thread has been a huge help. I am currently finishing the basement in my home and it will be a dedicated man cave with a theater setup. I currently have a Denon 2310, Klipsch RF-5 fronts and RC-62 center. I am unsure of the best route to mount my surrounds and rears and what speakers to use. The room is 36' long and 17' wide. The couch will be 13' from the TV. I plan to mount some RS-52's or QS-8's for sides but don't know what to do for rears. Mount them on walls just further back? I feel that would be pretty far away then is the issue. I don't have the luxury of a back wall because there will be a pool table behind the sofa. The walls currently without sheetrock so wiring or going in-wall or in-ceiling is still a possibility at this time and I want to make a decision so i can wire it accordingly. Thanks for the help.
> 
> 
> Ryan



A good 5.1 setup may be the best way for you. The only other good option would be in-ceiling (ugh!) speakers. I'm no fan of in-ceiling speakers as you might guess. The Emotiva ERD-1s are on sale now through Dec. Even though they are 4 ohms there are quite a few people driving them with an AVR with no problems. I've done this myself as I'm an owner of a pair - for almost a year now. They sound great - surprising for such a small package.


----------



## Mathelo

I am putting together an 11.1 system with the following components and I could use some assistance. I have zero real world experience with anything other than a stereo setup so I'm stepping into this big time. What I'd like to prevent is stepping into it'.










Here is my purchase list so far:

AVR - Denon AVR-4810CI - 11.1 (internal amps will be used for surrounds and other zones.

Outboard amp to drive the fronts and Wides - Wyred or Emotiva

LCR Speakers - JTR Quint8

Wides - JTR Slant 8

Sub - Danley DTS10


All that remains to make this complete are the surrounds. Please see the attached drawing for placement in the room.


I've read the various discussions arguing dipole / bipole / mopole / multipole, etc. Regardless of the theoretical merits on monopole, most seem to conclude that di / bipole is preferred by most people. But, the biggest qualifier is the room. As you can see from my room drawing, I have a pretty good distance between all the speakers and the nearest listening position is just under 7 ft for the surrounds (the left seat on the couch will measure about 6.5 ft to the right surround. The room is live'.


With the exception of the wides, all the surrounds and height speakers will be flush mounted into the mansard which faces down at 45 degrees and the speaker centers will be at approximately a 9' elevation.


I do want all position on the couch and to some extent the recliner to be in the sweat spot. I certainly wouldn't be happy if it was just the lonely man' seat in the middle. Well, I might be but no one else would be. ;-) I'm not too concerned about the table behind the coach.


So, with this setup I think I could go all monopoles but I'm ready to be convinced otherwise.


Let me know what you think and thanks for all your help. I'm very close to completing this setup and looking forward to getting it put together in the weeks to come.


Louis


----------



## sdurani




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/17600195
> 
> 
> So, with this setup I think I could go all monopoles but I’m ready to be convinced otherwise.



I would stick to monopole surrounds. With 4 speakers firing simultaneously, you'll get good envelopment (without resorting to diffuse speakers) and still maintain clear directionality. The only suggestions I'd make to your proposed set-up would be to move the side speakers forward so that they're in line with the seating (no sense having both pairs of surrounds rearward of the listeners), and use 5 of the same speakers up front (either Triple 8 or Slant 8) for a consistent soundstage.


----------



## Mathelo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sdurani* /forum/post/17600393
> 
> 
> I would stick to monopole surrounds. With 4 speakers firing simultaneously, you'll get good envelopment (without resorting to diffuse speakers) and still maintain clear directionality. The only suggestions I'd make to your proposed set-up would be to move the side speakers forward so that they're in line with the seating (no sense having both pairs of surrounds rearward of the listeners), and use 5 of the same speakers up front (either Triple 8 or Slant 8) for a consistent soundstage.



Sanjay,


When you say the side speakers I assume you are referring to the wides. And yes, I would line them up with the fronts so that they are all on the same plane and at the same height.


Louis


----------



## sdurani




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/17600659
> 
> 
> When you say the side speakers I assume you are referring to the wides.



No, I meant the surrounds at your sides (as opposed to the surrounds behind you). Keeping the side speakers directly to your sides (+/- 90 degrees) will help stabilize lateral imaging and give you better rear-vs-side separation in the surround field. The latter effect is lessened when both pairs of surrounds are behind you.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/17600659
> 
> 
> I would line them up with the fronts so that they are all on the same plane and at the same height.



If you're going to have all 5 front speakers lined up on the same plane, all 5 at the same height, all 5 powered by the same amp, then I really would encourage you to consider using the same model at all 5 positions.


----------



## sterryo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/17600659
> 
> 
> Sanjay,
> 
> 
> When you say the side speakers I assume you are referring to the wides. And yes, I would line them up with the fronts so that they are all on the same plane and at the same height.
> 
> 
> Louis



he was referencing the side surrounds not the wides


----------



## Mathelo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sdurani* /forum/post/17600796
> 
> 
> No, I meant the surrounds at your sides (as opposed to the surrounds behind you). Keeping the side speakers directly to your sides (+/- 90 degrees) will help stabilize lateral imaging and give you better rear-vs-side separation in the surround field. The latter effect is lessened when both pairs of surrounds are behind you. If you're going to have all 5 front speakers lined up on the same plane, all 5 at the same height, all 5 powered by the same amp, then I really would encourage you to consider using the same model at all 5 positions.



Its not practical for me to include the same model for the Wides, price and size considerations overrule here. But the Slant8 is tonally identical to the Quint 8. Same mid/hi driver and extends down to 80 Hz. Seems like that should be okay.


I've also read in this forum that the wides, while receiving substantially more signal than the surrounds, still is considerably down from th LCR. Is this not correct?


Finally, regarding the position of the side surrounds, I can certainly experiment with this placement but this is according to the Audyssey DSX Configuration. Do you not agree with this?


Thanks!


Louis


----------



## sdurani




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/17601057
> 
> 
> Its not practical for me to include the same model for the Wides, price and size considerations overrule here.



Unfortunate, since you're making a concious effort to keep everything else identical for the front soundstage.


> Quote:
> _But the Slant8 is tonally identical to the Quint 8._



Would you be comfortable swapping one of the Quint 8s (say the left front speaker) for a Slant 8 in your set-up? You don't have to answer; it's just a mental litmus test for yourself to see how "tonally identical" you really feel they are. Just something to consider.


> Quote:
> _Finally, regarding the position of the side surrounds, I can certainly experiment with this placement but this is according to the Audyssey DSX Configuration. Do you not agree with this?_



I don't, for the reasons I mentioned previously.


----------



## Mathelo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sdurani* /forum/post/17601145
> 
> 
> Unfortunate, since you're making a concious effort to keep everything else identical for the front soundstage. Would you be comfortable swapping one of the Quint 8s (say the left front speaker) for a Slant 8 in your set-up? You don't have to answer; it's just a mental litmus test for yourself to see how "tonally identical" you really feel they are. Just something to consider. I don't, for the reasons I mentioned previously.



Sdurani,


Are you familiar with the Quint 8 and Slant 8? The Quint 8 has four 8" drivers for bass / midbass and a fifth 8" coaxial driver for mid/hi. The Slant 8 is a single 8" coaxial driver. The same coax as in the Quint 8 but absent the 4 bass drivers. The Slant 8 would be a poor substitute for the Quint 8.


There is another alternative. JTR makes another speaker, the T8, which is the same as the Quint 8 sans 2 bass drivers. If balance across all 5 is that important, I might be able to go with 5 T8s instead of the prior configuration.


The key question for me is just how much signal do the Wides actually take on. I thought it was considerable down from the LCRs.


Louis


----------



## sdurani




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/17601854
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the Quint 8 and Slant 8?



Yes.


> Quote:
> _The Slant 8 would be a poor substitute for the Quint 8._



Then how will it sound when something moves towards the left of the front soundstage and transitions from the Quint 8 to the Slant 8?


> Quote:
> _JTR makes another speaker, the T8, which is the same as the Quint 8 sans 2 bass drivers. If balance across all 5 is that important, I might be able to go with 5 T8s instead of the prior configuration._



Which is what I suggested 7 posts up. The Quint 8 may go lower than the Triple 8, but that difference in bass can be covered with your subwoofer. Anyway, it was just a suggestion. Nothing more.


----------



## Mathelo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sdurani* /forum/post/17602812
> 
> 
> Yes. Then how will it sound when something moves towards the left of the front soundstage and transitions from the Quint 8 to the Slant 8? Which is what I suggested 7 posts up. The Quint 8 may go lower than the Triple 8, but that difference in bass can be covered with your subwoofer. Anyway, it was just a suggestion. Nothing more.



Suggestion definitely appreciated. I was underestimating the role of the Wides. I'll give this more thought.


----------



## Mathelo

Sanjay,


Related question. How important do you think the tonal balance is with the surrounds relative to the front speakers? Most things I've read put a low priority here.


JTR doesn't make a surround speaker that meets my requirements exactly although I think I can get JTR to provide a custom box but there are many other solutions that will give me a flush mount for probably less money.


Thanks again for your opinions.


Louis


----------



## sdurani




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/17603143
> 
> 
> How important do you think the tonal balance is with the surrounds relative to the front speakers?



Not as important. Even in this day and age of surround sound, the front soundstage remains critical. That's where your attention should be focused, whether watching movies or listening to music.


By comparison, the surrounds are less important. Save for the occasional direction effect, they're still used primarily for ambience. As such, tonal match between the front speakers and the surrounds is not as critical as between the various front speakers.


Of course if you can use the same speaker model at all locations, nothing like it. But that's impractical for most people. It's too bad JTR doesn't make an in-wall version of the Slant 8, using just their coaxial driver (frequencies below 100Hz from the surround channels can be rerouted to the subwoofer).


Happy Thanksgiving Louis.


----------



## Mathelo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sdurani* /forum/post/17607654
> 
> 
> Not as important. Even in this day and age of surround sound, the front soundstage remains critical. That's where your attention should be focused, whether watching movies or listening to music.
> 
> 
> By comparison, the surrounds are less important. Save for the occasional direction effect, they're still used primarily for ambience. As such, tonal match between the front speakers and the surrounds is not as critical as between the various front speakers.
> 
> 
> Of course if you can use the same speaker model at all locations, nothing like it. But that's impractical for most people. It's too bad JTR doesn't make an in-wall version of the Slant 8, using just their coaxial driver (frequencies below 100Hz from the surround channels can be rerouted to the subwoofer).
> 
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving Louis.



But building a surround from something like the B&C 8CXT 8" Coaxial Driver

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/psho...53&ctab=2#Tabs 


should get pretty close. Just needs a crossover and a cab to complete the picture.


And Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.


Louis


----------



## Mathelo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sdurani* /forum/post/17607654
> 
> 
> Not as important. Even in this day and age of surround sound, the front soundstage remains critical. That's where your attention should be focused, whether watching movies or listening to music.
> 
> 
> By comparison, the surrounds are less important. Save for the occasional direction effect, they're still used primarily for ambience. As such, tonal match between the front speakers and the surrounds is not as critical as between the various front speakers.
> 
> 
> Of course if you can use the same speaker model at all locations, nothing like it. But that's impractical for most people. It's too bad JTR doesn't make an in-wall version of the Slant 8, using just their coaxial driver (frequencies below 100Hz from the surround channels can be rerouted to the subwoofer).
> 
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving Louis.



Do you consider the Height speakers more as surrounds or as part of the front stage? I recognize they are placed in the front stage but I've been under the impression they are used more like surrounds, i.e., adding
ambiance.

Louis


----------



## sdurani




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/17608077
> 
> 
> Do you consider the Height speakers more as surrounds or as part of the front stage?



They're up front, where our hearing is most acute and discerning. But current processing sends subtle and general ambience to them. I'd go for a better timbre match than the surrounds, but no need to be identical to the L/C/R speakers. Slant 8s sound like good candidates.


----------



## Mathelo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/17600195
> 
> 
> I am putting together an 11.1 system with the following components and I could use some assistance. I have zero real world experience with anything other than a stereo setup so I'm stepping into this big time. What I'd like to prevent is stepping into it'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my purchase list so far:
> 
> AVR - Denon AVR-4810CI - 11.1 (internal amps will be used for surrounds and other zones.
> 
> Outboard amp to drive the fronts and Wides - Wyred or Emotiva
> 
> LCR Speakers - JTR Quint8
> 
> Wides - JTR Slant 8
> 
> Sub - Danley DTS10
> 
> 
> All that remains to make this complete are the surrounds. Please see the attached drawing for placement in the room.
> 
> 
> I've read the various discussions arguing dipole / bipole / mopole / multipole, etc. Regardless of the theoretical merits on monopole, most seem to conclude that di / bipole is preferred by most people. But, the biggest qualifier is the room. As you can see from my room drawing, I have a pretty good distance between all the speakers and the nearest listening position is just under 7 ft for the surrounds (the left seat on the couch will measure about 6.5 ft to the right surround. The room is live'.
> 
> 
> With the exception of the wides, all the surrounds and height speakers will be flush mounted into the mansard which faces down at 45 degrees and the speaker centers will be at approximately a 9' elevation.
> 
> 
> I do want all position on the couch and to some extent the recliner to be in the sweat spot. I certainly wouldn't be happy if it was just the lonely man' seat in the middle. Well, I might be but no one else would be. ;-) I'm not too concerned about the table behind the coach.
> 
> 
> So, with this setup I think I could go all monopoles but I'm ready to be convinced otherwise.
> 
> 
> Let me know what you think and thanks for all your help. I'm very close to completing this setup and looking forward to getting it put together in the weeks to come.
> 
> 
> Louis



I'm getting ready to cut holes in the mansard portion of my ceiling for the surrounds, rears, and heights. They will be located as per the attached drawing (the sides will be more inline with the seating - 90 degrees).











I've included a picture of the room so you can get a better idea visually of what I'm describing.











I'm using JTR custom S8s (no slant) that will be flush mounted. These are ported direct radiators. After reading this thread I believe they will be okay for this space because the surrounds will be 6' above the listening position and 7.5' from the closest listening position. My fronts are also JTRs. Subs will be dual Danley DTS10s.


I need to decide on the angle for the surrounds. If I install them flat in the 45 degree mansard, they will be pointing directly at the nearest LP. Seems to me that this would not be good. Conventional practice suggests that I angle these up so that they point across the room over the listeners heads. But going back to Rudman's post # 47 in this thread he states:


"Positioning side (not rear) monopoles firing over the head of listeners were considered inferior."


to ...


"aiming the speakers down to the floor 3 feet to the side of the listener was preferred."


Has anyone else experienced this? This is a very different approach from firing over the heads and intuitively seems wrong. It also seems wrong in terms of trying to minimize propagation loss.


Thoughts?


Thanks!


Louis


----------



## Mathelo

Anyone?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/18039401
> 
> 
> Anyone?



Hi Mathelo.


Just confirming, you're using this for all 4 surrounds, but with the non-slanted design, yes?


Hate to say it - but in your situation, this is what I'd definitely do:


* Mount the rear S8's in the mansard, angled down.


* _Run bipoles for the side-surrounds, preferably on the side walls, around half-way between the height of the front width speakers and the rears._


* If not the side walls, then ceiling-mounted outside the mansard area as close to the side walls as possible. This would mean the drivers are angled downwards around 45 degrees.


(I've found that the side surrounds work a lot better placed as wide as possible and coupling with the side walls. Better for scale, soundstaging and sweet-spotting.)


* Either use bipoles from another similar-enough-sounding brand (and use Audyssey to compensate), or even better - use two pairs of S8's facing away from each other, so acting as bipoles.


----------



## Mathelo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/18042875
> 
> 
> Hi Mathelo.
> 
> 
> Just confirming, you're using this for all 4 surrounds, but with the non-slanted design, yes?
> 
> 
> Hate to say it - but in your situation, this is what I'd definitely do:
> 
> 
> * Mount the rear S8's in the mansard, angled down.
> 
> 
> * Run bipoles for the sides, preferably on the side walls, around half-way between the height of the front width speakers and the rears.
> 
> 
> * If not the side walls, then ceiling-mounted outside the mansard area as close to the side walls as possible. This would mean the drivers are angled downwards around 45 degrees.
> 
> (I've found that the side surrounds work a lot better placed as wide as possible and coupling with the side walls. Better for scale, soundstaging and sweet-spotting.)
> 
> 
> * Either use bipoles from another similar-enough-sounding brand (and use Audyssey to compensate), or even use two pairs of S8's facing away from each other if possible.



Thanks for your reply. I was beginning to think nobody was home.










Those are the speakers I have but in a regular ported rectangular box - 14x10x10. I have 6 of them and was planning on using them as sides, rears, and heights installed in the mansard portion of the ceiling.


When you say "Mount the rear S8's in the mansard, angled down" are you saying "flush" mount? That would be 45 degrees and directed at the floor just below the rear listening position.


There is no way for me to install the surrounds on the side walls. I have windows on one side and the room opens to the kitchen on the other side.




















I also can't readily install them in the ceiling outside the mansard. Lights are installed in those locations.


I probably 'could' install S8s in a bipole configuration but I'd still need to put them in the mansard or the ceiling above. What are the negative implications of this approach other than requiring the purchase of 2 more speakers?










Again, thanks for your help.


Louis


----------



## Mathelo

Electric_Haggis,


I've taken a couple of measurements and I think I could actually place the surrounds in the ceiling just outside of the mansard. Something like this ...




















Is that what you were suggesting?


Louis


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/18043156
> 
> 
> When you say "Mount the rear S8's in the mansard, angled down" are you saying "flush" mount? That would be 45 degrees and directed at the floor just below the rear listening position.



Well, going from the pictures - having the rear surrounds angled down around 45 degrees will give you better results than firing across the ceiling at that height. You could get away with it they weren't so high.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/18043156
> 
> 
> There is no way for me to install the surrounds on the side walls. I have windows on one side and the room opens to the kitchen on the other side.



Fair enough. Well, the arrangement in those later pictures with the speakers just outside the mansard would be slightly better. The further out to to the sides, the better.


That said, convenience and experimentation still count.

What I'd be doing (given you're stuck with at least one S8 to either side) is doing some listening tests, with someone else (or a ladder) holding the speakers in the various positions and angles (luckily, you won't run out of S8's!).




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/18043156
> 
> 
> I probably 'could' install S8s in a bipole configuration but I'd still need to put them in the mansard or the ceiling above. What are the negative implications of this approach other than requiring the purchase of 2 more speakers?



Given your limitations, a bipole config won't be worth it if you have to mount them in the inner-ceiling or mansard. Inner ceiling will be too high, and in the mansard will mean aiming them toward the room-centre.

So ideally, one pair of side surrounds ceiling-mounted outside the mansard, or even... a pair of side surrounds on _either_ side with a foot or so between them (closer to a commercial cinema). As they'll be aimed at the LP, you could even experiment with wiring them out of phase.


Again - play around with every possible arrangement before cutting. Even try aiming the side-surrounds straight down at the floor, or somewhere in between.

(The only config I'd reject on theory alone is having all four surround channels shooting across the ceiling at that height with no angling.)


There are a lot of unknown quantities here, and you may be very surprised...


----------



## Mathelo

Thanks. I'll experiment and report back.


----------



## Mathelo

Also, can you recommend a DVD/BR that works well for testing surround sound?


Thanks again!


----------



## Mathelo

This has me rethinking the location of the rears as well. Suppose I installed them in the ceiling below the mansard instead of in the mansard? What might I expect from a change like this?


----------



## Vidmaven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/18045186
> 
> 
> Also, can you recommend a DVD/BR that works well for testing surround sound?
> 
> 
> Thanks again!



One of my favorites is Dragonheart. There is a scene where the dragon (Sean Connery) is flying in circles around Dennis Quaid's character. His voice and wing sounds should fly around your room.


----------



## Mathelo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vidmaven* /forum/post/18046503
> 
> 
> One of my favorites is Dragonheart. There is a scene where the dragon (Sean Connery) is flying in circles around Dennis Quaid's character. His voice and wing sounds should fly around your room.



That sounds like a good test.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/18046367
> 
> 
> This has me rethinking the location of the rears as well. Suppose I installed them in the ceiling below the mansard instead of in the mansard? What might I expect from a change like this?




Spiderman I has a similar scene a few chapters in, with Willem Dafoe's voice moving around the room. Worth trying as well, but that Dragonheart scene would likely be better (Must try it myself, actually!)


For see-and-hear directionality, there's a scene in King Kong (a *must-have* on blu), where Naiomi Watts is strung up by the natives, waiting for Kong to arrive for the first time. We hear Kong emerging from the forest, and Naiomi's eyes follow him through the surround channels. The start of this chapter is also terrific for gauging bass boom.




As for those rear speakers, having them in the higher position would likely be a bad idea, but outside the mansard and closer to the back is more like it.

Too many people are forced to put their surrounds too damn high up, and apart from being a sonic compromise, they don't blend as well with the fronts.



By the way, why did you decide on custom S8's without the slant?


----------



## sdurani




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/18045186
> 
> 
> Also, can you recommend a DVD/BR that works well for testing surround sound?



Chapter 11 of _'Mission to Mars'_, where the mission commander's voice circles the room in a smooth pan (you should be able to hear it travel seamlessly from speaker to speaker).


----------



## Mathelo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/18048088
> 
> 
> As for those rear speakers, having them in the higher position would likely be a bad idea, but outside the mansard and closer to the back is more like it.
> 
> 
> Too many people are forced to put their surrounds too damn high up, and apart from being a sonic compromise, they don't blend as well with the fronts.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, why did you decide on custom S8's without the slant?



Well ... my plan all along has been to install them in the mansard, which is already at 45°. As such, I really didn't need the slant. I'm going with JTR because my fronts are all JTR.


I guess the only ones that would be okay up high are the "heights."










I'm also considering your idea for using 4 S8s for the left and right surrounds. If I can get these into the ceiling outside of the mansard, do you think it will make a noticeable difference?


----------



## Mathelo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sdurani* /forum/post/18048203
> 
> 
> Chapter 11 of _'Mission to Mars'_, where the mission commander's voice circles the room in a smooth pan (you should be able to hear it travel seamlessly from speaker to speaker).



Excellent, thank you.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/18048207
> 
> 
> I'm also considering your idea for using 4 S8s for the left and right surrounds. If I can get these into the ceiling outside of the mansard, do you think it will make a noticeable difference?



Well, luckily you have enough speakers to test this, but yes it should.


If possible, also consider angling them so they're aimed outwards at 45 degrees-ish rather than straight ahead at the LP.

Wiring out of phase is also worth trying.


----------



## Mathelo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/18048495
> 
> 
> Well, luckily you have enough speakers to test this, but yes it should.
> 
> 
> If possible, also consider angling them so they're aimed outwards at 45 degrees-ish rather than straight ahead at the LP.
> 
> Wiring out of phase is also worth trying.



I assume they should be wired in series. Is that correct?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/18048681
> 
> 
> I assume they should be wired in series. Is that correct?



If there's only one pair of side-surround outputs on your amp, then yes.


I've never needed to do this myself - so be sure to check the impedence of your speakers and amp, and do some research beforehand.


----------



## ShoutingMan

I've read the entire thread, and I'm still unclear the ideal, or at least recommended, position for bipoles / dipoles. What's the preferred position, relative to the living room couch?











My room has the couch against the back wall and the surrounds are maybe 6 feet from the center and 3 feet from the sides. The sides particularly are unbalanced for surround effects.


I'm buying a whole new 5.1 speaker set and am considering di/bi-poles; they seem recommended for a setup like mine.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ShoutingMan* /forum/post/18072402
> 
> 
> I've read the entire thread, and I'm still unclear the ideal, or at least recommended, position for bipoles / dipoles. What's the preferred position, relative to the living room couch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My room has the couch against the back wall and the surrounds are maybe 6 feet from the center and 3 feet from the sides. The sides particularly are unbalanced for surround effects.
> 
> 
> I'm buying a whole new 5.1 speaker set and am considering di/bi-poles; they seem recommended for a setup like mine.



Hard to know without pics or diagrams. Trial and error helps too, but sounds like you already have the positions set.


Just for For what it's worth, click on my signature below. There are some pics there that might be of help.


Considering dual-monopoles for 7.1, rather than di/bipoles.




Also for what it's worth, here's the old room, back when I had space for 4 separate surrounds.

Best position was just in front of the side-surrounds, and the results were superb....


Sold the rear speakers to friends for their 5.0 setup. They have a rear-wall couch with them mounted in pretty much the same position as you.


----------



## TL5

My listening room is about 25" long and 15" feet wide. Due to WAF, my system is set up on the long wall. My couch is practically up against the back wall. I'm stumped as to where I can put the surrounds, and if I should get bipoles or direct radiators. I guess I can put them on the side walls firing towards each other from about 12" away, or get bipoles and put them on shelves in the corner with one set of drivers firing onto the sidewall & another firing towards the back wall. I guess another option would be bipoles on the back wall towards the corners.


Can anyone help me out with this issue?


Thanks!


----------



## sdurani




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TL5* /forum/post/18099383
> 
> 
> ...or get bipoles and put them on shelves in the corner with one set of drivers firing onto the sidewall & another firing towards the back wall.



That's the choice I would make in your situation: light up the back and side walls with reflected sound, giving you nice wrap-around envelopment.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sdurani* /forum/post/18100217
> 
> 
> That's the choice I would make in your situation: light up the back and side walls with reflected sound, giving you nice wrap-around envelopment.




That sounds right to me too.

Three bits of advice to anyone seeking advice on this...


1* Post pics so we can see your room.


2* Experiment with different placement using boxes, ladders, or other people holding the speakers in position.


3* Always consider 7.1 with dual-monopoles, with the rear drivers firing at the back wall. In most cases like this, it's always better than 5.1 with two bipoles.


----------



## craig john




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/18102531
> 
> 
> 3* Always consider 7.1 with dual-monopoles, with the rear drivers firing at the back wall. In most cases like this, it's always better than 5.1 with two bipoles.



Please explain in detail what you mean by this. I don't understand this configuration. Which "rear drivers" do you suggest should fire at the rear wall? The rear surround drivers in 7.1? Where have you seen this configuration suggested by any of the entities such as Dolby, DTS or THX? And the statement that "_...it's always better than 5.1 with two bipoles._", is that your opinion, or is there some basis for that statement in fact?


Craig


----------



## ShoutingMan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/18097964
> 
> 
> Hard to know without pics or diagrams. Trial and error helps too, but sounds like you already have the positions set.
> 
> 
> Just for For what it's worth, click on my signature below. There are some pics there that might be of help.



I missed you response initially; thanks. That gives me an idea. I'll have to come back with a room diagram.


Is there an ideal position for dipoles? In my room, the middle, or null, of the dipoles cannot be positioned in line with the listeners' ears. The speakers would be back several inches. Some comments indicate that will have be very bad for the sound quality.


But in your room, you had them aiming forward, on either side of the listening position. I'd not really noticed that positioned recommended in the discussion.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ShoutingMan* /forum/post/18103811
> 
> 
> I missed you response initially; thanks. That gives me an idea. I'll have to come back with a room diagram.



Yep.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ShoutingMan* /forum/post/18103811
> 
> 
> Is there an ideal position for dipoles? In my room, the middle, or null, of the dipoles cannot be positioned in line with the listeners' ears. The speakers would be back several inches. Some comments indicate that will have be very bad for the sound quality.



Most would agree (myself included) that dipoles really only work well when positioned to either side with you in the null. (Obviously, the bigger the space, the more you can get away with.)

If you can't do this, dipoles aren't looking too good, unless you were able to mount each speaker on a 45 degree angle on the back wall, with the underside of each speaker aimed at the room centre...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ShoutingMan* /forum/post/18103811
> 
> 
> But in your room, you had them aiming forward, on either side of the listening position. I'd not really noticed that positioned recommended in the discussion.



If you mean my current room, they're not dipoles. They're two dual-monopoles running all four surround channels.

Not ideal, and not as good as the old room, but it's all I can accommodate.


Maybe click on the signature and have another read....


----------



## ShoutingMan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/18104802
> 
> 
> If you mean my current room, they're not dipoles.



Ah. The picture you posted is from a friend's room, with the bipoles mounted on the rear wall, facing outward. So do I understand correctly that the dipoles will not sound especially good like that?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craig john* /forum/post/18102828
> 
> 
> Please explain in detail what you mean by this. I don't understand this configuration. Which "rear drivers" do you suggest should fire at the rear wall? The rear surround drivers in 7.1? Where have you seen this configuration suggested by any of the entities such as Dolby, DTS or THX? And the statement that "_...it's always better than 5.1 with two bipoles._", is that your opinion, or is there some basis for that statement in fact?
> 
> 
> Craig




LOL. Well I guess the answer would be "no".
THX recommends dipoles for the sides, with directs for the rears positioned almost as one speaker.


Dolby make no mention of di/bi/dual-monopoles at all, and opt for a somewhat different approach .


DTS are a bit different again...
http://www.dts.com/Consumer_Electron...F031A734A.ashx 
http://www.dts.com/Consumer_Electron...gurations.aspx 

*Surround placement is a very murky area.*

I remember talking to a Dolby techo once who wouldn't go on record as endorsing any speaker type other than direct radiating, but actually had both dipoles and bipoles at home.


In the end, all you can really do is research thoroughly, think it through, experiment as far as possible, and listen for yourself.


Having tried pretty much everything over the years, I've found that _when space is limited_, using dual-monopoles and Dolby IIx, running four channels with the rear drivers acting as the rear channels, aimed at either the back wall (or the centre-back if you're stuck mounting on the back wall like me) produces the best results every time.


You get better front-back/side-side steering and panning, a better spread of 3D sound, none of the loss of bass or phase issues that can be a problem with many dipoles, and still remain accurate.


And of course, when you slip in the occasional disc that actually features a true 7.1 or 6.1 mix, you're covered.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ShoutingMan* /forum/post/18104883
> 
> 
> Ah. The picture you posted is from a friend's room, with the bipoles mounted on the rear wall, facing outward. So do I understand correctly that the dipoles will not sound especially good like that?



No they wouldn't. As I've said one post post back , dipoles really want to be _side-wall mounted_ with you in the null.


Just to confirm:

The picture back here is my _old_ place. 7.0 setup with _2 pairs of bipoles_. The speakers on the side walls could be switched to dipole, but bipole gave the best results. (The bipoles at the back were later sold to friends.)


My current room (which is a compromise) is viewable by clicking on the signature below...


----------



## Murray1

TV and soundstage is at one end of 37L room. Seating approximately 13' from TV with 24' of open room behind seating area. Have Polk RTiA5's up front. Should I go with RTiA3 bookshelves or FXiA6 surrounds. Thanks for your suggestions.


----------



## TL5

I need help with the selection/placement of my surrounds. My couch is against back wall (long wall in room that is about 25x15.) The surrounds will have to located within 13-14 inches from the corners, I guess I can use the back or side walls. Should I go monopoles or bipoles? Will there be too much reflected sound with bipoles because of the corner location?

Attachment 166614 

Attachment 166615 



Thanks!!!


----------



## sdurani




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TL5* /forum/post/18109702
> 
> 
> I need help with the selection/placement of my surrounds. My couch is against back wall (long wall in room that is about 25x15.) The surrounds will have to located within 13-14 inches from the corners, I guess I can use the back or side walls. Should I go monopoles or bipoles?



What happened to your idea to...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TL5* /forum/post/18099383
> 
> 
> ...get bipoles and put them on shelves in the corner with one set of drivers firing onto the sidewall & another firing towards the back wall.


----------



## TL5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sdurani* /forum/post/18110853
> 
> 
> What happened to your idea to...



That's still my first choice but I wanted to post pictures just to make sure I was on the right track.


Thanks,


Patrick


----------



## Murray1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murray1* /forum/post/18106575
> 
> 
> TV and soundstage is at one end of 37L room. Seating approximately 13' from TV with 24' of open room behind seating area. Have Polk RTiA5's up front. Should I go with RTiA3 bookshelves or FXiA6 surrounds. Thanks for your suggestions.



Any suggestions??


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TL5* /forum/post/18109702
> 
> 
> I need help with the selection/placement of my surrounds. My couch is against back wall (long wall in room that is about 25x15.) The surrounds will have to located within 13-14 inches from the corners, I guess I can use the back or side walls. Should I go monopoles or bipoles? Will there be too much reflected sound with bipoles because of the corner location?
> 
> Attachment 166614
> Attachment 166615
> 
> 
> Thanks!!!



Well, half the point of bipoles/dipoles is to use wall reflections for a bigger spread of sound, so there's nothing wrong with that. I definitely wouldn't go with monopoles.


What I would do in your situation is buy a pair of dipole/bipole/dual-monopole switchable surrounds from Infinity or JBL (_anyone know of any others?_).

This way, you just can't go wrong - and you can have 7.1 if you like.


Put them on shelves in the corner with one set of drivers firing onto the sidewall & another firing towards the back wall. Experiment with angling and height, preferably between 1 and 3 feet above seated ear-height.


Let us know how you go, and post some pics!


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murray1* /forum/post/18106575
> 
> 
> TV and soundstage is at one end of 37L room. Seating approximately 13' from TV with 24' of open room behind seating area. Have Polk RTiA5's up front. Should I go with RTiA3 bookshelves or FXiA6 surrounds. Thanks for your suggestions.



Once again, it always helps to post pictures.


Definitely go with with the FXiA6.


Or (at the risk of repeating myself) do as I said in the previous post, and buy a pair of dipole/bipole/dual-monopole switchable surrounds from Infinity or JBL (or whoever else), and have the option of 7.1 with two surrounds.


----------



## ShoutingMan

This is my room, with central listening position on couch shown and distance to TV and side walls. The left side is open to the kitchen and hall. As the left wall portion doesn't allow bi/dipole to be placed aligned with the listener, I now think that those aren't good speakers for my room.


----------



## TL5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/18117884
> 
> 
> Well, half the point of bipoles/dipoles is to use wall reflections for a bigger spread of sound, so there's nothing wrong with that. I definitely wouldn't go with monopoles.
> 
> 
> What I would do in your situation is buy a pair of dipole/bipole/dual-monopole switchable surrounds from Infinity or JBL (_anyone know of any others?_).
> 
> This way, you just can't go wrong - and you can have 7.1 if you like.
> 
> 
> Put them on shelves in the corner with one set of drivers firing onto the sidewall & another firing towards the back wall. Experiment with angling and height, preferably between 1 and 3 feet above seated ear-height.
> 
> 
> Let us know how you go, and post some pics!



Here's the link to a switchable 5.1/7.1 speaker from Focal (JMLabs):

http://www.focal-fr.com/catalogue-do...files/1349.pdf 


I am actually considering this model, but if you look at the pictures of my room I have doubts I would be able to use them in 7.1 mode as they will be far apart - about 25 feet from each other. A similar model without the 5.1/7.1 switching capability is about $800 less.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TL5* /forum/post/18118919
> 
> 
> Here's the link to a switchable 5.1/7.1 speaker from Focal (JMLabs):
> 
> http://www.focal-fr.com/catalogue-do...files/1349.pdf




Well those Focal's look nice - but as always with JMLab - way overpriced.


I'm sure if you were to shoot them out against the likes of the JBLs or Infinity Classia - especially with some help from Audyssey - you wouldn't lose any sleep over the sonic differences. You might even find there isn't any!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TL5* /forum/post/18118919
> 
> 
> I am actually considering this model, but if you look at the pictures of my room I have doubts I would be able to use them in 7.1 mode as they will be far apart - about 25 feet from each other. A similar model without the 5.1/7.1 switching capability is about $800 less.



Lemme think... 25 feet is almost 8 metres. So each surround is almost 4 metres from centre.


That's quite a lot... but what's the alternative?


If you go for straight dipoles/bipoles, how are you any better off (assuming you skip the Focals)?


Remember that the further away you are from these speakers, the more the wall-reflections will count.

You'll still be getting more rear-surround bounce from the rear wall, and side-wall bounce from the side walls.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ShoutingMan* /forum/post/18118353
> 
> 
> This is my room, with central listening position on couch shown and distance to TV and side walls. The left side is open to the kitchen and hall. As the left wall portion doesn't allow bi/dipole to be placed aligned with the listener, I now think that those aren't good speakers for my room.



OK. Assuming you were to go with bookshelf speakers, where would you put them?


Looks to me like you've only two choices:

1* To the sides with the left side mounted on a stand, shelf or bracket.

2* On the rear wall (like what I'm currently doing).


Now, ask yourself...given that bi/di/dual-monopoles don't _need_ to be wall-mounted, how are you better off with bookshelf speakers?


Once again, I reckon I'd be buying the bi/di/dual-monopole-switchable speakers and keeping myself covered.


----------



## TL5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/18120501
> 
> 
> Well those Focal's look nice - but as always with JMLab - way overpriced.
> 
> 
> I'm sure if you were to shoot them out against the likes of the JBLs or Infinity Classia - especially with some help from Audyssey - you wouldn't lose any sleep over the sonic differences. You might even find there isn't any!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lemme think... 25 feet is almost 8 metres. So each surround is almost 4 metres from centre.
> 
> 
> That's quite a lot... but what's the alternative?
> 
> 
> If you go for straight dipoles/bipoles, how are you any better off (assuming you skip the Focals)?
> 
> 
> Remember that the further away you are from these speakers, the more the wall-reflections will count.
> 
> You'll still be getting more rear-surround bounce from the rear wall, and side-wall bounce from the side walls.



I don't feel the JMlabs are overpriced at all, considering the way they sound and are built. These speakers are 27.5 pounds each - heavy for smallish wall mountable speakers. Having said that they may be overkill for surround use, but I do listen to 5.1 DVD-A's and SACD's. My question is if the switchable 5.1/-7.1 mode is worth it in my room versus a regular bipolar model, due to the fact the surrounds are so far apart. It might be better, giving me more "fill" to the back of my room to just go 5.1 ( Couch where I listen from is near rear wall.) If I get a similar bipolar model from JMlabs without the ability to switch it to a 7.1 system, I can save about $800.


----------



## ShoutingMan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/18120528
> 
> 
> OK. Assuming you were to go with bookshelf speakers, where would you put them?
> 
> 
> Looks to me like you've only two choices:
> 
> 1* To the sides with the left side mounted on a stand, shelf or bracket.
> 
> 2* On the rear wall (like what I'm currently doing).
> 
> 
> Now, ask yourself...given that bi/di/dual-monopoles don't _need_ to be wall-mounted, how are you better off with bookshelf speakers?
> 
> 
> Once again, I reckon I'd be buying the bi/di/dual-monopole-switchable speakers and keeping myself covered.



Monopole (Bookshelf) speakers go on stands to the sides and slightly behind couch; that's my current setup. It's not ideal, as they're close to the the off-center couch sitting positions.


My -- admittedly meager -- understanding was that bi/dipoles were supposed to be wall mounted with the null aligned with the listening position. I can't wall mount on the left and be aligned to the null. I can mount on the rear wall, but that's also said to be a bad idea. I might be able to stand-mount bipoles and be aligned to the null; I'm not sure.


I need to ask the dealer if I can demo both options and see what works.


However, I've found that bipoles are no longer my big problem: the center channel is. These things are huge and don't fit my setup. I'm inquiring elsewhere about options for coping with that (hopefully, short of buying a smaller, cheaper speaker system).


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TL5* /forum/post/18120827
> 
> 
> I don't feel the JMlabs are overpriced at all, considering the way they sound and are built. These speakers are 27.5 pounds each - heavy for smallish wall mountable speakers. Having said that they may be overkill for surround use, but I do listen to 5.1 DVD-A's and SACD's. My question is if the switchable 5.1/-7.1 mode is worth it in my room versus a regular bipolar model, due to the fact the surrounds are so far apart. It might be better, giving me more "fill" to the back of my room to just go 5.1 ( Couch where I listen from is near rear wall.) If I get a similar bipolar model from JMlabs without the ability to switch it to a 7.1 system, I can save about $800.



If you're set on getting JMLab, then it becomes a slightly tougher question with that $800 difference. You really want to do listening tests to hear the differences.


Again, don't forget that at 4 metres a side, reinforcement from room reflections will play a much greater roll...


Personally, I would still get the switchables any day.

The differences will vary from mix to mix, but at least you're completely covered for now and the future. You won't be hearing 6.1 and 7.1 mixes in 5.1, and you can always switch back to bipole if needs be.


Look at it this way - if you're concerned that the distance will negate the difference, then why get such high quality surrounds in the first place?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ShoutingMan* /forum/post/18121052
> 
> 
> Monopole (Bookshelf) speakers go on stands to the sides and slightly behind couch; that's my current setup. It's not ideal, as they're close to the the off-center couch sitting positions.
> 
> 
> My -- admittedly meager -- understanding was that bi/dipoles were supposed to be wall mounted with the null aligned with the listening position. I can't wall mount on the left and be aligned to the null. I can mount on the rear wall, but that's also said to be a bad idea. I might be able to stand-mount bipoles and be aligned to the null; I'm not sure.



Sounds like you need to to do more reading up on this!

With dipoles, it's critical to sit in the null.
With bipoles, it's not critical.


Mounting a single pair of surrounds on the rear wall is not usually the best option for most people, but in your case the only other real option is to have *di*poles at either side of the couch - one speaker on the wall and one on a stand or some sort of back wall-mounted plate or bracket (and possibly two bipoles on the rear wall as well if you want to go 7.1)


I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself here. But as I said before - in your case, I'd either take the above option (probably with Paradigm ADP-190s ), or do what I'm doing (which you can see by clicking on my signature below).


----------



## craig john




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ShoutingMan* /forum/post/18121052
> 
> 
> Monopole (Bookshelf) speakers go on stands to the sides and slightly behind couch; that's my current setup. It's not ideal, as they're close to the the off-center couch sitting positions.
> 
> 
> My -- admittedly meager -- understanding was that bi/dipoles were supposed to be wall mounted with the null aligned with the listening position. I can't wall mount on the left and be aligned to the null. I can mount on the rear wall, but that's also said to be a bad idea. I might be able to stand-mount *bipoles and be aligned to the null*; I'm not sure.


*BI*poles don't have a null. They have a wide, 180 dispersion pattern with NO NULL! Bipoles could be a good option for you because they have NO NULL!

*DI*poles do have a null that is to be aligned at 90 degrees to the listening position.


Craig


----------



## ShoutingMan

Thanks for the reiteration. I think that's the first explicit statement of nominal position of biopole / dipole speakers in this entire thread







The difficulty is that I can't find an explicit description of the ideal location for bipole and dipole speakers. Not in this thread; not elsewhere. I'm making educated guesses from what is said.


Specific to the Paradigm ADP speakers, Paradigm never labels their surround speakers as dipole or bipole, so I don't which they are, much less their ideal placement. Looking at the manual, they show them placed on the wall, listener in the null; or in the corners.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ShoutingMan* /forum/post/18125149
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reiteration. I think that's the first explicit statement of nominal position of biopole / dipole speakers in this entire thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difficulty is that I can't find an explicit description of the ideal location for bipole and dipole speakers. Not in this thread; not elsewhere. I'm making educated guesses from what is said.



Just think of bipoles as regular front-firing speakers, but with a wider spread.

You get more sound firing around the room and more reflections, and (generally) less distraction if you're sitting too close to them.


You can stick them almost anywhere you'd put bookshelf speakers, with a better surround effect.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ShoutingMan* /forum/post/18125149
> 
> 
> Specific to the Paradigm ADP speakers, Paradigm never labels their surround speakers as dipole or bipole, so I don't which they are, much less their ideal placement. Looking at the manual, they show them placed on the wall, listener in the null; or in the corners.



Those Paradigms are noteworthy because only the tweeters run out of phase.

The woofers are in phase, so you get better, deeper, uncompromised bass.

(Most other brands that do this, like Jamo and Polk, only use woofer.)


So basically - bipole woofers, dipole tweeters: The best of both worlds.


There's a white paper somewhere on Paradigm's site, but I had them confirm this by email.


----------



## Timothy91

Hey,


I want a combo direct/diffuse design dipole speaker (aka "Tripole") I believe these will give me the best of all worlds no matter the source material I use. The only two models I have found so far are:


M&K SS150 THX:










Cambridge Soundworks Newton Series S300 / Series II S305










Does anyone know of other speakers made with this design? Preferably with slightly larger drivers? Hopefully they are affordable.


Thanks.


----------



## TonsOfSteel

Wow, no matches in this thread for these? Fluance AV-BP2 


100 bucks a piece. Anyone have any input?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/18134198
> 
> 
> Hey,
> 
> 
> I want a combo direct/diffuse design dipole speaker (aka "Tripole") I believe these will give me the best of all worlds no matter the source material I use. The only two models I have found so far are:
> 
> M&K SS150 THX:
> 
> 
> Cambridge Soundworks Newton Series S300 / Series II S305
> 
> 
> Does anyone know of other speakers made with this design? Preferably with slightly larger drivers? Hopefully they are affordable.
> 
> Thanks.



Tripoles? All I can say is - *try before you buy*.


I've never had the privilege of hearing tripoles, but I can imagine them not being diffuse enough enough, thanks to the front tweeter/woofer.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TonsOfSteel* /forum/post/18135007
> 
> 
> Wow, no matches in this thread for these? Fluance AV-BP2
> 
> 
> 100 bucks a piece. Anyone have any input?



Lookin' good.

Wish you could get them in Australia. The only cheap and cheerful bipoles here (that I know of) are made by Energy.


----------



## floridapoolboy

The Cambridge Soundworks S300s let you use either the dome tweeter for monopole use or the two cone tweeters for dipole/bipole use, but not together. It's not a tripole, in other words.


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *floridapoolboy* /forum/post/18135650
> 
> 
> The Cambridge Soundworks S300s let you use either the dome tweeter for monopole use or the two cone tweeters for dipole/bipole use, but not together. It's not a tripole, in other words.



Why the hell would they set it up like that? Direct and indirect radiating sound would be badass.







Those stinking cheapskaters.


----------



## craig john




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/18139082
> 
> 
> Why the hell would they set it up like that? Direct and indirect radiating sound would be badass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those stinking cheapskaters.



Direct and indirect radiating... from one speaker??? Sounds like a bipole to me.










Craig


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/18139082
> 
> 
> Why the hell would they set it up like that? Direct and indirect radiating sound would be badass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those stinking cheapskaters.



It's not cheapskate at all. I think they're actually looking _terrific_ for these reasons...


* Being able to switch from di/bipole to a straight front-firing speaker is great for those wanting monopole for multi-channel music.


* Having 2.5" mid/high drivers firing at the sides (rather than two smaller tweeters) should make for better diffusion.


* Nice looking, in black or white.


* 10 year warranty.


* Affordable!




My main gripe is the 4" woofer, which is a bit small. Pity they don't make a larger version with a 6.5" !


Is the switch at the front or back?


If anyone owns or has tried them out, let us know what you think...

Cambridge Soundworks S300 multipole


----------



## Spaceman

My existing L/C/Rs (Atlantic Technology 727 in-walls)










My proposed surrounds (Atlantic Technology 14 in-walls, although I'd like something with a sealed enclosure)










My proposed room layout










The plan has changed slightly, but this is a fairly accurate representation of my room. After reading this thread, I think I would benefit from the following:

-slide the two side surrounds from behind the first row to directly beside the first row, and place them approximately 2' above ear height. Currently, they are shown at the Dolby & THX recommended 110 degrees from screen centerline, but I believe that is better suited for monopole configurations.

-set the two side surrounds in dipole mode

-to work with existing wall framing, I will need to place the two rear surrounds closer together than shown. Since they will be fairly close to the rear seats, would these work better switched to bipole? I guess I can experiment.


Because my back row of seats is on a 12" riser, I'm not sure whether to keep the side & rear surrounds at the same height (2' above 1st row ears) or set the rears 1' higher to keep them 2' above the rear row ears.


Appreciate the feedback.


----------



## osuyoralph

Hi,


I've just purchased 5.0 channel Energy speaker set with Denon AVR-1910 for home theater system. The speaker set is the following:


Front Left/Right: CF-30

Center: CC-5

Surrounds: CR-10


Since I do not have much chances to use subwoofer in apartment, I did not order subwoofer. Later, I will get it if I have chance.


I plan to install speakers in my living room which has three closed walls and one open side on the right. So, I wonder how I could set up surround speakers. For left surround, I could use either side or rear walls, but I could just use rear wall for right surround. In this situation, how do I have to position surround speakers for 5.0 channel.


Also, I saw CR-10 has option for bipole/dipole. I do not have any experience for these option. For this, do I have to position speakers vertically or horizontally? Which do I have to use for home theater system. Please, recommend and share your idea with me. Thank you.


Best regards,

Inchul


----------



## jaidog

I have read through most of the posts in this thread, and

still can't determine the best speakers to use for my

surround channels and exactly where to locate them. Part

of the problem is that I haven't come across a configuration

that resembles mine exactly.


Details of my set-up:


o 5.1 DolbyDigital/DTS using core audio from BluRay

o Room dimensions are 15' wide x 20' long x 8' tall

o Front speakers are 9' apart on 15' wide wall

o Front left and front right are Proac Tablette 50

o *Listening position is 14' from front wall, 6' from rear wall*

o Due to room layout, *surround speakers must be mounted on

rear wall*

o Rear channels will be used primarily for movies, and

very rarely for music (SACD, etc)


I currently have in-wall wiring run to the rear wall. Two

single-gang boxes contain the wire, one for the left surround

and the other for the right surround. Each of these boxes is

located 7' high and 3' in from each corner. I am willing to

relocate these boxes if it will make a substantial difference,

but they must remain on rear wall.


Please advise as to which type of speaker would work best

as well as mounting location.


Thanks in advance.


----------



## Wallboy

Hey everyone, I am going to be buying some rear surrounds soon and was wondering whether or not to just get direct radiators or dipole/bipole surrounds given the one side of the room being open. Here's a picture of my room setup and where I might be putting the surrounds. The seating is right beneath the projector.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2380/roomgu.jpg 


Would bipole/dipole surrounds not work well given the open right side of the room?


Thanks for any help.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jaidog* /forum/post/18148078
> 
> 
> I have read through most of the posts in this thread, and
> 
> still can't determine the best speakers to use for my
> 
> surround channels and exactly where to locate them. Part
> 
> of the problem is that I haven't come across a configuration
> 
> that resembles mine exactly.
> 
> 
> Details of my set-up:
> 
> 
> o 5.1 DolbyDigital/DTS using core audio from BluRay
> 
> o Room dimensions are 15' wide x 20' long x 8' tall
> 
> o Front speakers are 9' apart on 15' wide wall
> 
> o Front left and front right are Proac Tablette 50
> 
> o *Listening position is 14' from front wall, 6' from rear wall*
> 
> o Due to room layout, *surround speakers must be mounted on
> 
> rear wall*
> 
> o Rear channels will be used primarily for movies, and
> 
> very rarely for music (SACD, etc)
> 
> 
> I currently have in-wall wiring run to the rear wall. Two
> 
> single-gang boxes contain the wire, one for the left surround
> 
> and the other for the right surround. Each of these boxes is
> 
> located 7' high and 3' in from each corner. I am willing to
> 
> relocate these boxes if it will make a substantial difference,
> 
> but they must remain on rear wall.
> 
> 
> Please advise as to which type of speaker would work best
> 
> as well as mounting location.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance.



That all sounds fine.

In your situation, I'd be running a pair of bipoles or quadpoles.


I'd aim for lower than 7 feet up - Ideally around a couple of feet above seated ear level.

Width-wise, 3 feet in from each side wall is fine, but around 2 feet or even less may well give more spread and bounce off the side walls.


----------



## A9X-308




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wallboy* /forum/post/18767988
> 
> 
> Would bipole/dipole surrounds not work well given the open right side of the room?



I would be more concerned with the LS being so close to the rear wall. I'd go with DRs, but I'm not fond of the DP/BP/Omni types I've tried for surrounds anyway. I'd use the same positioning.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wallboy* /forum/post/18767988
> 
> 
> Hey everyone, I am going to be buying some rear surrounds soon and was wondering whether or not to just get direct radiators or dipole/bipole surrounds given the one side of the room being open. Here's a picture of my room setup and where I might be putting the surrounds. The seating is right beneath the projector.
> 
> http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2380/roomgu.jpg
> 
> 
> Would bipole/dipole surrounds not work well given the open right side of the room?
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help.



Dipoles, bipoles, quadpoles will all work well. Even in an uneven room like yours, the extra spread will help.

Dual-monopoles like mine would be stretching the friendship, though.


If I were you, I'd buy a pair of dipole/bipole-switchables. Ideally models with only one woofer either mounted to face the centre (like Monitor Audio) or angled towards the front (like Polk).

I'd also buy a pair Axiom Audios's QS8's.


I'd then try each pair, mounted around a couple of feet above ear level (experiment with this too), then get a refund on the weaker pair.


...and let us know how you go!


----------



## doublewing11

Just chiming in...........


Have two current rooms with 7.1.....one small, one large.


Upstairs is a small 10' X 13' room with a 45 degree sloped ceiling, I'm using Mirage Prestige Nanostats and couldn't be happier......bipole surround works best for the application.


On the other hand, downstairs in the main family room I have direct radiating speaker that are in wall............the room is 20' X 20" with 26' ceilings







.........much different application, and a much different sound field. Dipoles nor bipoles would work in this huge room!


I must say, I prefer the upstairs room as the sound field is more to my taste. Who would have guessed?










With my new home construction breaking ground the end of this month, my dedicated theater will have 6 Triad in-room Gold surrounds..................going dipole and I'm not looking back!


For me, it's a personal taste..........I really enjoy the diffused sound.....I will never go back to direct radiating surrounds again.


----------



## deepstang

Wallboy, with the relatively large distance between the listener and the surrounds I think you may be ok with a regular directional speaker. The extra money you would spend on a dipole/bipole can be invested in a better quailty bookshelf type surround. One of the cons of many bipole/dipole speakers is that due to size and cost, it is hard to get a pair that can competantly play down to 60-80Hz.


Jaidog, I am not sure if the trouble of relocating in-walls will yield a "substantial" gain. I was very satisfied with my surrounds when I had them mounted at that height and width from the sidewalls. I currently in-activated my in-wall and mounted bipoles on the back wall. It wasn't a night and day difference, but definitely an improvement.


DoubleWing11, you are installing a wicked set-up!! Triad is one amazing in-wall speaker.


----------



## mfahnestock

I too am an avid dipole on the surrounds (doublewing I am jealous as I am only running the Bronze surrounds!), but based on that RS speaker being open, you are going to be losing some of your reflection from the dipole.


What's nice about dipole/bipole speakers are the great sound dispersion, but as many have stated, it comes down to a preferential thing. Based on the way your room is configured, I would probably go bipole on those surrounds to get some level of dispersion and to negate some of the openness on the RS so you get some toward the listening position. My 2 cents.


----------



## Krackar

I currently have a 5.1 setup and am thinking about replacing my old bookshelfs that I'm using as surround speakers. I have a 7.1 receiver and was thinking about getting these http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/...ine-S-Surround to match the rest of my system and get 7.1 out of the setup.


Would they work ok being used to make my 5.1 into a 7.1 setup?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Krackar* /forum/post/18823210
> 
> 
> I currently have a 5.1 setup and am thinking about replacing my old bookshelfs that I'm using as surround speakers. I have a 7.1 receiver and was thinking about getting these http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/...ine-S-Surround to match the rest of my system and get 7.1 out of the setup.
> 
> 
> Would they work ok being used to make my 5.1 into a 7.1 setup?




Yep. They would work very nicely for 7.1 if you'd rather not run two separate pairs of surround speakers.


(Very similar to my Infinity ES-250's)


----------



## A9X-308




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Krackar* /forum/post/18823210
> 
> 
> I currently have a 5.1 setup and am thinking about replacing my old bookshelfs that I'm using as surround speakers. I have a 7.1 receiver and was thinking about getting these http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/...ine-S-Surround to match the rest of my system and get 7.1 out of the setup.
> 
> 
> Would they work ok being used to make my 5.1 into a 7.1 setup?



I'm dubious they'd be anywhere near as good as 4 correctly placed surrounds. In my not atypical living room set-up the difference between best side and rear is 2m and about 50-60° so having both surrounds near co-located is not going to give the same effect.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *A9X-308* /forum/post/18955546
> 
> 
> I'm dubious they'd be anywhere near as good as 4 correctly placed surrounds. In my not atypical living room set-up the difference between best side and rear is 2m and about 50-60° so having both surrounds near co-located is not going to give the same effect.



That's true... It'll never match 4 separate correctly placed surround speakers, but it _will_ be a big improvement on a regular 5.1 setup - even on 5.1 material being upmixed to 7.1.


----------



## Phacoman

I have been getting differing opinions on this but I figured a few more differing opinions couldn't hurt.


My current theater does not have a back wall. It's in one end of a really large finished basement. I have polks for my main LCR speakers so I decided to get the polk owm3 for surrounds. Because of my room, I have them mounted a couple feet behind the rear row of seats and to the side but angle mounted so they fire towards the center and front. One of them is mounted on a support column, the other on the side wall. They are not great speakers...a little shrill and definitely can't reach any low frequencies.


I've been considering upgrade options such as the polk fxi-a4 but I don't think I can position them well. I obviously don't have a back wall to place them on. I could mount one on the right side wall but the left side wall has a window and french doors. The one area of normal wall on that side is in front of the seating area by a couple feet. Of course, I could also use that support column to the rear where I have the owm3 mounted.


How would you guys suggest I upgrade?


----------



## jayman_1975

Hi all. I'm currently looking to add some surround speakers to my current rig. My room is not very large (16x14). My couch is on the rear wall so i am forced to put speakers in the rear corners of my room. I don't know much about surrounds as i have only used direct firing surrounds before in other systems. Would a dipole speaker work in this application? or should i stick to a direct firing speaker?


If a direct firing speaker is my only decent option then i will need something that i can hang on the wall somewhat like polk audio rti4 that has a bracket for wall mounting. I am looking for something a little classier and better quality though. Any ideas?


----------



## deepstang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mathelo* /forum/post/17607789
> 
> 
> But building a surround from something like the B&C 8CXT 8" Coaxial Driver
> 
> http://www.parts-express.com/pe/psho...53&ctab=2#Tabs
> 
> 
> should get pretty close. Just needs a crossover and a cab to complete the picture.
> 
> 
> And Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.
> 
> 
> Louis



Our situation sounds similar. I think that mounting direct firing speakers on the corner would work. It is good to try to get as close as possible in having the correct angles as specified on the Dolby Digital website.


To be honest, I WAS using in-walls for my rear surrounds in my 5.1, and they sounded great. I had the upgrade bug and wanted to see what bipoles/dipoles would sound like. My rationale was to use these great ES250s as bipoles, and it would basically be like having a speaker firing at a 100 degree angle to the listener....even with the couch on the back wall. I will post a pick to better illustrate what I am talking about.


----------



## jayman_1975

Thanks for the reply. Your set up looks good. Unfortunately for me i also have a window on my back wall so i'm stuck with mounting something on the side walls directly in the corners.


----------



## deepstang

Thanks!


Jayman, I think that would be just fine. I am a little rusty on my knowledge of bipole/dipoles...but from what i can remember, if you are mounting something on the sidewall dipoles are often recommended. It gets tricky when your seating is on the back wall b/c you can't fully take advantage of reflection. I think that mounting on the corner will be fine...but again, you may be better using a direct firing speaker on a stand facing towards the listener.


Here is a link to dolby's set-up page, to allow you to analyze the angles of your surround.

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/setup/...ide/index.html 


Here is a link to the Polk website that gives a quick summary and diagram of bipole/dipole speakers.

http://www.polkaudio.com/education/t...icle.php?id=27


----------



## Landry

I currently have a 5.2 system and want to upgrade to a 7.2. I have all kef speakers (iq90 left and rights, iq60c center, iq30 surrounds) with the exception of my subs (both outlaw lfm-1 plus). I want to add dipole/bipole for my rears but not sure which ones would make a good match. I see that kef has some dipoles, the iq8ds but I cant seem to find many reviews at all about them, and the one i did was not that good. I have read good things about the axiom qs8, and polk fxi A4. Can anyone make any suggestions? Oh, I am running everything with a Pioneer vsx-1120 receiver and watching a Samsung pn63c8000 tv. I also will be using this for 99.9% hometheater use, very little if any music and if music is coming out of the speakers, it is my wife listening and she could care less what it sounds like. Movie use is my only concern!

Thanks!!


----------



## A9X-308

I'd just add another set of IQ30's to the rear.


----------



## Landry

I really need something that I can wall mount and the iq30's ate too deep for where I need them. 7-8in will be perfect as far as depth goes. They will go on the back wall with a sofa about 3 ft from it. The iq30's are just too deep. Otherwise they would have been my first choice. I also really want to try dipole/bipole speakers for movies. Based on what I have read I think I will like like the effect they produce as opposed to direct radiating.


----------



## palehorse

^^^^ for most setups, you're going to want bipoles for the rear, not dipoles. Set only the sides to dipole mode. Just a suggestion...


I love my Emotiva ERD-1's. They're only 4.25" deep, and they have both settings.


----------



## drewh01




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *palehorse* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ^^^^ for most setups, you're going to want bipoles for the rear, not dipoles. Set only the sides to dipole mode. Just a suggestion...
> 
> 
> I love my Emotiva ERD-1's. They're only 4.25" deep, and they have both settings.



I agree, my new ERD's rock the house. Especially when I hooked them up properly. I made a stupid mistake and hooked them to the side rears output and not the main rears when I first got them. For the first day I could not understand why the sound was so faint......until I hooked them to the proper outputs. Now all is well again. Of course the XPA-5 helps!


----------



## Landry

The emotiva's were on my list, but my concern is that they are 4ohm. Would that cause a problem for my receiver? It's a pioneer vsx-1120.


----------



## palehorse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Landry* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The emotiva's were on my list, but my concern is that they are 4ohm. Would that cause a problem for my receiver? It's a pioneer vsx-1120.



Absolutely not, that's what I have. The 1120 runs them without breaking a sweat!


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Don't forget to post your pics, by the way!


----------



## GLBright

I've had a pair of Cambridge SoundWorks The Surround 5.1 (designed by Henry Kloss) for years.











Long ago I settled on the bipole mode, partly because adding the larger forward facing driver extends its LF cutoff, but also because I listen to multi-channel SACD/DVD-As. Dipole mode gives these music formats an artificial, unfocused sound quality. A couple months ago 5.1 became 7.1 due to receiver failure/replacement. After adding a pair of rear channel speakers (fortuitously found at the curb in a nearby subdivision prior to their being compacted by the local trash co.) I still prefer the bipole setting.


----------



## Leander311

I'm looking to complete an "entry" 5.1 setup in our new house, and some small bi-pole (I think) Polks just went on the cheap at Newegg. For the WAF, I'd likely have to put any surrounds I choose about 8-9ft up on the side walls, I'm thinking 2-3 feet in front of our back wall. The room is 18x15x10, listening position about 3ft in front of the back wall, which is 15' wide.


Anyhow, these are the surrounds I'm considering: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16882290220 They're $129/pr with coupon right now, wall hardware included although non-articulating. Might upgrade to an articulating mount later since I'm up so high but not real concerned at this time.


I'm running a Pioneer VSX-21 with Polk Monitor 70's L/R, CS2 center, and Outlaw LFM-1+ sub. All bought on the cheap, of course... It's hell refurbing a HUD repo! 75/25 Music/HT, as we are both classically-trained musicians.


Any grave concerns with this setup or other suggestions?


Thanks!


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Leander311* /forum/post/19340887
> 
> 
> I'm looking to complete an "entry" 5.1 setup in our new house, and some small bi-pole (I think) Polks just went on the cheap at Newegg. For the WAF, I'd likely have to put any surrounds I choose about 8-9ft up on the side walls, I'm thinking 2-3 feet in front of our back wall. The room is 18x15x10, listening position about 3ft in front of the back wall, which is 15' wide.
> 
> 
> Anyhow, these are the surrounds I'm considering: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16882290220 They're $129/pr with coupon right now, wall hardware included although non-articulating. Might upgrade to an articulating mount later since I'm up so high but not real concerned at this time.
> 
> 
> I'm running a Pioneer VSX-21 with Polk Monitor 70's L/R, CS2 center, and Outlaw LFM-1+ sub. All bought on the cheap, of course... It's hell refurbing a HUD repo! 75/25 Music/HT, as we are both classically-trained musicians.
> 
> 
> Any grave concerns with this setup or other suggestions?
> 
> 
> Thanks!




G'day.

All that sounds fine. Just a few things, though...


* I'd steer clear of those Polk RM8s. I'm sure they're decent enough speakers, but having only one tweeter on one side rather than two, is definitely a deal-breaker.

You'll get better a better spread of sound with a design like the Emotiva ERD-1 , Paradigm ADP-190 , or even quadpoles like the Axiom QS8 .


* Having speakers that are dipole/bipole switchable is an advantage in that you can check and choose whatever works best. Additionally, if you were to add rear speakers in the future, you may well want switch the sides to dipole.


* Aim to go 7.1 if at all possible. It's a big improvement, and all 5.1 mixes (and 2.0 mixes) upconvert amazingly well to 7.1.

If you want to stick with two speakers, consider a dual-monopole-switchable speaker like the Infinity Classia C255ES or JBL P520WS .


* Don't be too concerned with having to buy a matching brand for your surrounds. What with the massively different positioning to your fronts, wall-mounting and reflections, it's a non-issue. Audyssey helps to correct for these differences, anyway.



* Placement-wise, aim to have your surrounds just behind the listening position if you're only going 5.1 with bipoles. This will give you a good blend of side/rear, allowing for bounce off the back wall.


* However, dipoles generally work best directly to the sides, rather than behind you. So if you choose dipole/bipole switchables, try testing them out in both modes in both positions, and see what you prefer.


Good luck, and let us know how you go!


----------



## palehorse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> G'day.
> 
> All that sounds fine. Just a few things, though...
> 
> 
> * I'd steer clear of those Polk RM8s. I'm sure they're decent enough speakers, but having only one tweeter on one side rather than two, is definitely a deal-breaker.
> 
> You'll get better a better spread of sound with a design like the Emotiva ERD-1 , Paradigm ADP-190 , or even quadpoles like the Axiom QS8 .
> 
> 
> * Having speakers that are dipole/bipole switchable is an advantage in that you can check and choose whatever works best. Additionally, if you were to add rear speakers in the future, you may well want switch the sides to dipole.
> 
> 
> * Aim to go 7.1 if at all possible. It's a big improvement, and all 5.1 mixes (and 2.0 mixes) upconvert amazingly well to 7.1.
> 
> If you want to stick with two speakers, consider a dual-monopole-switchable speaker like the Infinity Classia C255ES or JBL P520WS .
> 
> 
> * Don't be too concerned with having to buy a matching brand for your surrounds. What with the massively different positioning to your fronts, wall-mounting and reflections, it's a non-issue. Audyssey helps to correct for these differences, anyway.
> 
> 
> * Placement-wise, aim to have your surrounds just behind the listening position if you're only going 5.1 with bipoles. This will give you a good blend of side/rear, allowing for bounce off the back wall.
> 
> 
> * However, dipoles generally work best directly to the sides, rather than behind you. So if you choose dipole/bipole switchables, try testing them out in both modes in both positions, and see what you prefer.
> 
> 
> Good luck, and let us know how you go!



I have ERD's paired withe the same front 3 Leander311 has, and I love 'em!










For my current 5.1 setup, I have them set to bipole...


----------



## Leander311

I wrote a thoughtful reply but it got deleted, doh!


In a nutshell, thanks for the thoughtful remarks. Very good input and points. The ERD-1 looks like a solid performer, and at a bargain price for such quality. I'm a sucker for value and want to do this right... Plus looks like it'd be much more visibly attractive installed. And agreed, a single tweeter does not make the Polk much of a bi-pole at all.


My only concern, it is clearly marketed as a 4-ohm product, while the Pio Elite VSX-21 is only 6-ohm stable. And I don't think the AVR has 6/8 ohm settings by speaker, but rather "all or none". Thoughts?


----------



## palehorse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Leander311* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I wrote a thoughtful reply but it got deleted, doh!
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, thanks for the thoughtful remarks. Very good input and points. The ERD-1 looks like a solid performer, and at a bargain price for such quality. I'm a sucker for value and want to do this right... Plus looks like it'd be much more visibly attractive installed. And agreed, a single tweeter does not make the Polk much of a bi-pole at all.
> 
> 
> My only concern, it is clearly marketed as a 4-ohm product, while the Pio Elite VSX-21 is only 6-ohm stable. And I don't think the AVR has 6/8 ohm settings by speaker, but rather "all or none". Thoughts?



I leave my Pioneer 1120 set on 8 ohm, but it still has no problem at all pushing the 4-ohm ERD surrounds. You shouldn't have any issues.


Recommended mounting height is 1-3 ft above ear level while seated.


Good luck!


----------



## Leander311

Pale, thanks again... I think that seals the deal. You are more or less running the exact same setup I'll have. Not much difference between the 1120 and 21 either, except maybe discrete amplification. I just recently bi-amped my M70's and they sound great (but passive sadly, wish the Pio had active x-over settings to make this feature infinitely more valuable) .


One last thing to your point, I simply am not able to mount 1-3 feet above the listener, even if WAF didn't prescribe it, there's just no way to do it in the listening room. Is it going to be drastically worse if it's 5-6ft above ear level? I would imagine the bi/di-pole setup by design would largely offset any performance degradation as compared to a mono surround.


----------



## palehorse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Leander311* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Pale, thanks again... I think that seals the deal. You are more or less running the exact same setup I'll have. Not much difference between the 1120 and 21 either, except maybe discrete amplification. I just recently bi-amped my M70's and they sound great (but passive sadly, wish the Pio had active x-over settings to make this feature infinitely more valuable) .
> 
> 
> One last thing to your point, I simply am not able to mount 1-3 feet above the listener, even if WAF didn't prescribe it, there's just no way to do it in the listening room. Is it going to be drastically worse if it's 5-6ft above ear level? I would imagine the bi/di-pole setup by design would largely offset any performance degradation as compared to a mono surround.



Honestly, I would post the placement question in the Emotiva Lounge forums, or send an email to their engineers. I really have no idea how the bipole/dipole setup would be effected by high placement. Sorry


----------



## Shag

Apologies if this is already covered in this thread - I'm still trying to work my way through it...


I'm looking to mount a pair of Paradigm ADP V2 speakers in my basement, and curious what the ideal height is for side-wall placement. Due to a soffit on one side, my max wall height to work with is 7' 9.5".


I also need to pick up a pair of speakers for my rear 7.1 surrounds. Those speaker will have to be mounted near the ceiling (8' 9"), due to room design - should I be looking at direct radiating speakers, or dipole/bipoles?


----------



## palehorse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shag* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Apologies if this is already covered in this thread - I'm still trying to work my way through it...
> 
> 
> I'm looking to mount a pair of Paradigm ADP V2 speakers in my basement, and curious what the ideal height is for side-wall placement. Due to a soffit on one side, my max wall height to work with is 7' 9.5".
> 
> 
> I also need to pick up a pair of speakers for my rear 7.1 surrounds. Those speaker will have to be mounted near the ceiling (8' 9"), due to room design - should I be looking at direct radiating speakers, or dipole/bipoles?



Optimal placement for bi/di speakers is usually 1-3 ft above seated ear position. For placement angles, use the suggested Dolby placement angles in relation to the center seat.


In your case, since you need to mount the rears so high, I'd use direct radiating speakers in the rear and aim/tilt them toward the center listening position. For your sides, I'd mount them at 18-24" above the ear level and set them to dipole mode.


----------



## Shag




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *palehorse* /forum/post/19350074
> 
> 
> Optimal placement for bi/di speakers is usually 1-3 ft above seated ear position. For placement angles, use the suggested Dolby placement angles in relation to the center seat.
> 
> 
> In your case, since you need to mount the rears so high, I'd use direct radiating speakers in the rear and aim/tilt them toward the center listening position. For your sides, I'd mount them at 18-24" above the ear level and set them to dipole mode.



Thanks! Where on the speaker is the height measured to?


----------



## palehorse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shag* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! Where on the speaker is the height measured to?



That's a good question, but I'd go with the center of the tweeter(s).


----------



## TitusTroy

sorry to bump an old thread but what about bipole/dipole combo speakers where you can easily flip a switch on the speakers to switch between bipole and dipole...does it give you the best of both worlds or are there some corners that are cut?


----------



## Timothy91

Ok,


After serious thinking on this very topic recently, I'm tenatively leaning toward recommending people use omni-directional speakers on the side surrounds now as opposed to either bi-pole or di-pole. The mix of direct and lots of reflected sound is likely going to give is a nice enveloping sound while at the same time imparting some directional cues.


I'm going to give them a serious try at some point down the road.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/20871660
> 
> 
> Ok,
> 
> 
> After serious thinking on this very topic recently, I'm tenatively leaning toward recommending people use omni-directional speakers on the side surrounds now as opposed to either bi-pole or di-pole. The mix of direct and lots of reflected sound is likely going to give is a nice enveloping sound while at the same time imparting some directional cues.
> 
> 
> I'm going to give them a serious try at some point down the road.



Sounds like a plan. Let us know how you go.


Which models have you considered?

I've been meaning to make a definitive list of all available models at the head of this thread, and separate category for "Omnipoles" (?) would be good.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy* /forum/post/20870458
> 
> 
> sorry to bump an old thread but what about bipole/dipole combo speakers where you can easily flip a switch on the speakers to switch between bipole and dipole...does it give you the best of both worlds or are there some corners that are cut?



No need to apologise for the resuscitation... *A thread like this should really be a Sticky. (Anyone know how to do this?)*


Switchable speakers are a great idea - and they have no compromises over non-switchables.


The only disadvantage is common to all non-switchable dipoles, and this is the woofers running out of phase in Dipole mode

( Paradigm is the only brand I'm aware of that keeps the woofers in phase, but they're non-switchable).


For this reason, single woofer designs such as Monitor Audio are worth considering.


I've been using Infinity ES-250's, which switch between dipole, bipole and best of all... dual-monopole for 7.1 from two speakers.

No match for 4 separate speakers of course, but a good step up from dipoles/bipoles....


----------



## dunan

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* 
No need to apologise for the resuscitation... *A thread like this should really be a Sticky. (Anyone know how to do this?)*


Switchable speakers are a great idea - and they have no compromises over non-switchables.


The only disadvantage is common to all non-switchable dipoles, and this is the woofers running out of phase in Dipole mode

( Paradigm is the only brand I'm aware of that keeps the woofers in phase, but they're non-switchable).


For this reason, single woofer designs such as Monitor Audio are worth considering.


I've been using Infinity ES-250's, which switch between dipole, bipole and best of all... dual-monopole for 7.1 from two speakers.

No match for 4 separate speakers of course, but a good step up from dipoles/bipoles....


In order to get a thread stickied, a mod has to do it. PM a mod perhaps...i'm looking at this thread myself, i'd like to get a pair of bipoles for my surrounds as well, but dont know where to start.


I have a all polk setup, monitor 70s & CSi5 center. i would something that would go with these.....


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Quote:

Originally Posted by *dunan* 
In order to get a thread stickied, a mod has to do it. PM a mod perhaps...i'm looking at this thread myself, i'd like to get a pair of bipoles for my surrounds as well, but dont know where to start.


I have a all polk setup, monitor 70s & CSi5 center. i would something that would go with these.....


Cheers. Any Mod in particular? One in another audio-related thread perhaps?


Good choice of main towers, btw. They seem like great value.


Polk surrounds would be an obvious place to look, but I'd steer clear of the designs with a single woofer. The LSiFX is more like it, if pricey.


Having had matching-brand surrounds myself over the years, it's highly overrated, especially these days with Audyssey available.

As long as the surrounds are of a high enough calibre and match the fronts fairly well, things like dispersion & driver size are far more important.


Personally, if I was you and wanted to stick to one pair of surrounds, (and sorry to keep pushing this) I'd go for 7.1 with the Infinity dual-monopole-switchables or JBL's equivalent, mentioned earlier.


They're similar in sound character to the Polks, too (even more so after Audyssey).


----------



## dunan

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* 
Cheers. Any Mod in particular? One in another audio-related thread perhaps?


Good choice of main towers, btw. They seem like great value.


Polk surrounds would be an obvious place to look, but I'd steer clear of the designs with a single woofer. The LSiFX is more like it, if pricey.


Having had matching-brand surrounds myself over the years, it's highly overrated, especially these days with Audyssey available.

As long as the surrounds are of a high enough calibre and match the fronts fairly well, things like dispersion & driver size are far more important.


Personally, if I was you and wanted to stick to one pair of surrounds, (and sorry to keep pushing this) I'd go for 7.1 with the Infinity dual-monopole-switchables or JBL's equivalent, mentioned earlier.


They're similar in sound character to the Polks, too (even more so after Audyssey).


I would think any of them would do, they should all have the capabilities to sticky a thread, but sometimes it takes some convincing, not sure why.


And which Infinity dual-monopole-switchables are you referencing? I haven't gone through the whole thread yet, just this last page so far.


----------



## TitusTroy

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* 
No need to apologise for the resuscitation... *A thread like this should really be a Sticky. (Anyone know how to do this?)*


Switchable speakers are a great idea - and they have no compromises over non-switchables.


The only disadvantage is common to all non-switchable dipoles, and this is the woofers running out of phase in Dipole mode

( Paradigm is the only brand I'm aware of that keeps the woofers in phase, but they're non-switchable).


For this reason, single woofer designs such as Monitor Audio are worth considering.


I've been using Infinity ES-250's, which switch between dipole, bipole and best of all... dual-monopole for 7.1 from two speakers.

No match for 4 separate speakers of course, but a good step up from dipoles/bipoles....
thaks for the info...yes I agree that this thread deserves a sticky


I currently have the Aperion 5T towers, 5C Center and 4BP surrounds...the 4BP's are bipoles and although I'm happy with their performance I'm thinking about upgrading to their new bipole/dipole flagship surround speakers...I have my surrounds at ear level directly off to the sides of my main listening position and I heard that dipoles would be best in this setup


plus I mostly listen to movies and I hear dipole speakers offer a better surround experience for this...only thing that would be somewhat annoying is having to flip the switch to bipole when listening to music...would dipoles offer a considerably better audio experience compared to my current bipole speakers for Blu-ray watching?


does the bipole/dipole switch affect the midrange drivers or the woofers?...or is this dependant on the manufacturer of the speakers and how they choose to implement it?...I think I read that it's better to change the output of the midrange drivers versus the woofers to avoid diminishing bass output in dipole mode


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Quote:

Originally Posted by *dunan* 
I would think any of them would do, they should all have the capabilities to sticky a thread, but sometimes it takes some convincing, not sure why.


And which Infinity dual-monopole-switchables are you referencing? I haven't gone through the whole thread yet, just this last page so far.
I have the ES-250, but they've been "superseded" by the Classia series, and are a unique one-stop solution.


Have a good read through. Plenty of good food for thought here...


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Quote:

Originally Posted by *TitusTroy* 
thaks for the info...yes I agree that this thread deserves a sticky


I currently have the Aperion 5T towers, 5C Center and 4BP surrounds...the 4BP's are bipoles and although I'm happy with their performance I'm thinking about upgrading to their new bipole/dipole flagship surround speakers...I have my surrounds at ear level directly off to the sides of my main listening position and I heard that dipoles would be best in this setup


plus I mostly listen to movies and I hear dipole speakers offer a better surround experience for this...only thing that would be somewhat annoying is having to flip the switch to bipole when listening to music...would dipoles offer a considerably better audio experience compared to my current bipole speakers for Blu-ray watching?


does the bipole/dipole switch affect the midrange drivers or the woofers?...or is this dependant on the manufacturer of the speakers and how they choose to implement it?...I think I read that it's better to change the output of the midrange drivers versus the woofers to avoid diminishing bass output in dipole mode



Dipoles generally give a better spread, but they're a bit more finicky with placement, and really need to be placed to the sides of the LP for the proper effect.

Some people (like me) are a bit sensitive to the out-of-phase sound that they can put out, but it really depends on design, placement, etc...


I'd avoid dipoles that run woofers out of phase, which means going for either the Paradigm ADP design (non-switchable) or a single-woofer one like this one .

_Have a good read through the whole thread, though._


Omnipoles, quadpoles or dual-monopoles are all worth considering in your case.

Personally, I'd go for dual-monopole-switchables. That way, you get the lot.... and 7.1


----------



## The3rdMan

Looking for JBL P520WS or its equivalent but having problems trying to find a place to buy them. Does anyone know where to find a pair? I have JBL center and fronts and would like to get JBL dipoles to match them.....


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/20872778
> 
> 
> I have the ES-250, but they've been "superseded" by the Classia series, and are a unique one-stop solution.



I just purchased a pair of Infinity Classia C255ES speakers to replace the Polk R15 speakers I've been using as LS|RS in a 7.x configuration. I plan to try all three available modes (bipole|dipole|monopole) to see which one suits the room best as the surrounds are slightly higher placed than would be ideal. However, I used 4 conductor speaker cabling in case I try|need dual-monopole mode sometime!


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *The3rdMan* /forum/post/20914882
> 
> 
> Looking for JBL P520WS or its equivalent but having problems trying to find a place to buy them. Does anyone know where to find a pair? I have JBL center and fronts and would like to get JBL dipoles to match them.....



Perhaps give JBL a buzz and ask for a list of resellers / distributors.

You should locate some pretty quickly.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/20915070
> 
> 
> I just purchased a pair of Infinity Classia C255ES speakers to replace the Polk R15 speakers I've been using as LS|RS in a 7.x configuration. I plan to try all three available modes (bipole|dipole|monopole) to see which one suits the room best as the surrounds are slightly higher placed than would be ideal. However, I used 4 conductor speaker cabling in case I try|need dual-monopole mode sometime!



Good choice... Good move!

I trust you used the right gauge cable for the run? Quite a big audible difference, there.


Let us know how you go!


----------



## TitusTroy

ending up upgrading my Aperion bipole rear surrounds to the latest bipole/dipole surrounds

http://www.aperionaudio.com/product/...33,89,916.aspx 


anyone know if I can switch between bipole/dipole mid-scene (for audio testing comparisons) or do I have to turn off the speakers before switching between them?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy* /forum/post/20919274
> 
> 
> ending up upgrading my Aperion bipole rear surrounds to the latest bipole/dipole surrounds
> 
> http://www.aperionaudio.com/product/...33,89,916.aspx
> 
> 
> anyone know if I can switch between bipole/dipole mid-scene (for audio testing comparisons) or do I have to turn off the speakers before switching between them?




They look good.

Do the woofers also run out of phase in dipole mode?


I've never had a problem switching between di/bipole.


----------



## Knucklehead90

I switch my Emotiva ERD-1s without turning the amp off. If you get a pop you might want to power your amp down.


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/20871714
> 
> 
> Sounds like a plan. Let us know how you go.
> 
> 
> Which models have you considered?
> 
> I've been meaning to make a definitive list of all available models at the head of this thread, and separate category for "Omnipoles" (?) would be good.



There really aren't too many "omnipole" speakers available. The Mirage models are the only reasonably priced mainstream model currently available. The others are typically either "used/ancient" speakers (which will need restoration) or they are outrageously priced novelty hifi speakers (Bang & Olufsen, etc).


I created a thread not too long ago showing the speakers I had found:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1356044 


B&O - Beolab 5 - Expensive, expensive, man, expensive, can't afford this.
http://www.ultraaudio.com/equipment/...n_beolab_5.htm 










BIC - "Sound Span" TPR series speakers (*Vintage 70's - used)










JVC - Omni-directional surround speakers only with full systems. (TH-series & G8-1E models)


Kenwood - Omni-7 - Not available in the United States and not currently being made at all, and still, they are not very efficient.










German Physiks - The PQS-100 - Ridiculously cool, ridiculously expensive. Perhaps if I ever win a lottery or a big jackpot here in Vegas.










OHM Walsh omni-directional speakers (*Vintage 80's - used) They are too expensive brand new, but perhaps would be perfectly fine using the older models being sold private party.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Thanks for that. I want the one that looks like an espresso machine!

Good use of the term "novelty hi-fi speakers", too.


I'd be curious to here one of these some day, or at least hear from anyone who can comment on their, um, omnipolarity!




By the way, anyone have or have heard the Legacy Phantom HD ?


----------



## Star Hawk

After reading through this thread it has become apparent to me that I don't really own bipoles. They must be tri-poles. The ones I'm referring to are the Energy R-C100s . Energy called them bipoles when they first came out 5 or 6 years ago. These have a trapezoidal shaped sealed enclosure with two 1" aluminum dome tweeters and one 5.25" woofer. The woofer is mounted on the smaller front parallel side. The larger back parallel side mounts on the wall. The tweeters are mounted on the angular sides opposite one another. But they are not really 180 degrees apart. They are more like 160 deg apart or maybe even less.


Shouldn't these be call a hybrid or maybe tri-pole? The front firing woofer is just like a front firing monopole. Only the highs above 3.5 KHz are being widely dispersed around the room. One nice thing about them is that the bass is in phase. They a have a fairly large bass footprint for their size. They keep up well with my Energy towers with test tones down to 50 Hz.


Would true bipoles sound better than these? Or, do these have some desirable surround sound characteristic? I don't think this 'bipole' has been discussed here yet. Should I ditch these for real bipoles?


----------



## Electric_Haggis

As long as there are two tweeters and they run in phase, they're classified as Bipole.

Single-woofer designs are pretty common, and are used by other brands such as Monitor Audio and Emotiva.


The angling of the side drivers doesn't affect the classification.

But obviously, the more severe the angle, the more the tweeters are aimed away from your ears (assuming you're seated directly between them) and the more indirect wall-bounce you'll get. Hence a slightly more diffuse sound.


I tend to prefer a bipole with two woofers, as you simply get more sound thrown around the room.

But the big advantage with the single-woofer design is that you're able to switch between dipole/bipole. As there's only one woofer, the bass will always be in phase.


A tripole can be similar, but with another tweeter in the centre.

I'm not a big fan of this design, as your ear will tend to lock onto the tweeter firing at you, assuming you're seated between them...
http://www.aussiehifi.com.au/buy/mk-...urrounds/SS150


----------



## Star Hawk

Thanks! That's exactly what I wanted to know. I figured too that a woofer-tweeter pair on opposite sides would make a better bipole surround. I've had the C-R100s for 4 or 5 years and they work great though. And, they are timbre matched to the rest of my Energy's too. I don't plan on changing those out until I upgrade my speakers someday.


----------



## Hott Wheellzz

I have a pair of Bipole speakers that I am looking to get rid of. They are Athena AS-R1.2's PM me if interested, they are still new in the box.


----------



## dunan

Hey I'm looking for some bi-poles, but the only ones I seem to be interested in so far is the emotiva ERD-1s but they are 4 OHM, and my receiver is a Denon 3310. Seeing as they will only be pulling surround duty, will they be OK?


----------



## norcis

hi everybody,


I got Monitor audio BX2, BX1 and BXFX with Yamaha 3067 AV receiver (centre and sub are coming next). Could could please advice how to place them?


Room is 5.5m x 3.5m. with corner sofa at the end of the room side to the wall. Look at attached image for current placement.


As BXFX has Di/Bi-pole switch and I'm thinking to put it on the walls parallel with listing position at the end of the sofa, and with 90 degrees with the wall with windows.


I can place BX1 on windowsills which is 1 feet above and 1 feet away from listeners ears. Also I could use Yamaha's presence and place these speakers in the front top corners as height speakers.


What do you think?


----------



## Timothy91

I found another speaker with a multi-pole design that is quite promising:


The Legacy Phantom HD

















http://www.home-theater.com/index.ph...mart&Itemid=89


----------



## mlknez

How important is it for the surround speakers to match the front and center? I have expensive fronts and center and the company does not make an on-wall surround. They are ribbon mids and ribbon tweets. Any suggestions for alternative speakers to use?


----------



## goros

They don't need to match perfectly. I would try to match the tweeter size and material (don't mix horns and domes, fabric and aluminum) and try to keep the drivers around the same size and frequency response to get as close to voice matched as you can.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Nah. I've tried every possible configuration over the years, including identical satellites (NHT) and even near-matching towers (VAF Research DC7, a smaller version of my front DCX towers).


Personally, I found that having different-brand surrounds was a non-issue, so long as the sonic signature was a close enough match - especially these days with Audyssey EQ.


(Having an identical centre speaker, on the other hand... very important!)


----------



## dunan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dunan* /forum/post/21036206
> 
> 
> Hey I'm looking for some bi-poles, but the only ones I seem to be interested in so far is the emotiva ERD-1s but they are 4 OHM, and my receiver is a Denon 3310. Seeing as they will only be pulling surround duty, will they be OK?




Anyone have any insight on this? Also, will they work on a back wall that my couch is up against?


----------



## Knucklehead90




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dunan* /forum/post/21068044
> 
> 
> Anyone have any insight on this? Also, will they work on a back wall that my couch is up against?



Yeah - I'm on my second set of these. Unless you have a very wimpy AVR buy them. They are very good at what they do.


----------



## dunan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Knucklehead90* /forum/post/21068632
> 
> 
> Yeah - I'm on my second set of these. Unless you have a very wimpy AVR buy them. They are very good at what they do.



You mean second pair as in you blew them or got a second cause you liked them? A Denon 3310 is the AVR, but seeing as these are 4ohm, hopefully they should work just fine, at least in the reviews they did on an average receiver ( i think).


I'm more concerned about how they will perform on the wall right behind me.


----------



## mlknez

Can I get a recommendation for a good pair of diplole/bipole on-wall surround speakers to go with my Piega P10 fronts and coax center? The room is 15x15 that is open on 2 sides and has a cathedral 2 story open ceiling. It needs to have either a white or black finish. The Piega speakers use ribbon tweeters and midranges. My amps are stable for a 4ohm load and are rated at 200wpc 8ohm and 350wpc 4ohm.


Thanks in advance


----------



## Warder45

Hi all,


Attached is a mockup of my living room. I'm trying to find the best surround option since I don't think 7.1 is an option and with the configuration there isn't really a sweet spot.


Would Bipoles or the before mentioned dual-monopoles be the best solution to diffuse the surround audio for everyone in the room?


Thanks - John


----------



## mlknez




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warder45* /forum/post/21139491
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> Attached is a mockup of my living room. I'm trying to find the best surround option since I don't think 7.1 is an option and with the configuration there isn't really a sweet spot.
> 
> 
> Would Bipoles or the before mentioned dual-monopoles be the best solution to diffuse the surround audio for everyone in the room?
> 
> 
> Thanks - John



Could you do ceiling mounted speakers?


----------



## Warder45




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mlknez* /forum/post/21140109
> 
> 
> Could you do ceiling mounted speakers?



Yep, the attic above is all open, I was planning on running the wires that way as well. Would mono/di/bi - pole in ceiling speakers work best? Where would you stick then, above the seating or behind it?


The only con with in-ceiling would be the more "permanent" nature vs a tiny hole in the ceiling for speaker wire for wall mounted.


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warder45* /forum/post/21139491
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> Attached is a mockup of my living room. I'm trying to find the best surround option since I don't think 7.1 is an option and with the configuration there isn't really a sweet spot.
> 
> 
> Would Bipoles or the before mentioned dual-monopoles be the best solution to diffuse the surround audio for everyone in the room?
> 
> 
> Thanks - John



I have been trying to put together an idea for a 5.1 combo for small/mid sized rooms.


A wall-mounted Pinnacle QP-9 sound bar (or placed at the base of the TV) can be had on ebay and other places for under $500.


The surrounds can be any of the Mirage Omnipolar series speakers (floor standing towers or wall mountable bookshelf models).


Buy an affordable sub like one of the BIC subs for under $250.


That will give you a system that is discrete and will sound GREAT for around $1000. The titanium based tweeters on will be a ballpark match and with a good auto-tune up from a nice A/V receiver, the speakers should all sound pretty close. My next home theater will be using the Mirage omnipolar speakers as surrounds. Depending on the proximity and space available, I may end up using a nice LCR sound bar under big TV both wall mounted. I found the Pinnacle speakers have a titanium-based tweeter, so there is a good chance at similar character/voice between the speakers after an auto-calibration is run on an A/V receiver.


This setup will only be as dynamic and strong as your subwoofer choice. This speaker system will only work well in a room that is around 2000 cuft or less. If the room is larger, you'll need to look into higher efficiency speakers.


For room acoustic purposes, it's my opinion based on much research that ANY room being used for the purposes of sound reproduction NEEDS to be carpeted and furnished, and if it's a large enough room, it will need sound-absorbing wall treatments. If your room has tile, nothing will sound good. (At least, that has been my experience).


----------



## carter840

Anyone have a suggestion of a good surround speaker to pair with my Polk Monitor 70's and CS2? I am looking for better rear channel than the Polk monitor 30 are providing. I just made a really rough sketch of my room. The issue I have is that there are two columns that protrude from my rear wall and prevent optimal placement. One side of the room is also open. I am wondering if using dipole speakers could help get more presence in my rear channel. Also as it stand the rear speakers are elevated about 4 feet above ear level of the listener, but then are aimed down. I have run audyssey in case you were all wondering. My budget is no more than $300 for both rears.

Thanks


----------



## centauro74




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *carter840* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Anyone have a suggestion of a good surround speaker to pair with my Polk Monitor 70's and CS2? I am looking for better rear channel than the Polk monitor 30 are providing. I just made a really rough sketch of my room. The issue I have is that there are two columns that protrude from my rear wall and prevent optimal placement. One side of the room is also open. I am wondering if using dipole speakers could help get more presence in my rear channel. Also as it stand the rear speakers are elevated about 4 feet above ear level of the listener, but then are aimed down. I have run audyssey in case you were all wondering. My budget is no more than $300 for both rears.
> 
> Thanks



I have the fxi-a6 and absolutely love them, I bought them from the Polk eBay store and they look new with 2 years warranty.


----------



## Michael James

Wanted to see if you had some suggestions. Take a look at the photo below.

I need to replace the in-wall direct firing speakers. Due to WAF, would like to keep with a in-wall design. Any suggestions here?


I'm using Focal 918's w/metal tweeters and a Speakercraft Center angled down to the listening position. The Onkyo PR-SC885 is using audyssey. I play 60% movies, 40% music


Couch is against the back wall. Rear Channels are 6 feet off the ground (6 feet to the bottom of each speaker) and Right Rear and Left Rear are 5 feet apart at the edges of the couch.

From my ear to the bottom of the current in-walls is 3 feet. The current in-walls with frame are 12" long.


Any help is greatly appreciated. (I used a Sony Camera with panorama to take the photo..which is why it looks a little strange)


----------



## Michael James

Are there any good in-wall Bipole Speakers, that can be switched to Dipole? I assume you would have to re-run Audessey when you do the switch


----------



## centauro74




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Michael James* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Wanted to see if you had some suggestions. Take a look at the photo below.
> 
> I need to replace the in-wall direct firing speakers. Due to WAF, would like to keep with a in-wall design. Any suggestions here?
> 
> 
> I'm using Focal 918's w/metal tweeters and a Speakercraft Center angled down to the listening position. The Onkyo PR-SC885 is using audyssey. I play 60% movies, 40% music
> 
> 
> Couch is against the back wall. Rear Channels are 6 feet off the ground (6 feet to the bottom of each speaker) and Right Rear and Left Rear are 5 feet apart at the edges of the couch.
> 
> From my ear to the bottom of the current in-walls is 3 feet. The current in-walls with frame are 12" long.
> 
> 
> Any help is greatly appreciated. (I used a Sony Camera with panorama to take the photo..which is why it looks a little strange)



Man does your neck hurt after a movie. That tv is really high.


----------



## Michael James

you get used to it..when laying your head on the top of the couch, its kinda a natural angle..similar to laying reclined in a lazy boy


----------



## Michael James

Are there any good in-wall Bipole Speakers, that can be switched to Dipole?


----------



## Vaison

I'm considering getting a BIC Acoustech 5.1 system, which incorporates the PL-66 surrounds (pictured at the bottom of my post).











My couch will be against the back wall and I'd like advice as to where I should put the surrounds? My thoughts were the side walls as I'm not sure having speakers right at my head that close, would be ideal. But if these should be on the back wall, at what height? The room is just under 8' high. Can someone help? Thanks.


----------



## Michael James

I have found the following that are in-wall switchable between bipole and dipole..any thoughts?:


Jamo IW 606

PSB CW260

Atlantic Technologies IWTS-14 and IWTS-30SR-P

SpeakerCraft AIM CINEMA DIPOLE Three IN-WALL


**I have the couch against the back wall, can't move, no space**


----------



## Maxs_dad

I have dilemma similar to those you are experiencing. Seating position is along the back wall and cannot be changed. Some logic seems to be pointing towards dipole purchase with placement in line with the seating, but I have some remaining concerns about this side-wall placement so close to the back wall.


I have found it quite frustrating that every reference diagram is based on the premise that seating is in the center of a room, even though the reality for most of us is that we simply do not have the space for such an arrangement.


----------



## Michael James

I really hope that someone responds back with an educated opinion!!!


I need to make some selections here soon


----------



## goros

Honestly, audio setup in most cases is about compromise, either with budget, or with placement, or with size.


Sometimes it's all 3.


My advice, try a few different speakers before committing to one solution and see what you like best.


----------



## Theresa

I don't think anyone mentioned the Emotiva ERD-1 which I've found to be a very good surround. My fronts are DIY and very different but still there is no problem with them having a different "signature."


----------



## Michael James

I know there are a lot of "on-wall" solutions like the Emotiva, but I'm looking for an in-wall. With in-walls, its reall hard to "try out" products without ruining your walls. That's why I was asking if anyone has experience with any of the following. As a side not, I saw the pair of Atlantic Technologies IWS-30SR-P's going for $500 (retail is $1500)


Jamo IW 606

PSB CW260

Atlantic Technologies IWTS-14 and IWTS-30SR-P

SpeakerCraft AIM CINEMA DIPOLE Three IN-WALL


----------



## Maxs_dad

Just to add another data point here I wanted to relay the gist of my conversation yesterday with a customer support specialist (technical fella) from Emotiva. I had called to express some concern about using ERD-1 (well thought of on-wall dipole/bipole surround speakers) in my application. This is a small room used for TV/movies/games with the seating all along the rear wall. Placement-wise, the speakers would have to be very close (within a foot) of the rear wall in order to get that row of seats in the correct null position. My concern was that the diffusion effect would get lost because of the speaker's proximity to the back wall. The Emotiva rep agreed without any reservation and instead recommended in-wall monopoles for this particular application.


I always treat vendor advice with skepticism, especially those cases where they point you to another, more expensive product. However, their in-wall speakers are half the price of the ERD-1 so that doesn't seem applicable here. I am inclined to accept this argument but would be interested in any other comments.


----------



## masterbrain

I ran across a pair of Fosgate Audionics Dipolar SD-180 THX surround speakers (John Dunlavy's design) I can't find any information on the rear jumper settings to put them in dual drive, dipole, source point. I contacted Fosgate Audionics and was told that they have no information or support for the speakers since they were manufactured before the ROFO purchase in 2000. Does anybody own a pair of these or know the jumper settings?


----------



## Solid-State

It's a real shame the Mirage Omniguide is being killed by the Klipsch Group as it's acoustic properties make it the BEST SURROUND available IMHO.


It creates a much more convincing rear channel than any dipole or bipole I've ever heard.


It's a shame no one at KG has any vision or creativity...


That omniguide in a wedge tri-pole configuration would theoretically make the best surround speaker I can think of.


----------



## VFRLuke

Hello,


I recently just upgraded my front and center channel speakers and was thinking about possibly getting some new rears while I can still find some that match my front.


I ended up getting paradigm monitor 11 v.6's and a cc-290 v.6


My room doesn't allow for placement of surround speakers down the sides where they would typically go. One side of the room is open to the kitchen. I have my couch about 4 feet from the rear wall and 2 direct radiating speakers along that back wall on stands.


I was looking at some paradigm adp 190's, but would it be a worthwhile upgrade to replace my direct radiating speakers with dipoles IN THIER CURRENT LOCATION behind my couch? I've read that you can put a dipole on the back wall, but how does it work compared to a monopole.


My other option is to recycle my old front paradigm phantom's to the rear...which are floor standing direct radiating.


pics added:

the floor standing I just have back there to audition them compared to the bookshelf speakers.


----------



## Solid-State

I don't buy timbre matching when it comes to your rear channels in a HT environment unless it's a HUGE rich mans home theater and your using full range all around. My suggestion to you is to pickup a couple of Mirage OMD5s from Vanns at $175 bucks each. Then get some Omnimount 30.0 WA mounts. Mount them firing down from about 4' below the ceiling 4 feet from the side wall tilted 40° down.


ENJOY much IMPROVED and CONVINCING rear section!


----------



## deepstang

VFR Luke, are those speakers firing straight forward? I use bipole (switchable to dipole) speakers on my back wall. If I had the space to accommodate them, I would pick a mono-pole set-up like yours; however, I would angle them according to the Dolby Digital speaker set-up guidelines.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/...ide/index.html


----------



## VFRLuke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deepstang* /forum/post/21280121
> 
> 
> VFR Luke, are those speakers firing straight forward? I use bipole (switchable to dipole) speakers on my back wall. If I had the space to accommodate them, I would pick a mono-pole set-up like yours; however, I would angle them according to the Dolby Digital speaker set-up guidelines.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/...ide/index.html



I will experiment with that a little bit and see what it sounds like when I hook those bookshelf speakers back up.


----------



## deepstang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VFRLuke* /forum/post/21281880
> 
> 
> I will experiment with that a little bit and see what it sounds like when I hook those bookshelf speakers back up.



Cool. To clarify, it is best to piont the monopoles toward the sofa in the degrees specified in that dolby chart (vs them firing straight forward).


----------



## ModemJunki

I need some help. I've never set up dipoles before. Any and all input is appreciated - I'm close to finalizing my new setup, but want some advice before I drill any new holes in the wall.


Our room is 12' 9" x 19' with 8' ceilings. Plaster walls and a finished upstairs plus HVAC below mean running wire in the walls is not always possible.


My intent is to put our speakers up above the top of our 60" LCD panel, mostly because the room isn't a dedicated HT, it's our living room and there are dozens of knicknacks and decorations and such - so floor and console top space are at a premium.


We have an old pair of Energy e: XL-R dipoles I picked up to use in our home with an E: XL-C2 and E: XL-16s as center and FL/FR using our new Marantz with Audessey XT. These dipoles cannot be setup as bipoles (one of the woofers is a passive radiator: forever out of phase). I wanted to put them on the side walls but have a problem: there is a 12' wide picture window with draperies inconveniently located. It would effectively trap the the output from the right dipole firing into it.


I did some experimenting using the Lord of the Rings as my surround source.


I started by putting the dipoles on the back wall (but not at the desired final height - they were sitting on top of a pair of Fluance SX-HTB towers, just at ear level). See the first image below. I was not satisfied with the result, I felt I could localize the speakers too easily even when the sofa was moved a few feet forward (and I have mild hearing loss in the upper frequencies, which means the localization effect must be pretty pronounced). My wife said the system "sounded great". In this configuration I could definitely run the wires in the wall.


So then I moved them to the corners (second image). I was inspired to do this as I see many dipoles made with angled surfaces. Now the sound is more diffuse and more convincing. My wife said the system "sounded great" (such a wonderful help). But I also noticed the lower frequencies maybe got a boost - perhaps redoing the Audessey setup would help, or pushing the dipoles further in to the center fo the room from the corners? In this configuration I can't run the wires in the wall for the left speaker, but could make a nice built-in set of corner shelves and conceal the wires there (making display shelves is on the winter task list in any case). The shelves could be deep enough to bring the dipoles out further.


I would like to do what I've got in the third image - on the ceiling, above the level of the drapes, tweeters in toward the center of the room - but I have doubts the wife would approve (there is an uplight above the window, a string of 12 4" LED can lights pointing upward which would illuminate the right side speaker and cast a big shadow behind it). Also the room has a finished floor above, so running the cables in wall would be impossible for the left speaker (the right has a narrow unfinished attic above)-> flat paintable speaker wire to the rescue.


There is also a sub in the room but it's not in the drawings. It's pretty much lined up under the left front speaker (not in the corner, but in along the TV wall).


So does anyone think the middle solution - with the speakers angled in the corners - is going to be problematic from a sound perspective in the long run? It seems to work OK, but I haven't done any extensive experimenting with the setup like that yet. I think tomorrow I will have time for a re-setup of Audessey and some more listening tests.


----------



## deepstang

Bipole/dipole diagram towards bottom of link:

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-iyn2pbm...placement.html 


Bipoles are recommended when placed on the back wall, and dipoles are recommended when placed on a side wall.


----------



## jackbuzz

Normally you would sit in the null of the Di-pole surrounds (the sides with no speakers) speakers on side walls, seats between them slightly forward. With your seats placed so wide (if pic. is to scale) third pic. doesn't look very promising.

I would rig up temporarily something to test both side wall and back wall configurations.

Back wall simply stack some books or something on table, side wall? bar stools anything to get them at least above ear level a little. Once you decide then you can hide wires and mount speakers.


----------



## ModemJunki




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deepstang* /forum/post/21294293
> 
> 
> Bipole/dipole diagram towards bottom of link:



Yes, I was aware of this - and the testing seemed to prove it out, they don't perform well on the back wall - hence the question about the angle - thanks!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jackbuzz* /forum/post/21294844
> 
> 
> With your seats placed so wide (if pic. is to scale) third pic. doesn't look very promising.
> 
> I would rig up temporarily something to test both side wall and back wall configurations.



Placement testing is going on today and tomorrow - I have the set of Fluance towers to rest the speakers on, they are above ear level but not at the height I wish to deploy them at. I didn't think about stacking - there are a couple of end tables waiting to be refinished, I can hijack them to get more height, so thanks for the tip!


And I didn't think about that placement issue - yes, the drawing is as close to scale as I can get it using Visio for the drawing tool.


I do also have another pair of e: XL 16s that I could use as rear left and right, but with the couch less than a foot from the back wall and the room being kind of narrow I think they will be too directional. I will try to fit them in to the testing as well, I suppose.


I realize some compromise has to be made here, just shooting for the lesser of three evils so to speak.


----------



## Michael James

What would cause Audyssey to set in-wall bipole surrounds at 150 Hz???


Went thru the Audyssey XT setup on my Onkyo PR-SC885P. Everything went well but it set my surrounds at 150 Hz, which seems really high. They are Atlantic Technologies IWTS-30SR-P. Could I have the wires crossed in back? (or would Audessey pick it up) I ran them as Bipoles during the setup and left them as Bipole after.



I went thru the guide and tried to follow as closely as possible. I have Audyssey XT version. I used 6 seat locations as the diagram showed (chose not to use the remaining 2 because they would not have anyone sitting even close to those areas (actually, only the primary 3 seats on the couch will probably be used). from ear level to the center of each speaker is about 3.5 feet from the right and left seating position. All the distances look right.

All speakers were 75db (using Radio Shack meter) except front right which was 74 and the sub which was varying 72 to 74 on the test signal from Onkyo). Couch is against back wall.


Model IWTS-30 SR Specs:

Drivers Dual 5 1/4" (135mm) GLH midranges w/Butyl rubber surrounds

Dual 1" (25mm) softdome tweeters w/neodymium magnet and ferrofluid cooling

Configuration Switchable Dipole or Bipole array

Frequency Response 80Hz - 20kHz +/-3dB

Sensitivity 87dB, 1 watt, 1 meter

Impedance 6 Ohms

Crossover point(s) 3500 Hz

Recommended power 25-150 Watts RMS




Subwoofer: yes

Front Full Band (These are Focal 918's)

Center 80 Hz (THX) (Speakercraft THX, pointed down at the primary listener location from above the TV)

Surround 150 Hz

LPF of LFE 80 Hz (THX)

Double Bass OFF (THX)



Any help is greatly appreciated!!!!


----------



## mac7504

Maybe I can get a bit more assistance in here


Looking for suggestion/thoughts between

Definitive Technology ST8020's with an 8060 center or 8040's with 8040 center?


Also, would the 8060 vibrate due to having a small powered sub? Anyone running these?


I demoed the 8020 in my house and they were good, just wondering how much better the 8040's are (may demo this weekend). Also, if the radiators rattle in the 8040's (an issues I had with two def tech pro subs).


----------



## Canary_Jules

Hi, I'm glad I found this thread as I've just got a great deal on a pair of second hand Teufel THX Ultra 2 M1000 DT dipoles . At present I have a 7.1 set up with Wharfedale Diamond 8.3 floorstanders and 8.1+ in the corners of my room as surrounds and 7.1s as rears. I'm gradually going to be upgrading my speakers and buying these dipoles is the first step. The thing is I can't place my dipoles in the optimum position. My room is pretty small (as are most in the UK) 14'x10'. On the right hand side as I look toward my screen is a continuous wall so I won't have any problems being able place the right-hand dipole in the optimum position - adjacent to my seating position between 1.4 & 2 metres high. However, (as can be seen from the attached photo) there is a window and curtain directly to the left of my seating position which makes placement there impossible. Would it be okay to place the left hand dipole roughly 1-2' in front of the seating position? If so should the right hand dipole be put exactly adjacent to it (i.e. roughly 2 feet in front of my seating position where the photos presently are)? Alternatively can the dipoles be attached to the ceiling above my seating position? I know you can get in-ceiling dipoles so (apart from looking ungainly) what's against fixing them up in this way instead of on the wall?


These dipoles also have a switch which allows them to be run as bipoles or monopoles. So failing all I guess I could also place them behind my seating position in place of my rears? But if so in which mode? BTW, as can be seen in my photo the rear of my seats are just over 3' from the back wall.











Appreciate your advice!


Jules


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Solid-State* /forum/post/21278214
> 
> 
> I don't buy timbre matching when it comes to your rear channels in a HT environment unless it's a HUGE rich mans home theater and your using full range all around. My suggestion to you is to pickup a couple of Mirage OMD5s from Vanns at $175 bucks each. Then get some Omnimount 30.0 WA mounts. Mount them firing down from about 4' below the ceiling 4 feet from the side wall tilted 40° down.
> 
> 
> ENJOY much IMPROVED and CONVINCING rear section!



+2

This is fantastic advice. Follow exactly what he instructed, including the precise speaker model and the results should be incredible on the surround channels (as long as the room isn't too big) and sound very much like a real pro theater in your home. Make sure the speakers are tilted in toward the listening position. The only other position you could use to improve the sound is to mount the speakers on the sides of the listening position, but that door on your left side really puts the kybosh on that spot. Solid States alternate idea mounting on the rear wall should work, but I would add that you want to swivel the speakers a bit to give some direct sound. The beauty of the Mirage Omnipolar speakers is that the speaker doesn't have to be point precisely at the listening position to give quite a nice effect.


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deepstang* /forum/post/21280121
> 
> 
> VFR Luke, are those speakers firing straight forward? I use bipole (switchable to dipole) speakers on my back wall. If I had the space to accommodate them, I would pick a mono-pole set-up like yours; however, I would angle them according to the Dolby Digital speaker set-up guidelines.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/...ide/index.html



Those speakers in a room that small should ideally fire in from the sides and I highly recommend a speaker firing with both direct and reflected sound. The Mirage Omnipolar design is perfect for this application. The advice Solid State previously gave is going to give an absolutely optimal result given the mounting limitations. His advice will bring you as close as is possible to replicating a professional movie theater's sound at home in a room that size where you're forced to mount from the outer parts of the rear wall and have no side position to use.


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ModemJunki* /forum/post/21293641
> 
> 
> I need some help. I've never set up dipoles before. Any and all input is appreciated - I'm close to finalizing my new setup, but want some advice before I drill any new holes in the wall.
> 
> 
> Our room is 12' 9" x 19' with 8' ceilings. Plaster walls and a finished upstairs plus HVAC below mean running wire in the walls is not always possible.
> 
> 
> My intent is to put our speakers up above the top of our 60" LCD panel, mostly because the room isn't a dedicated HT, it's our living room and there are dozens of knicknacks and decorations and such - so floor and console top space are at a premium.
> 
> 
> We have an old pair of Energy e: XL-R dipoles I picked up to use in our home with an E: XL-C2 and E: XL-16s as center and FL/FR using our new Marantz with Audessey XT. These dipoles cannot be setup as bipoles (one of the woofers is a passive radiator: forever out of phase). I wanted to put them on the side walls but have a problem: there is a 12' wide picture window with draperies inconveniently located. It would effectively trap the the output from the right dipole firing into it.
> 
> 
> I did some experimenting using the Lord of the Rings as my surround source.
> 
> 
> I started by putting the dipoles on the back wall (but not at the desired final height - they were sitting on top of a pair of Fluance SX-HTB towers, just at ear level). See the first image below. I was not satisfied with the result, I felt I could localize the speakers too easily even when the sofa was moved a few feet forward (and I have mild hearing loss in the upper frequencies, which means the localization effect must be pretty pronounced). My wife said the system "sounded great". In this configuration I could definitely run the wires in the wall.
> 
> 
> So then I moved them to the corners (second image). I was inspired to do this as I see many dipoles made with angled surfaces. Now the sound is more diffuse and more convincing. My wife said the system "sounded great" (such a wonderful help). But I also noticed the lower frequencies maybe got a boost - perhaps redoing the Audessey setup would help, or pushing the dipoles further in to the center fo the room from the corners? In this configuration I can't run the wires in the wall for the left speaker, but could make a nice built-in set of corner shelves and conceal the wires there (making display shelves is on the winter task list in any case). The shelves could be deep enough to bring the dipoles out further.
> 
> 
> I would like to do what I've got in the third image - on the ceiling, above the level of the drapes, tweeters in toward the center of the room - but I have doubts the wife would approve (there is an uplight above the window, a string of 12 4" LED can lights pointing upward which would illuminate the right side speaker and cast a big shadow behind it). Also the room has a finished floor above, so running the cables in wall would be impossible for the left speaker (the right has a narrow unfinished attic above)-> flat paintable speaker wire to the rescue.
> 
> 
> There is also a sub in the room but it's not in the drawings. It's pretty much lined up under the left front speaker (not in the corner, but in along the TV wall).
> 
> 
> So does anyone think the middle solution - with the speakers angled in the corners - is going to be problematic from a sound perspective in the long run? It seems to work OK, but I haven't done any extensive experimenting with the setup like that yet. I think tomorrow I will have time for a re-setup of Audessey and some more listening tests.




Here's my advice (please excuse my sloppy MS Paint kindergarden drawings on your diagrams):

Decent with dipole dispersion but not ideal.










Ideal dispersion with Mirage Omnipole speakers:










Mirage describes their Omnipolar technology as delivering 30% direct sound and 70% reflected sound. This is the BEST surround speaker on the market today for the purposes of rear surround in a small/medium sized room.

http://www.miragespeakers.com/na-en/about/philosophy/ 

_Omnipolar® Sound

Our Omnipolar approach to speaker design brings unprecedented performance to a variety of product sizes and room positions. This 360º sound philosophy works with your room, rather than against it, to create the proper proportion of direct and reflected sound. Being Omnipolar means our speakers embrace and optimize reflections; offer excellent imaging, width and depth; and perform optimally regardless of where they are placed in a room. In other words, they take full advantage of the fact they cannot be separated from your room. You get a completely immersive experience that permeates evenly throughout your entire listening environment


Omniguide Technology

Our patented Omniguide module (patent #6,996,243), also the heart of Omnipolar sound, is an ingenious design that involves two deflectors. While one small deflector rests on top of the speaker’s tweeter, the tweeter itself is housed in a larger deflector, suspended over the midrange or woofer, depending on the design. The module disperses sound the way the ear and brain are accustomed to receiving it. *Thirty percent of what our speakers deliver is direct sound. The other seventy percent is sound reflected off walls, ceilings, floors and other surfaces for a completely immersive, 360º experience.* So, no matter where you sit, the enveloping sound follows._


***I want to stress that these Mirage Omnipolar speakers are perfect for "surround" duty but NOT what you want for front channel duty. According to Lucasfilm THX engineers, your FRONT L/C/R speakers should be "point source" sytle dispersion with a wide Left-to-Right (horizontal dispersion) but the Up-to-Down (vertical dispersion) should be *narrow* to avoid mixing with the reflected sound from the surround channels and confusing the listener's spacial cues. The soundtracks are mixed by movie studios to accomodate this very intended setup. So, if you setup your home theater with these design principles (THX engineers have done all the hard research for you) then your home theater system will come as close as possible to producing the soundtrack like you would hear it in the movie theater. I have setup and designed my own home theater around these principles.


Ironic isn't it? The best technology for surround channel duty is being shoved into the front L/C/R speakers of the same speaker brand, yet the technology should NOT be used for front channel duty. I know it sounds strange for me to recommend a company's speakers yet only for one type of focus. I hope I've explained the setup philosophy well enough that everyone can understand.


----------



## toofast68

Timothy91 -


Well I took your advice and purchased a set of these Mirage Speakers for my surround...


This was a post that was not getting any love in this forum, then I found your post.


Ok, so I have a relatively difficult setup based on keeping my marriage for surround speakers.


I REALLY wanted 7.1 and was going to move my couch out a bit to accommodate, but my wife is fighting me, so I am back to the couch against the back wall as in this pick.


Even 5.1 is a bit rough due to the lack of a wall on the "right" side.


HOWEVER, I came across the whole dipole/bipole setup...meaning it looks like I can place on the back wall or side wall (the one side wall will be small where the pole is) and still get a great sound, even perhaps better than my 7.1 dream.


I found these...and although not "matched" to my FCL, I really only need these for effects not music.


So here I go, are these worth considering? And will my room benefit from these? Or am I just chasing a dream?


Hopefully I did the right thing...If you think my room setup will not work with these speakers, please let me know so I can cancel my order.


Thanks in advance!


----------



## jhan1000

I am in the process of upgrading to a 7.1 configuration and replace my surround sound speakers. I am trying to decide what speakers to replace them with in my irregularly shaped room. My options are:


1) Dipoles side surrounds and bipole rear surrounds.

2) Monopole side surrounds and bipole rear surrounds.


With option #1, I'm concerned that my the left side surround location is less than ideal since it will not be equidistant from the LP as the right side surround. How much of an issue will this be? Am I better off with option #2? Anybody have any thoughts?


Below is a crude drawing of my room. I am about 15 feet from the screen. The primary listening position is about 3.5 feet from the back wall, 15 feet from the left wall and 7 feet from the right wall.








[/url]


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toofast68* /forum/post/21412353
> 
> 
> Timothy91 -
> 
> 
> Well I took your advice and purchased a set of these Mirage Speakers for my surround...
> 
> 
> This was a post that was not getting any love in this forum, then I found your post.
> 
> 
> Ok, so I have a relatively difficult setup based on keeping my marriage for surround speakers.
> 
> 
> I REALLY wanted 7.1 and was going to move my couch out a bit to accommodate, but my wife is fighting me, so I am back to the couch against the back wall as in this pick.
> 
> 
> Even 5.1 is a bit rough due to the lack of a wall on the "right" side.
> 
> 
> HOWEVER, I came across the whole dipole/bipole setup...meaning it looks like I can place on the back wall or side wall (the one side wall will be small where the pole is) and still get a great sound, even perhaps better than my 7.1 dream.
> 
> 
> I found these...and although not "matched" to my FCL, I really only need these for effects not music.
> 
> 
> So here I go, are these worth considering? And will my room benefit from these? Or am I just chasing a dream?
> 
> 
> Hopefully I did the right thing...If you think my room setup will not work with these speakers, please let me know so I can cancel my order.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance!



Rear surrounds don't have to be a perfect match to the front speakers in order to sound like they match thanks to most receivers having auto-calibration. Though I do recommend a somewhat similar tweeter materiel (even midrange driver material) where possible for the best chance at a "blend" for a mismatch speaker set from the front to the rear. Like, if the front speakers have metal-based horns or domes, then the Mirage speakers should do pretty well in matching up. If the fronts are more fabric/silk based domes, you may notice a more "metallic" timbre to the Mirage speakers vs the front. Poly-based domes will tend to be smoother, less "dry" and aren't really a good match for metal tweeters at all (which is why I had to go with something unusual to match up my DV series BIC front speakers).


In this room, having omnipolar speakers should sound just fine and there is no need for 7.1 unless your distance from the surrounding walls is much, much further. Since you are placing these so close to the listening position, there should be enough loudness. I am more concerned with the uneven shape of the room (the wide open left side) messing with your acoustics.


It might be a good idea to place reflection/acoustic absorbing panels on the wall to the far left (there are decorative models available that you can have pictures on so that it blends with the 'look' of the room).


Getting great sound in this room isn't impossible, just difficult and may require a bit of trial and error, along with constantly re-running your A/V receiver's auto calibration.











I figure the rear wall behind the couch is "optional" but putting an acoustic absorber there will also help improve the quality of the sound from the "front" speakers. I drew lines to indicate where I expect reflections to cause the most problems for your listening position. That kitchen is going to seriously be an audible echo chamber. I wouldn't normally recommend the acoustic panels, but I definitely think your room will benefit from them based on what will certainly be noticable delayed reflections from the front speakers echoing back to your listening position (which is really bad and will mix with the surround speaker's intended ambience in the original sound mix).


The far wall on the left side next to the pool table should have as many panels as possible from the bar to the end of the wall to diffuse the sound from the kitchen. Possibly some panels also on the front wall on the left near the pool table as well. It *MIGHT* be possible to diffuse that kitchen sound with a few well placed acoustic panels in the kitchen on at least two of the reflection points I outlined. Looks like the kitchen TV spot is already taken by the TV, so there are only two major reflection points left in the kitchen. The "best" place to put the panels for the left side of the room is likely going to be around the walls at the pool table section.


On the right side of the room, you only need acoustic panels on 1 wall to stop that area of the room from becoming echo chamber #2. I think when you look at my lines on your diagram the issue I'm pointing out will become clear.


The impact these panels will have on your sound will be night and day. This will be no small improvement. It will be a very big one. Bigger than even a change in speaker class/price. Let me put it this way. The increase in sound quality that properly placed acoustic panels will make in your room will be so significant, that you couldn't equal the quality increase even if you bought the best speakers at any price. THAT is how much the acoustic treatments will improve the sound.


If you don't have carpeting in this room, then you are going to have another acoustic issue to resolve. The rear wall will then need the absorbing panel and you will want to utilize a throw rug out between your couch and the front speakers to try and soften up those harsh reflections. The wall panels will help deaden the wall reflections.


For best results, this room is going to need acoustic panels. There are panels that are quite room-friendly and you can even get your wifey in on what they will look like (your own pictures and art).


Here is a site that is advertised on this very forum:
http://www.acoustimac.com/index.php/...rt-panels.html 


Their custom prints seem a bit pricey but they are some of the best I've seen. There are other less expensive choices on their site for the pre-fab type designs and they still have some nice looking prints.


----------



## toofast68

Timothy91 -


One word - WOW, and thank you so much.


I do have Metal Matrix Diaphragm™ based material...so I think I should get a good match.


Also I will for sure get some acoustic panels...I figured I might need them and your diagram really helped.


Now I just gotta wait for my new surrounds and then the fun begins. Once again thank you so much for helping out, what a great forum this is.


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toofast68* /forum/post/21415290
> 
> 
> Timothy91 -
> 
> 
> One word - WOW, and thank you so much.
> 
> 
> I do have Metal Matrix Diaphragm based material...so I think I should get a good match.
> 
> 
> Also I will for sure get some acoustic panels...I figured I might need them and your diagram really helped.
> 
> 
> Now I just gotta wait for my new surrounds and then the fun begins. Once again thank you so much for helping out, what a great forum this is.



This forum is for all of us enthusiasts. Everyone needs to help each other out. Knowing someone put together the best system they could means someone will have a smile when watching a movie and that's pretty cool.


----------



## Slavikk

Thinking of getting the Mirage OMD5s and the Omnimount 30.0 WA mounts (Thanks Solid-State) Ive attached a pic of the room layout, thinking they should be fine for that room size? Surround speakers would go on the opposite wall of where the TV is.


Do the speakers come in black piano finish? Want to match them up with my Definitive Technology STSs.

Also, would 16 gauge speaker wire be fine or should I stick with 14 gauge?


***EDIT***


Timothy91 can you elaborate on your comment? "Mirage describes their Omnipolar technology as delivering 30% direct sound and 70% reflected sound. *This is the BEST surround speaker on the market today for the purposes of rear surround in a small/medium sized room*."


Found the OMDRs which are more expensive. Im guessing those are for larger rooms? Now not sure what to get. If the OMD5s will do for my room size than I would get them as I think they are more visually pleasing.


So to sum it up.


1. Would the OMD5s be a good match for my room size?

2. Would they be compatible with my Def Tech STSs?

3. Do the speakers come in black piano finish?

4. Would 16 (or maybe 18) gauge be good enough? Would run them in wall than under the baseboards.

5. Difference between the OMD5s and OMDRs?

 

New Compressed (zipped) Folder.zip 26.048828125k . file


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Slavikk* /forum/post/21420494
> 
> 
> Thinking of getting the Mirage OMD5s and the Omnimount 30.0 WA mounts (Thanks Solid-State) Ive attached a pic of the room layout, thinking they should be fine for that room size? Surround speakers would go on the opposite wall of where the TV is.
> 
> 
> Do the speakers come in black piano finish? Want to match them up with my Definitive Technology STSs.
> 
> Also, would 16 gauge speaker wire be fine or should I stick with 14 gauge?
> 
> 
> ***EDIT***
> 
> 
> Timothy91 can you elaborate on your comment? "Mirage describes their Omnipolar technology as delivering 30% direct sound and 70% reflected sound. *This is the BEST surround speaker on the market today for the purposes of rear surround in a small/medium sized room*."
> 
> 
> Found the OMDRs which are more expensive. Im guessing those are for larger rooms? Now not sure what to get. If the OMD5s will do for my room size than I would get them as I think they are more visually pleasing.
> 
> 
> So to sum it up.
> 
> 
> 1. Would the OMD5s be a good match for my room size?
> 
> 2. Would they be compatible with my Def Tech STSs?
> 
> 3. Do the speakers come in black piano finish?
> 
> 4. Would 16 (or maybe 18) gauge be good enough? Would run them in wall than under the baseboards.
> 
> 5. Difference between the OMD5s and OMDRs?



I would need to know where the seated listening positions would be relative to the speakers and the distance from the listening positions these speakers will be at.


Note, this looks like a VERY large floor plan. 32-feet on one wall. That's a large space with a bunch of places to pass echos around. I need a little better of an idea where the seating will be and where the speakers will be and if this living room/kitchen/etc are all open to each other. If so, you are going to need to put up either acoustic curtains or multiple large acoustic panels to prevent a lot of unwanted echo.


I will take a stab at guessing wildly based on your diagram which doesn't give me a lot of details:

How tall are those ceilings? I'm assuming maybe 10-feet for the ceilings and 14.8-feet for the TV wall and 20-feet for the side walls. That would make the room 14.8x20x10= 2960 cuft. The Mirage speakers would need to be on the "sides" of the primary listening position and would have what would seem to be a 6-foot distance to either side of the furniture. So, yes, the Mirage speakers "should" work, as long as they are mounted on the walls to the "sides" of the seated listening area. There shouldn't be too much of a drop in volume. The rear of the room is just a tad further than I would like though but if you try to scoot back the seated area as much as you can, the echos off the back wall should just "barely" arrive within a time that will be a nice "ambient" sound instead of an obvious and annoying "echo".


This room size is a bit more than a small/medium room. It's just barely into large room territory. A THX ultra speaker system would ensure proper listening levels. At 6-feet away on the sides, those Mirage OMD5's should just barely deliver but not have as much headroom as I would like in a room this size. I think it will just barely work. Your room is just a tad larger than I recommend for the Mirage speakers. The OMDR seems to be a good surround speaker, probably more suited to what you're trying to do here (fill a large room with sound). The OMD5's midrange however is going to be spread around a bit better due to the reflector over the woofer. It's a tough call. I think the OMDR is the one I'd go with if I was forced to make a choice based on your room size.


Those Def Techs are the "mythos" towers? If so, they have a ceramic coated aluminum tweeter. The match should be "ok". With today's A/V gear having the ability to "auto tune" the sound, it should come out sounding pretty close.


Speaker wire gauge depends on three things. Length of the wire run, the ohm load of the speaker and the amplifier power you're using. Then you can calculate the loss. To determine if the loss is audible here is a decent chart you can follow. Remember that a 1db loss of volume is not likely going to be heard. So an 18awg cable will work within a 190-foot run and the loss should be inaudible.
http://www.belden.com/docs/upload/Sp...tion_Guide.pdf


----------



## Slavikk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/21429019
> 
> 
> I would need to know where the seated listening positions would be relative to the speakers and the distance from the listening positions these speakers will be at.
> 
> 
> Note, this looks like a VERY large floor plan. 32-feet on one wall. That's a large space with a bunch of places to pass echos around. I need a little better of an idea where the seating will be and where the speakers will be and if this living room/kitchen/etc are all open to each other. If so, you are going to need to put up either acoustic curtains or multiple large acoustic panels to prevent a lot of unwanted echo.
> 
> 
> I will take a stab at guessing wildly based on your diagram which doesn't give me a lot of details:
> 
> How tall are those ceilings? I'm assuming maybe 10-feet for the ceilings and 14.8-feet for the TV wall and 20-feet for the side walls. That would make the room 14.8x20x10= 2960 cuft. The Mirage speakers would need to be on the "sides" of the primary listening position and would have what would seem to be a 6-foot distance to either side of the furniture. So, yes, the Mirage speakers "should" work, as long as they are mounted on the walls to the "sides" of the seated listening area. There shouldn't be too much of a drop in volume. The rear of the room is just a tad further than I would like though but if you try to scoot back the seated area as much as you can, the echos off the back wall should just "barely" arrive within a time that will be a nice "ambient" sound instead of an obvious and annoying "echo".
> 
> 
> This room size is a bit more than a small/medium room. It's just barely into large room territory. A THX ultra speaker system would ensure proper listening levels. At 6-feet away on the sides, those Mirage OMD5's should just barely deliver but not have as much headroom as I would like in a room this size. I think it will just barely work. Your room is just a tad larger than I recommend for the Mirage speakers. The OMDR seems to be a good surround speaker, probably more suited to what you're trying to do here (fill a large room with sound). The OMD5's midrange however is going to be spread around a bit better due to the reflector over the woofer. It's a tough call. I think the OMDR is the one I'd go with if I was forced to make a choice based on your room size.
> 
> 
> Those Def Techs are the "mythos" towers? If so, they have a ceramic coated aluminum tweeter. The match should be "ok". With today's A/V gear having the ability to "auto tune" the sound, it should come out sounding pretty close.
> 
> 
> Speaker wire gauge depends on three things. Length of the wire run, the ohm load of the speaker and the amplifier power you're using. Then you can calculate the loss. To determine if the loss is audible here is a decent chart you can follow. Remember that a 1db loss of volume is not likely going to be heard. So an 18awg cable will work within a 190-foot run and the loss should be inaudible.
> http://www.belden.com/docs/upload/Sp...tion_Guide.pdf



Sorry for the late response and thank you for your lengthy response. Yes, ceilings are 10 feet. In the diagram where it has the 20 foot wall there is actually a big sliding glass door on that side with a window right next to it. So putting the speakers on the side walls wont be doable. Unfortunately my only real option is to place them about 4 feet or so behind me. Since the OMD5s are dipole wouldnt they also work on the back wall? I will try taking some pics of my room and share them.


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Slavikk* /forum/post/21436442
> 
> 
> Sorry for the late response and thank you for your lengthy response. Yes, ceilings are 10 feet. In the diagram where it has the 20 foot wall there is actually a big sliding glass door on that side with a window right next to it. So putting the speakers on the side walls wont be doable. Unfortunately my only real option is to place them about 4 feet or so behind me. Since the OMD5s are dipole wouldnt they also work on the back wall? I will try taking some pics of my room and share them.



Behind the listening area is not ideal but if it's all you've got, you can give it a try. Omni directional speakers like the Mirage models just might be the best shot you have.


----------



## millerrh

I'm considering the B&W DS3 for surrounds which have a woofer and tweeter pointed straight ahead and a mid driver on each side arranged in a semi-circle. They have a dipole and monopole switch. But after reading this forum, should their "monopole" really be considered a bipole since they have drivers all along the periphery of the semicircle (in phase)?


From what I'm reading here it seems that is the definition of bipole.


In my application, I have to mount my surrounds (in a 5.1 setup) on the wall 4' behind me and 8' up.


Seems like this would work well for me in this situation in monopole mode (which would behave like bipole speakers if I understand correctly) since I can't have my surrounds to the sides. Thoughts?


----------



## toofast68




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/21415482
> 
> 
> This forum is for all of us enthusiasts. Everyone needs to help each other out. Knowing someone put together the best system they could means someone will have a smile when watching a movie and that's pretty cool.



So I finally mounted my new OMNI Direction mirage surrounds. OH MY GOD!


I was AMAZING - what a freakin differnece...maybe I was expecting greatness, but man it was so cool.


Now I REALLY want to add a rear surround...but thinking it is overkill. Specifically the OMD-R.



Remember, I am about 16 ft back from the screen and the sofa is about 6" off the rear wall.

Because my sitting area is so close to the wall what would happen if I mounted a rear surround, say one of the mirages?


1) not much effect, might add a little

2) it would ruin the side surrounds, since there is so little space and sound would compete

3) it would add greatness


Thanks again in advance!


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toofast68* /forum/post/21460305
> 
> 
> So I finally mounted my new OMNI Direction mirage surrounds. OH MY GOD!
> 
> 
> I was AMAZING - what a freakin differnece...maybe I was expecting greatness, but man it was so cool.
> 
> 
> Now I REALLY want to add a rear surround...but thinking it is overkill. Specifically the OMD-R.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, I am about 16 ft back from the screen and the sofa is about 6" off the rear wall.
> 
> Because my sitting area is so close to the wall what would happen if I mounted a rear surround, say one of the mirages?
> 
> 
> 1) not much effect, might add a little
> 
> 2) it would ruin the side surrounds, since there is so little space and sound would compete
> 
> 3) it would add greatness
> 
> 
> Thanks again in advance!




Great to hear!


Hmmm... you've got me thinking about the benefits of switching to Omni's now!


----------



## realjetavenger

I contacted Mirage in regards to location of the OMD-5's as surround speakers. These would be going in a 5 channel system in a bedroom. As such, in order to place the surround speakers on the side walls, one of them would have to be mounted above closet doors where there would be less than one foot from the top of the speaker to the ceiling.


According to Mirage, there is no problem mounting them this close to the ceiling. However, they did state that if they are going to be mounted more than six feet above the floor to mount them upside down.


edit: wanted to add that their recommendation to mount them upside down if above six feet from floor was in respect to being so close to the ceiling and that would give them the proper amount of breathing room.


----------



## toofast68




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *realjetavenger* /forum/post/21463995
> 
> 
> I contacted Mirage in regards to location of the OMD-5's as surround speakers. These would be going in a 5 channel system in a bedroom. As such, in order to place the surround speakers on the side walls, one of them would have to be mounted above closet doors where there would be less than one foot from the top of the speaker to the ceiling.
> 
> 
> According to Mirage, there is no problem mounting them this close to the ceiling. However, they did state that if they are going to be mounted more than six feet above the floor to mount them upside down.
> 
> 
> edit: wanted to add that their recommendation to mount them upside down if above six feet from floor was in respect to being so close to the ceiling and that would give them the proper amount of breathing room.




To confirm I mouted mine upside down...and they ROCK!


----------



## realjetavenger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toofast68* /forum/post/21464305
> 
> 
> To confirm I mouted mine upside down...and they ROCK!



Thanks for the confirmation. Yeah, it seems nuts to mount them upside down but then again they are a unique configuration.


----------



## mcsoul

I'm using Atlantic tech di/bi-poles (switchable) for SL/R and SBL/R and I love them. No problem at all. I am also using AT full main speakers for L/R and both Wides. I am going to add another pair of the di/bi-poles for Fr Height. I called AT and they said that di/bi-poles should be fine for height duty. AT puts di/bi-poles in a good sized cabinet, they are not afterthoughts.


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *toofast68* /forum/post/21460305
> 
> 
> So I finally mounted my new OMNI Direction mirage surrounds. OH MY GOD!
> 
> 
> I was AMAZING - what a freakin differnece...maybe I was expecting greatness, but man it was so cool.
> 
> 
> Now I REALLY want to add a rear surround...but thinking it is overkill. Specifically the OMD-R.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, I am about 16 ft back from the screen and the sofa is about 6" off the rear wall.
> 
> Because my sitting area is so close to the wall what would happen if I mounted a rear surround, say one of the mirages?
> 
> 
> 1) not much effect, might add a little
> 
> 2) it would ruin the side surrounds, since there is so little space and sound would compete
> 
> 3) it would add greatness
> 
> 
> Thanks again in advance!



Being so close to the wall negates any benefit of going for more than 5.1 (2 surrounds on the sides). Besides, the envelopment from those two surrounds should be MORE than enough to get the job done for your listening area. 7.1 is not an advisable option unless you have more distance between the couch and that wall. You're stuck with 2 side surrounds but it's not like it's a problem as 2 rear speaker is all that is needed.


----------



## toofast68




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/21473294
> 
> 
> Being so close to the wall negates any benefit of going for more than 5.1 (2 surrounds on the sides). Besides, the envelopment from those two surrounds should be MORE than enough to get the job done for your listening area. 7.1 is not an advisable option unless you have more distance between the couch and that wall. You're stuck with 2 side surrounds but it's not like it's a problem as 2 rear speaker is all that is needed.



Yeah, that is what I thought...just got excited on how awesome it sounded and thought more might be better...thanks for setting me straight!


----------



## wattsiskey

I've had these Boston Acoustic VRS dipoles for a long time and never been all that happy with them. They have decent tonal quality but I'm not sure I like the dipole aspect and the lack of bass. I've got NHT Classic 3 mains with ThreeC center and a bunch of subs. The Boston speakers I got because one is mounted along a wall that is also near the flight path of a dart board and they have metal grills (it has paid off many times!).


I'm thinking of taking some NHT SuperOnes I have laying around and make them the surround channel and change the dipoles to the surround rear (or should I do the opposite ?)


I wonder, can you make a dipole into a bipole by going in there and swapping the polarity on one of the drivers ?


----------



## millerrh

Hoping someone can answer this...


The B&W DS3 surrounds are dipole/monopole selectable. But they have drivers arranged at somewhat opposing angles. From what I understand dipole = opposite drivers out of phase, bipole = opposite drivers in phase.


Does this mean that B&W's "monopole" mode is really bipole? Or am I not understanding the definition of bipole?

http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Speake...eries/DS3.html 


Also, the only place I can mount speakers for a 5.1 system is behind my seating area, about 4' back and spread out a bit. Since surrounds in a 5.1 setup are supposed to be more coming from your sides and not behind you, my thinking is that bipole/dipole would be better back there to kind of diffuse it out to the sides more. Is that thinking in line with how these will work in my space?


----------



## jackbuzz

Try reading the manual.

In Monopole, angled speakers are disabled.

In Di-pole, front tweeter is disabled.


----------



## millerrh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jackbuzz* /forum/post/21486249
> 
> 
> Try reading the manual.
> 
> In Monopole, angled speakers are disabled.
> 
> In Di-pole, front tweeter is disabled.



Thanks. I did read the manual, but zeroed in on the section describing the mode switch and it didn't mention that. After re-reading it I see they describe this in a different section. Thanks for pointing it out!


----------



## IndyStreetRacer

Looking for recommendations for a pair of either bipole or dipole to use as Rears and would maybe look to add a second set for sides at a later date.


Room size 15' x 15' x 8' with opening to dining room


Receiver Onkyo TX-SR604 90w x 7

Fronts Polk Monitor 70

Center Polk CS2


I have a new set of floor speaker stands designed for smaller satellite speakers that I would like to use if possible.

Budget is $300 for a pair.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IndyStreetRacer* /forum/post/21500595
> 
> Looking for recommendations for a pair of either bipole or dipole to use as Rears and would maybe look to add a second set for sides at a later date.
> 
> 
> Room size 15' x 15' x 8' with opening to dining room
> 
> 
> Receiver Onkyo TX-SR604 90w x 7
> 
> Fronts Polk Monitor 70
> 
> Center Polk CS2
> 
> 
> I have a new set of floor speaker stands designed for smaller satellite speakers that I would like to use if possible.
> 
> Budget is $300 for a pair.



Many, many options on this thread.


Polk make decent enough surrounds, but there's no need to match them and you can do way better.



If you want to use two speakers at rear or sides now, and perhaps stick with two in the future, I'd probably go with the Infinity or JBL dual-monopole switchables mentioned throughout the thread.


This will give you 4 surround channels (and 7.1) from 2 speakers, and it's surprisingly good.



On the other hand - having read so many great reports here & elsewhere about the Mirage omnipoles, I'd be having a very good look at them too.

By all accounts, they seem to be absolutely phenomenal as surround speakers.


The Mirage OMD5 is the best of the lot...
http://www.miragespeakers.com/na-en/...md-5-overview/ 

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=mi...=1741&bih=1173 



In any case, have a good read through this thread. It should only take about 15 mins to scan through from the start.


----------



## Slavikk

Anybody here using Definitive Technology Surround Speaker SR-8080BP? There is no way for me to put speakers on the sides and would have to put them 4 to 5 feet behind me. Per website "Definitive's bipolar surrounds are designed for easy and unobtrusive placement in your room. Easy-to-use mounting plates are included for wall mounting. *Definitive's BP surround speakers may be located on the sides or rear of the room* (or both as in 6.1 and 7.1 channel installations) with excellent results."


----------



## millerrh

Got a placement question for you guys:


Dipoles have an orientation. According to the diagram below, you should "point" them forward for side wall placement in a 5.1 or 7.1. If using dipole on the rear wall in a 7.1 setup, point them toward each other. I'm guessing this helps them from not creating additional nulls between the sides and rears.


But what about if you are using dipoles in a 5.1 setup mounted on the rear wall? I realize it is not recommended to place them this way, but I actually heard this today and it sounded better than monopoles in the same location.


My theory (based on not much at this point) is that you'd treat them back there like you would the sides and have them pointed outward instead of inward as indicated on this diagram. That way the "forward facing" driver would bounce sound along the side walls just like they would in the side configuration. Do you guys agree? Or is there something about the rear placement that better produces a null the way that it's shown in the diagram?


----------



## IndyStreetRacer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/21502661
> 
> 
> Many, many options on this thread.
> 
> 
> Polk make decent enough surrounds, but there's no need to match them and you can do way better.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to use two speakers at rear or sides now, and perhaps stick with two in the future, I'd probably go with the Infinity or JBL dual-monopole switchables mentioned throughout the thread.
> 
> 
> This will give you 4 surround channels (and 7.1) from 2 speakers, and it's surprisingly good.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand - having read so many great reports here & elsewhere about the Mirage omnipoles, I'd be having a very good look at them too.
> 
> By all accounts, they seem to be absolutely phenomenal as surround speakers.
> 
> 
> The Mirage OMD5 is the best of the lot...
> http://www.miragespeakers.com/na-en/...md-5-overview/
> 
> http://www.google.com.au/search?q=mi...=1741&bih=1173
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, have a good read through this thread. It should only take about 15 mins to scan through from the start.




Thanks for the input. I have actually heard these speakers at a local shop and when they priced them, they were more expensive than Vanns sells them and so I didn't think twice, but now seeing the price at Vanns, I may just go this way.


----------



## chikoo

I just received my Definitive Technology SR-8040BP pair and I replaced my rear Polk RM7650 satellites with those. Holy Molly! What a difference! The sound is so clean and the dispersion is so fantastic that the rear channel tracks are enveloping you without giving themselves away!



http://imgur.com/QlkPAl.jpg%5B/IMG%5D


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerrh* /forum/post/21503207
> 
> 
> Got a placement question for you guys:
> 
> 
> Dipoles have an orientation. According to the diagram below, you should "point" them forward for side wall placement in a 5.1 or 7.1. If using dipole on the rear wall in a 7.1 setup, point them toward each other. I'm guessing this helps them from not creating additional nulls between the sides and rears.
> 
> 
> But what about if you are using dipoles in a 5.1 setup mounted on the rear wall? I realize it is not recommended to place them this way, but I actually heard this today and it sounded better than monopoles in the same location.
> 
> 
> My theory (based on not much at this point) is that you'd treat them back there like you would the sides and have them pointed outward instead of inward as indicated on this diagram. That way the "forward facing" driver would bounce sound along the side walls just like they would in the side configuration. Do you guys agree? Or is there something about the rear placement that better produces a null the way that it's shown in the diagram?



The arrows are not showing which way the audio will go, because the audio will be going in both direction.


The arrows are there to help you make sure you have the left and right speakers in the proper place, so in the manner that the tweeter work if you are using bi-pole or di-pole. Depending on which one you use, the tweeters will be in phase or out of phase.


----------



## AC2011

Hi - I have a pair of bipole surrounds that I am planning to use as side surrounds. In figuring out placement, I discovered that I won't be able to have the centers of the two speakers at exactly the same spot across the room from each other.


This is due to the location of a window on the right side and an opening to a stairwell on the left, and the related limitations of stud placements.


I figure I can tweak the placement enough to get them within about 3 inches.


Question is, when I am sitting down enjoying my movie, will I notice that the center position is not exact in both ears?


FWIW, I plan to run a 7.1 setup using front height speakers rather than rear surrounds. Would I be better off putting these bipoles on the rear wall and going without side surrounds?


----------



## millerrh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HAMP568* /forum/post/21534063
> 
> 
> The arrows are not showing which way the audio will go, because the audio will be going in both direction.
> 
> 
> The arrows are there to help you make sure you have the left and right speakers in the proper place, so in the manner that the tweeter work if you are using bi-pole or di-pole. Depending on which one you use, the tweeters will be in phase or out of phase.



That's how I understood it as well, however there's still something more to it. They tell you in a 5.1 system, to point the arrows forward. If all you are doing is aligning phases, it seems as though they could point forward or rearward as long as they were pointing the same direction, right? Because you're just matching phases at that point. (Same thing if you have them along the rear wall in a 5.1 setup...seems like it wouldn't matter)


I understand how in a 7.1 system, it could matter so the sides don't inadvertently cancel out the rears where they are not supposed to, but it seems for a 5.1 it shouldn't matter.


I'm trying to understand why it would, so if anyone can shed some light please do!


I just set up a pair of B&W DS3s this weekend along my rear wall up high. I actually have the arrows pointed toward each other (like the image above) although, like I said, I am not sure it matters because the phases seem like they are aligned either way with only one set of speakers. But I actually have them in monopole mode for the moment. Seems to sound better. Could be because of the high placement or the fact that behind you is not recommended for dipoles, but they aren't that easy to locate unless there is a specific "thing" in the soundtrack trying to call your attention.


----------



## LowTech1

I have Paradigm Dipoles. I have a smaller room,1 side with wall,the other side open.. Would I be better off with bipoles or monopoles? I was actually looking into the DT SR 8040 bipoles or the OMD5's.. What do you guys think?


----------



## caesar1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerrh* /forum/post/21503207
> 
> 
> Got a placement question for you guys:
> 
> 
> Dipoles have an orientation. According to the diagram below, you should "point" them forward for side wall placement in a 5.1 or 7.1. If using dipole on the rear wall in a 7.1 setup, point them toward each other. I'm guessing this helps them from not creating additional nulls between the sides and rears.
> 
> 
> But what about if you are using dipoles in a 5.1 setup mounted on the rear wall? I realize it is not recommended to place them this way, but I actually heard this today and it sounded better than monopoles in the same location.
> 
> 
> My theory (based on not much at this point) is that you'd treat them back there like you would the sides and have them pointed outward instead of inward as indicated on this diagram. That way the "forward facing" driver would bounce sound along the side walls just like they would in the side configuration. Do you guys agree? Or is there something about the rear placement that better produces a null the way that it's shown in the diagram?



I would not use dipoles in the rear -- period. Rears should be directs, like the mains.


----------



## millerrh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *caesar1* /forum/post/21551429
> 
> 
> I would not use dipoles in the rear -- period. Rears should be directs, like the mains.



I heard dipoles in Best Buy (same ones I ended up buying) mounted in the rear and they actually sounded good, however I think it was more due to their room shape now. These speakers actually have a dipole/monopole switch and in my room I actually prefer them in monopole mode. I like having the choice, but it looks like it is monopole for me after all. Probably due to what you are saying.


----------



## LowTech1

Are you talking about the Def tech bipoles?


----------



## millerrh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LowTech1* /forum/post/21551715
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the Def tech bipoles?



Nope, B&W DS3's.


----------



## chikoo

My preference is having Hi-Def Bipolars in the rear surround, because they are not so direct sounding. Sound behind you in general hasno specific "focus" as your mind/ears are not focusing on sounds behind you. Hence these bipolars make it sound just like that. Not so much for the mains. The main sound should be as direct as possible. Hence I went for a CLR2002 main soundstage coupled with SR-B8040BP rear soundstage.


----------



## joms

In my bedroom, my bed is on one end of the room by the rear wall. I am quite near the right side wall as well but on the left side wall, im a bit far by 6 feet. I cant move the bed since theres a door


a) I want to put a bipole surround on the left and right side wall despite the left wall being farther by 6 feet. Will this be ok?


b) I want to put another pair of bipole speakers on the rear wall despite my bed having no space between it and the wall AND the bipole speaker will be on the very top of the wall near the ceiling due to WAF (height around 9 feet)


My amp = denon 4311 (with audyssey XT32)


will this work? Thanks


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LowTech1* /forum/post/21549787
> 
> 
> I have Paradigm Dipoles. I have a smaller room,1 side with wall,the other side open.. Would I be better off with bipoles or monopoles? I was actually looking into the DT SR 8040 bipoles or the OMD5's.. What do you guys think?



Hard to say without seeing it.


Very seldom are monopoles the best option for surrounds.

I've found that if you only have one pair to the sides and no rears, bipoles are too direct.

I'd probably either go for Mirage OMD5's or Axiom quadpoles, or consider going 7.1 with a pair of Infinity / JBL dual-monopoles.


Where are the speakers placed?

Have a good read through the thread and post a photo or diagram...


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joms* /forum/post/21553542
> 
> 
> In my bedroom, my bed is on one end of the room by the rear wall. I am quite near the right side wall as well but on the left side wall, im a bit far by 6 feet. I cant move the bed since theres a door
> 
> 
> a) I want to put a bipole surround on the left and right side wall despite the left wall being farther by 6 feet. Will this be ok?
> 
> 
> b) I want to put another pair of bipole speakers on the rear wall despite my bed having no space between it and the wall AND the bipole speaker will be on the very top of the wall near the ceiling due to WAF (height around 9 feet)
> 
> 
> My amp = denon 4311 (with audyssey XT32)
> 
> 
> will this work? Thanks



That'll work fine, after the distances & EQs are set in the Denon.


I'd either go for dipole/bipole switchables, possibly switched to dipole for the sides and probably bipole for the rear.


Or perhaps seriously consider Mirage OMD's omnipoles all round, with Axiom quadpoles also worth a look.


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/21553667
> 
> 
> That'll work fine, after the distances & EQs are set in the Denon.
> 
> 
> I'd either go for dipole/bipole switchables, *possibly switched to dipole for the sides and probably bipole for the rear.*
> 
> 
> Or perhaps seriously consider Mirage OMD's omnipoles all round, with Axiom quadpoles also worth a look.



I don't think that is a good idea, depending where they are located, your talking about a high chance of phase Cancellation.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HAMP568* /forum/post/21560648
> 
> 
> I don't think that is a good idea, depending where they are located, your talking about a high chance of phase Cancellation.



I prefer to recommend dipole/bipole switchables, as you can switch to bipole if you run into any phase problems, or just don't care for the dipole effect.


But omnipoles or perhaps quadpoles are well worth looking into, as they offer wide dispersion without any chance of phase problems.


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/21565017
> 
> 
> I prefer to recommend dipole/bipole switchables, as you can switch to bipole if you run into any phase problems, or just don't care for the dipole effect.
> 
> 
> But omnipoles or perhaps quadpoles are well worth looking into, as they offer wide dispersion without any chance of phase problems.



I've been running di-poles, I haven't found a need to try out the bi-poles. I have (4) di/bi-pole switchables surrounds from Monitor Audio. I already know the rear do not have to match the fronts, but I love having to timbre match all the way around.


----------



## Eyleron

Toole says dipoles aren't needed anymore now that we have uncorrelated discrete surround channels.


For me, their sound field is too diffuse. And I don't like that my Paradigm dipoles radiate to the front of the room, too. At least not while I don't have treatment on the front wall. I don't need to hear side/rear cues coming from my front soundstage!


On a lark while EQing the sub today, I plugged the right surround ADP-170 dipole into the front-right channel. Ran a full range sweep in REW. Just like Toole said they do, the high frequencies were SEVERELY rolled off.


I will move the dipoles to the rear walls after I buy bipoles to swap in for side surrounds.


I think it's pretty telling when Paradigm, long a hold out for making only dipole surrounds and always quoting that dated THX article from the 90's, switched to bipoles in their new Series 7 Monitors!


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Eyleron* /forum/post/21578964
> 
> 
> Toole says dipoles aren't needed anymore now that we have uncorrelated discrete surround channels.
> 
> 
> For me, their sound field is too diffuse. And I don't like that my Paradigm dipoles radiate to the front of the room, too. At least not while I don't have treatment on the front wall. I don't need to hear side/rear cues coming from my front soundstage!
> 
> 
> On a lark while EQing the sub today, I plugged the right surround ADP-170 dipole into the front-right channel. Ran a full range sweep in REW. Just like Toole said they do, the high frequencies were SEVERELY rolled off.
> 
> 
> I will move the dipoles to the rear walls after I buy bipoles to swap in for side surrounds.
> 
> 
> I think it's pretty telling when Paradigm, long a hold out for making only dipole surrounds and always quoting that dated THX article from the 90's, switched to bipoles in their new Series 7 Monitors!




Toole has a point. They're certainly rarely needed... yet are still often desired, as bipoles can often be too direct at the sides with 5.1.


Good point about not wanting surrounds bouncing off your front wall and hurting the soundstage.

Although I guess it really comes down to the room and how it reacts.


Always a good idea to test your surrounds as fronts to see how they measure up, as you've done.

Too many folks never do this.


Those ADP-170's are a seriously old-school dipole design, with next to no angling, and everything you hear is way off-axis.

I used to have surrounds like that and they were horrible.


A design like the Monitor Audio BXFX or RXFX can be worthwhile, as the woofer faces forward (and is in phase), the angling of the tweeters isn't too severe, and they're dipole/bipole switchable.

Having a larger 6-inch woofer is also nice....

http://www.monitoraudio.co.uk/products/bronze-bx/bxfx/ 
http://www.monitoraudio.co.uk/products/silver-rx/rxfx/ 


_Have you considered Axiom quadpoles or Mirage omnipoles?_



.


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/21579720
> 
> 
> Toole has a point. They're certainly rarely needed... yet are still often desired, as bipoles can often be too direct at the sides with 5.1.
> 
> 
> Good point about not wanting surrounds bouncing off your front wall and hurting the soundstage.
> 
> Although I guess it really comes down to the room and how it reacts.
> 
> 
> Always a good idea to test your surrounds as fronts to see how they measure up, as you've done.
> 
> Too many folks never do this.
> 
> 
> Those ADP-170's are a seriously old-school dipole design, with next to no angling, and everything you hear is way off-axis.
> 
> I used to have surrounds like that and they were horrible.
> 
> 
> A design like the Monitor Audio BXFX or RXFX can be worthwhile, as the woofer faces forward (and is in phase), the angling of the tweeters isn't too severe, and they're dipole/bipole switchable.
> 
> Having a larger 6-inch woofer is also nice....
> 
> http://www.monitoraudio.co.uk/products/bronze-bx/bxfx/
> http://www.monitoraudio.co.uk/products/silver-rx/rxfx/
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered Axiom quadpoles or Mirage omnipoles?
> 
> 
> 
> .



I noticed I didn't mention which model MA's I had, but you posted the link to them.


I have four Monitor Audio RXFX's in di-pole mode, and when I am watching something that is 7.1 surround heavy, such as TRON or Transformers, I am equally just as highly proud of those RXFX's as I am in the rest of my Monitor Audio system and even my (2) SVS PB12 plus subwoofers.


The RXFX's are extremely amazing audio wise, They bring you into the movie by being totally encompassed with great audio without being distracting from what's in front of you on the screen.


I do not them as being an alternative to other company di/bi-pole speakers, because of the price, but they are a perfect timbre match to the front stage Sliver series RX line from Monitor Audio.


I was wowed by the BRFX's, they are some fantastic surrounds, and they could be alternative speaker to have a different mixture of speakers in a system. They were tempting to buy for me to save some money at the time, and I love to save money, I just didn't want that 'What if' on the back of my mind.


----------



## K-Wood

I'm currently running 3 matched ACI Protege speakers, driven by an Outlaw 750 200w amp, as my fronts. I'm now searching for the best possible match for surrounds for a 5.1 or 7.1 system. My room is a carpeted rectangle measuring 25x14. The sub is a REL. For those of you who don't remember the Proteges, the specs are here .


I'm thinking of wall-mounting the side surrounds and possibly using in-ceiling speakers for the rear surrounds. I'm also wondering whether I should run bipole or dipole for the side surrounds -- is this recommended in a 7.1 system?


One speaker that looks intriguing is the Mirage OMD-R , perhaps mounted on the side walls directly in line with my seating position. Behind the seats is another 10' to 12', so there's is an opportunity for rear surrounds. The rear surrounds likely would have to be in the ceiling, though, because the back wall is occupied with a window and door.


I realize the ACI's are old news and that ACI is no longer in the business, but hopefully someone on here remembers them and can make a recommendation for surrounds.


Thanks!


----------



## bornacane

was hoping this would help me understand this situation but lol guess ill have to desipher it myself


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Wood* /forum/post/21605508
> 
> 
> I'm currently running 3 matched ACI Protege speakers, driven by an Outlaw 750 200w amp, as my fronts. I'm now searching for the best possible match for surrounds for a 5.1 or 7.1 system. My room is a carpeted rectangle measuring 25x14. The sub is a REL. For those of you who don't remember the Proteges, the specs are here .
> 
> 
> I'm thinking of wall-mounting the side surrounds and possibly using in-ceiling speakers for the rear surrounds. I'm also wondering whether I should run bipole or dipole for the side surrounds -- is this recommended in a 7.1 system?
> 
> 
> One speaker that looks intriguing is the Mirage OMD-R , perhaps mounted on the side walls directly in line with my seating position. Behind the seats is another 10' to 12', so there's is an opportunity for rear surrounds. The rear surrounds likely would have to be in the ceiling, though, because the back wall is occupied with a window and door.
> 
> 
> I realize the ACI's are old news and that ACI is no longer in the business, but hopefully someone on here remembers them and can make a recommendation for surrounds.
> 
> 
> Thanks!




I'd suggest having a good read through the thread, but for starters...


* In ceilings will be OK for rears if that's all you can manage.


* Dipoles are OK for the sides, but are not to everyone's taste (as you'll find throughout this thread.) For that reason, dipole/bipole switchables are preferred.


* My preferences in order would probably be...


1. 4 x Mirage OMD-5


2. 4 x Axiom QS8 quadpoles


3. 4 x Monitor Audio bipole/dipole switchables



... or 2 of the above, with in-ceilings at the rear.

Any of these should work fine with the Proteges, especially after EQ correction with Audyssey or similar.


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/21614087
> 
> 
> I'd suggest having a good read through the thread, but for starters...
> 
> 
> * In ceilings will be OK for rears if that's all you can manage.
> 
> 
> * Dipoles are OK for the sides, but are not to everyone's taste (as you'll find throughout this thread.) For that reason, dipole/bipole switchables are preferred.
> 
> 
> * My preferences in order would probably be...
> 
> 
> 1. 4 x Mirage OMD-5
> 
> 
> 2. 4 x Axiom QS8 quadpoles
> 
> 
> 3. 4 x Monitor Audio bipole/dipole switchables
> 
> 
> 
> ... or 2 of the above, with in-ceilings at the rear.
> 
> Any of these should work fine with the Proteges, especially after EQ correction with Audyssey or similar.



I agree. Although I advocate dipole dispersion to simulate the 'movie theater effect' as Lucasfilm recommends. I happen to think that the Mirage Omni-polar speakers achieve the effect PLUS giving you some 'direct' sound which gives off a more satisfying/solid 'imaging' that many like from monopole/bipole speakers while also imparting the ambiance and 'surround' effect desired by Lucasfilm. If you have the choice between bipole/dipole, try dipole first and only use bipole if you really absolutely have a strong preference for it.


That's my opinion based on years of casual interest followed by months and months of intense research and personal testing to come up with the perfect speaker selections based on room size and figuring in different listening preferences from different people, while still adhering to the scientific principles laid down for home theater reproduction by Lucasfilm.


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/21615432
> 
> 
> I agree. Although I advocate dipole dispersion to simulate the 'movie theater effect' as Lucasfilm recommends. I happen to think that the Mirage Omni-polar speakers achieve the effect PLUS giving you some 'direct' sound which gives off a more satisfying/solid 'imaging' that many like from monopole/bipole speakers while also imparting the ambiance and 'surround' effect desired by Lucasfilm. If you have the choice between bipole/dipole, try dipole first and only use bipole if you really absolutely have a strong preference for it.
> 
> 
> That's my opinion based on years of casual interest followed by months and months of intense research and personal testing to come up with the perfect speaker selections based on room size and figuring in different listening preferences from different people, while still adhering to the scientific principles laid down for home theater reproduction by Lucasfilm.



Everything I have read about using bi/di-pole have lead me to using di-pole. The advantages and dis-advantages of using monopole, bi-pole or di-pole put me under di-pole.


I had full intension of using di-pole when I was searching for speakers. It just happen to be, that I choose Monitor Audio and they suggested, if you are going to use all four from them, that you select di-pole.


I haven't even given bi-pole a chance to hear the difference, It just seems di-pole sound perfect to me now.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/21615432
> 
> 
> I agree. Although I advocate dipole dispersion to simulate the 'movie theater effect' as Lucasfilm recommends. I happen to think that the Mirage Omni-polar speakers achieve the effect PLUS giving you some 'direct' sound which gives off a more satisfying/solid 'imaging' that many like from monopole/bipole speakers while also imparting the ambiance and 'surround' effect desired by Lucasfilm.
> 
> That's my opinion based on years of casual interest followed by months and months of intense research and personal testing to come up with the perfect speaker selections based on room size and figuring in different listening preferences from different people, while still adhering to the scientific principles laid down for home theater reproduction by Lucasfilm.



Yet another thumbs up for the Omnipoles.

They do seem like a perfect solution for most people.

Another edge they'd have over dipoles is the lack of phase cancellation, bass and off-axis drop-off and general lack of "phasey" sound in the treble which I've been a bit bothered by with most dipoles.

Also less critical where you sit (you don't need to be in the null).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/21615432
> 
> 
> If you have the choice between bipole/dipole, try dipole first and only use bipole if you really absolutely have a strong preference for it.



Or better still - _get bipole/dipole switchables_ ... or omnipoles!


----------



## Bing




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/21615432
> 
> 
> I agree. Although I advocate dipole dispersion to simulate the 'movie theater effect' as Lucasfilm recommends. I happen to think that the Mirage Omni-polar speakers achieve the effect PLUS giving you some 'direct' sound which gives off a more satisfying/solid 'imaging' that many like from monopole/bipole speakers while also imparting the ambiance and 'surround' effect desired by Lucasfilm. If you have the choice between bipole/dipole, try dipole first and only use bipole if you really absolutely have a strong preference for it.



I too have had many years of experience with multi-directional surrounds in different rooms and layouts. Now, I've settled into a dedicated HT with pretty close to ideal surround placements. Each of the 4 rear speakers are equi-distant from the prime seat, at 8 ft away, with proper rear walls to bounce sound off of.


In my time, I have found that bipole dispersion mimics a large auditorium better than dipoles do. It has all the immersion without the phasey, hollow sound that dipoles are known for. Therefore, I would advocate bipole in most cases. The exception being the absolute purist who values multi-ch music and has room for rear floor standers, if the fronts are full range as well. I am able to switch modes easily without having to take the speakers off the wall so I can do a bi vs di experiment quite quickly.


I like the idea of Haggis's to get switchables. But inevitably, the only use dipole mode has is to show you how much better bipoles are (but that alone might be worth it).


----------



## IndyStreetRacer

Had been contemplating the Mirage OMD5 for my rear surrounds. Well it just so happened that Vanns was out of stock at $169.99, so I didn't spend the $340.00 for the pair. I began looking at the Mirage OmniSat 5.1 that is on sale at World Wide Stereo for $327. I just wasn't excited about it, so I kept searching. I thought about the Mirage Prestige Nano's but didn't want to pay $399 for a pair since the OMD5 were less. I stayed online and kept searching and ran across the Mirage Prestige 5 speaker package. The MSRP on Mirage site is $949 which seems inflated, but Vanns has it listed for $499 on their site. When I searched Google Shopping I found Vanns selling it for $399 on ebay with free shipping and no tax, so I jumped on it. I can use the center in place of my Polk CS2 since it blocks my remote infared on my tv and I can use all 4 satelites as my rear and side surrounds for the price of just 2 speakers. I am now a very happy camper and now just have to wait for the package to arrive, hopefully by Friday.


----------



## WantToHear

I want to plug in my Boise headset into my new car. No such headphone jack. (It has several input connections for the latest technology, but no output jack.) My wife does most of the driving and I have a hearing impairment that reduces all sounds but road noise. The noise-reduction Boise headset works great in our old 99 Winstar van (it has a jack for the rear entertainment system) and lets me tune to radio while she listens to CD or some other radio station, or vice-verse. Could I simply move my old radio into my new van and use its jack? Assuming proper connections and wiring. The effect would be like having two car radios in the same vehicle? However, the add-on radio would have simply a connection for headphone and would not be connected to the car speakers. Any ideas?


----------



## blipszyc

In my old theater, I had DefTech's all around. I've moved recently and will be building a new theater and was wondering if there a recommendation to have matching speakers all around? I was leaning toward PSB Image T6 and C5 for fronts and center, but didn't know if their S5 bipole would be good for side and rears and if they would cancel each other out depending on their spacing?


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blipszyc* /forum/post/21639833
> 
> 
> In my old theater, I had DefTech's all around. I've moved recently and will be building a new theater and *was wondering if there a recommendation to have matching speakers all around?* I was leaning toward PSB Image T6 and C5 for fronts and center, but didn't know if their S5 bipole would be good for side and rears and if they would cancel each other out depending on their spacing?



I would recommend Monitor Audio RX series for all around timbre matching. The RXFX are bi/di-pole switchable


----------



## Kimwyn

Hey guys, i have been reading the thread and have a couple of questions. here is some additional info before i ask my questions. I have the paradigm signature s4 and c3 as LCR and no speakers at the moment for surround duty. I am debating between adding 2 or 4 surrounds. As most of the movies i own and most of the movies i watch are in 5.1 i am thinking 2 is enough. My placement is a bit "weird" to say the least though. my room is about 21' long and 16' wide but one wall of the two 21' walls stop at about 10 ft and opens to a kitchen. I sit about 11' away from the front.


Question 1: If i set up a 5.1 system, where should i put the surrounds, at the side or at the back?


Question 2: If i do decide to put them on the side, is it ok to have 1 side surround 1ft behind my listening position and the other 1ft in front of my listening position due to the wall not extending all the way back?


Question 3: Should i just go 7.1 and have the 2 side surrounds 1 ft in front of my listening position and rears on the back wall?


Question 4: If i go 5.1, what are the best side surround options, bipole or dipole?


Question 5: If i go 7.1, what are the best surround options altogether, bipole, dipole or omnipole?


Question 6: What are the best surround speakers for 200-400 per pair at the moment?


Question 7: What processor option can i use to up mix 5.1 movies to 7.1 if i decide to go 7.1?


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kimwyn* /forum/post/21649351
> 
> 
> Hey guys, i have been reading the thread and have a couple of questions. here is some additional info before i ask my questions. I have the paradigm signature s4 and c3 as LCR and no speakers at the moment for surround duty. I am debating between adding 2 or 4 surrounds. As most of the movies i own and most of the movies i watch are in 5.1 i am thinking 2 is enough. My placement is a bit "weird" to say the least though. my room is about 21' long and 16' wide but one wall of the two 21' walls stop at about 10 ft and opens to a kitchen. I sit about 11' away from the front.
> 
> 
> Question 1: If i set up a 5.1 system, where should i put the surrounds, at the side or at the back?
> 
> 
> Question 2: If i do decide to put them on the side, is it ok to have 1 side surround 1ft behind my listening position and the other 1ft in front of my listening position due to the wall not extending all the way back?
> 
> 
> Question 3: Should i just go 7.1 and have the 2 side surrounds 1 ft in front of my listening position and rears on the back wall?
> 
> 
> Question 4: If i go 5.1, what are the best side surround options, bipole or dipole?
> 
> 
> Question 5: If i go 7.1, what are the best surround options altogether, bipole, dipole or omnipole?
> 
> 
> Question 6: What are the best surround speakers for 200-400 per pair at the moment?
> 
> 
> Question 7: What processor option can i use to up mix 5.1 movies to 7.1 if i decide to go 7.1?



I select #3, and use them in bi-pole mode. Just about any entry level and mid level AVR will process audio from a 5.1 to 7.1


----------



## blipszyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HAMP568* /forum/post/21649883
> 
> 
> I select #3, and use them in bi-pole mode. Just about any entry level and mid level AVR will process audio from a 5.1 to 7.1



Would you suggest all 4 in bipole mode, or just the sides? Or another way to put it - which would you recommend out of the following:


1 - Side and rear bipoles?

2 - Side bipoles and rear directs (are these the same as monopoles?)?

3 - Side monopoles, rear bipoles?

4 - Other?


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blipszyc* /forum/post/21649914
> 
> 
> Would you suggest all 4 in bipole mode, or just the sides? Or another way to put it - which would you recommend out of the following:
> 
> 
> 1 - Side and rear bipoles?
> 
> 2 - Side bipoles and rear directs (are these the same as monopoles?)?
> 
> 3 - Side monopoles, rear bipoles?
> 
> 4 - Other?



I would say all four the same or bi/di-pole as sides.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HAMP568* /forum/post/21655684
> 
> 
> I would say all four the same or bi/di-pole as sides.



Yep. Try and get the same all around.


Either dipole/bipole switchables like the Monitor Audio mentioned earlier, or seriously consider Axiom quadpoles or Mirage omnipoles.


Let us know how you go!


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blipszyc* /forum/post/21649914
> 
> 
> Would you suggest all 4 in bipole mode, or just the sides? Or another way to put it - which would you recommend out of the following:
> 
> 
> 1 - Side and rear bipoles?
> 
> 2 - Side bipoles and rear directs (are these the same as monopoles?)?
> 
> 3 - Side monopoles, rear bipoles?
> 
> 4 - Other?



I just seen the pics of your theater, and if that was mine, I would go di-pole all around.


----------



## Kimwyn

Anyone had any experiences with the Energy CR-10s as side or rear surrounds?


----------



## mtbdudex

I was at a local high end store yesterday, and asked the Paradigm rep why they went from di-pole to bi-pole for their Monitor series, his answer below:

(posted in the Paradigm thread here)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mtbdudex* /forum/post/21686739
> 
> 
> I want to thank Paulsons for hosting Paradigm/Integra yesterday (Wed 2/22).
> 
> I was there early 4:25-4:45pm (6pm formal start time), and had chance to speak with the Paradigm rep's (Keith D, forgot the other name).
> 
> Nice to see the Signature S8, being early they were just finishing set-up to the mono amps, so could not listen.
> 
> I'll stop by later tomorrow to listen, hopefully they are still there.
> 
> 
> They are V3, here are the 2 Paradigm regional reps in the dedicated 2-channel listening room.
> 
> (sorry for crappy picts, iPhone4)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also had Monitor 9's in a 5.1 set-up in another room:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I further asked Keith why the Monitor line dropped the ADP surrounds and went to Bi-poles.
> 
> His reply: "we found the majority of Monitor customers used the set-up NOT in a dedicated HT situation, rather in a family/living room environment.
> 
> In that case, lots of the surrounds location were not symmetrical or in the best placement relative to the MLP.
> 
> Hence, bi-directional is the better choice for them.
> 
> In a dedicated HT room, where placement can be correctly done, then the ADP's (Adaptive di-pole) is the better solution"


----------



## Kimwyn

Wow, i find that quite interesting now because everyone was saying dipoles are best....regardless......







wonder where this leaves me?????


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kimwyn* /forum/post/21687160
> 
> 
> Wow, i find that quite interesting now because everyone was saying dipoles are best....regardless......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wonder where this leaves me?????



Mirage Omnipole speakers. (Assuming your room isn't too big). These give a combination of direct and reflecting sound. It's very likely the best compromise in a home theater environment. Right now it's my top recommendation for versatility in delivering a very "pro theater like" sound in most user situations.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/21687585
> 
> 
> Mirage Omnipole speakers. (Assuming your room isn't too big). These give a combination of direct and reflecting sound. It's very likely the best compromise in a home theater environment. Right now it's my top recommendation for versatility in delivering a very "pro theater like" sound in most user situations.



Agreed.


There more you look into it, the more you realise that "everyone" isn't really recommending dipoles at all!


----------



## Bing

People shouldn't confuse reflected sound as this out-of-phase hollow sound. For those who don't know what dipole sounds like, just experiment with your fronts. Wire one speaker with + to - and see what that sounds like. It's annoying.


Bi/Tri/Quad or Omni can give you a big sound without resorting to dipole.


Comment to that Paradigm rep:


He said what the company wanted him to say. Here's me reading between the lines.


"We (Paradigm) have long invested in the ADP design. It made sense back in the day of Pro-Logic. However, we can't simply admit that we're outdated but we do recognize that other forms of multi directional speakers are better for discrete channels. Tell you what we'll do. We'll take our best selling line (I'm guessing) and convert them to bipoles. Give the customers some market-speak about how bipoles work for non-ideal layouts but still say ADP is best. But! If the bipoles sell like hotcakes, then we'll revamp the Reference line and says it's customer demand. That way, we'll never have to admit we were wrong not to switch years ago.


----------



## mtbdudex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bing* /forum/post/21688032
> 
> 
> People shouldn't confuse reflected sound as this out-of-phase hollow sound. For those who don't know what dipole sounds like, just experiment with your fronts. Wire one speaker with + to - and see what that sounds like. It's annoying.
> 
> 
> Bi/Tri/Quad or Omni can give you a big sound without resorting to dipole.
> 
> 
> Comment to that Paradigm rep:
> 
> 
> He said what the company wanted him to say. Here's me reading between the lines.
> 
> 
> "We (Paradigm) have long invested in the ADP design. It made sense back in the day of Pro-Logic. However, we can't simply admit that we're outdated but we do recognize that other forms of multi directional speakers are better for discrete channels. Tell you what we'll do. We'll take our best selling line (I'm guessing) and convert them to bipoles. Give the customers some market-speak about how bipoles work for non-ideal layouts but still say ADP is best. But! If the bipoles sell like hotcakes, then we'll revamp the Reference line and says it's customer demand. That way, we'll never have to admit we were wrong not to switch years ago.



You are probably not far off from the truth.


I actually started to engage him into the whole history of surrounds, from the initial THX recommendation of di-pole and how/why that was "good" back then.....and what is "best" for dedicated home theatres now that we have true discrete surround channels mixed that way.....

Started to discuss "what speakers are used in todays mixing" viewpoint and how that carries over into HT design and usage, but did not take it too far.


Problem was, he was trying to get his Signature S8's up and running, and I was heading off to Ash Wed 5pm family service, so did not get into the discussion so much.


So - which one?

For me, the ADP-390's I have "seem" to work fine in my dedicated HT.

The monopole front firing bass with the side di-pole does give ambience soundfield. Yet, on discrete sounds I can also localize them...bullets, etc.

Could I "get better"? Well, these are paid for....


Now, if I knew in 2008 what I've learned thru 2012, I'd seriously look at other options. I like the switchable ones, like the ones my brother in law bought last year.

Gives flexibility. Monitor Audio Gold GX-FX Di-pole, mono-pole.
http://www.monitoraudio.co.uk/products/gold-gx/gxfx/


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mtbdudex* /forum/post/21692054
> 
> 
> You are probably not far off from the truth.
> 
> 
> I actually started to engage him into the whole history of surrounds, from the initial THX recommendation of di-pole and how/why that was "good" back then.....and what is "best" for dedicated home theatres now that we have true discrete surround channels mixed that way.....
> 
> Started to discuss "what speakers are used in todays mixing" viewpoint and how that carries over into HT design and usage, but did not take it too far.
> 
> 
> Problem was, he was trying to get his Signature S8's up and running, and I was heading off to Ash Wed 5pm family service, so did not get into the discussion so much.
> 
> 
> So - which one?
> 
> For me, the ADP-390's I have "seem" to work fine in my dedicated HT.
> 
> The monopole front firing bass with the side di-pole does give ambience soundfield. Yet, on discrete sounds I can also localize them...bullets, etc.
> 
> Could I "get better"? Well, these are paid for....
> 
> 
> Now, if I knew in 2008 what I've learned thru 2012, I'd seriously look at other options. I like the switchable ones, like the ones my brother in law bought last year.
> 
> Gives flexibility. Monitor Audio Gold GX-FX Di-pole, mono-pole.
> http://www.monitoraudio.co.uk/products/gold-gx/gxfx/



The picture your showing are of the GSFX, which is the previous model. The newer GXFX are also switchable, and both those options are really nice. When you switch to monopole your using the ribbon tweeter which matches the front stage. If you select the di-pole mode, you will be using the two tweeters on the side of them.


The GXFX's











I have the RXFX's, which are selectable also, but only between di & bi-pole.


----------



## pennynike1

Anyone have any direct comparisons to the M&K Professional MPS 2525P Tripole Surround speakers and dipole Seaton Sparks for surrounds? I used to own M&K dipole MPS 2510P's for the mains and 2525P's for the side and rear surrounds. I am now considering getting Seaton Catalysts for the mains, and Seaton Sparks for the sides and rears. I remember the M&K 2525P's being pretty darn excellent sounding, and would definitely love to hear from anyone who has direct experience with these 2 different brands.


----------



## cyde01

I'm looking to pick up a pair of bipolar speakers for surrounds around $300. I came across these, and I would be much obliged if anyone could point me in the right direction.


Right now I'm using Polk Monitors for fronts, but I plan on upgrading in the near future. I take it matching surrounds isn't terribly important, but do I at least want to match the same type of tweeter?

*Polk FXi a4 (refurb) $270*
http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/r...ex.php?s=fxia4 

*DCM TP160BDP-B $280*
http://www.sonicelectronix.com/item_...P160BDP-B.html 

*Level TWO surrounds $260*
http://www.htd.com/Products/level-tw...l-TWO-Surround 

*Def Tech SR-8080BP (refurb) $242*
http://compare.ebay.com/like/1906354...Types&var=sbar 

*Premier Acoustic PA-6S $209*
http://www.overstock.com/Electronics...3/product.html 

*Premier Acoustic PA-8S $290*
http://www.overstock.com/Electronics...3/product.html


----------



## blipszyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HAMP568* /forum/post/21658034
> 
> 
> I just seen the pics of your theater, and if that was mine, I would go di-pole all around.



If you clicked the link in my Sig - that was my old theater, and I had Def Tech Bi-poles all around and liked the immersive sound that those gave out.


I went and auditioned the RX6 and RX8 yesterday and was not impressed at all. I thought they sounded very flat. What I did like were the Paradigm Studio 60s. Looks like Paradigm makes a di-pole speaker as well, so perhaps I'll go with those.


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blipszyc* /forum/post/21699875
> 
> 
> If you clicked the link in my Sig - that was my old theater, and I had Def Tech Bi-poles all around and liked the immersive sound that those gave out.
> 
> 
> I went and auditioned the RX6 and RX8 yesterday and was not impressed at all. I thought they sounded very flat. What I did like were the Paradigm Studio 60s. Looks like Paradigm makes a di-pole speaker as well, so perhaps I'll go with those.



Wow!!! Really? Flat? That is the first I heard that about Monitor Audio RX series. I usually hear how well they sounded or some say they are bright(but only with the RS).


What were they using as a source?


I'm only using the RX2's with the combo of subs. I think I updated my link to show my theater room.


----------



## blipszyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HAMP568* /forum/post/21702396
> 
> 
> Wow!!! Really? Flat? That is the first I heard that about Monitor Audio RX series. I usually hear how well they sounded or some say they are bright(but only with the RS).
> 
> 
> What were they using as a source?



Flat, muted, muffled. Perhaps they were setup incorrectly. I tend to like brighter sounding speakers so if they are typically bright, I might have liked them. The source was a Arcam CD player and AVR, but I don't know which ones. (The AVR had a $4999 price tag.) The dealer had B&W CM9s, CM8s, and 802s in the same room and the Studio 60s in another room. I thought the CM8s and 9s sounded better than the RXs and I had them bring the Studios for comparison. To my ears, the Studios seemed to have the best soundfield and imaging.


As far as surrounds, I'll have to do in-home demos of the di-poles vs. monopoles. I can't exactly line up the di-poles with my main seating area, so monopoles might actually do better.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HAMP568* /forum/post/21702396
> 
> 
> Wow!!! Really? Flat? That is the first I heard that about Monitor Audio RX series. I usually hear how well they sounded or some say they are bright(but only with the RS).
> 
> 
> What were they using as a source?



Agreed. Very weird.


Surely just a flawed setup, methinks.

Monitor Audios have been relatively bright sounding, from what I've heard in the past.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cyde01* /forum/post/21699865
> 
> 
> I'm looking to pick up a pair of bipolar speakers for surrounds around $300. I came across these, and I would be much obliged if anyone could point me in the right direction.
> 
> 
> Right now I'm using Polk Monitors for fronts, but I plan on upgrading in the near future. I take it matching surrounds isn't terribly important, but do I at least want to match the same type of tweeter?
> 
> *Polk FXi a4 (refurb) $270*
> http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/r...ex.php?s=fxia4
> 
> *DCM TP160BDP-B $280*
> http://www.sonicelectronix.com/item_...P160BDP-B.html
> 
> *Level TWO surrounds $260*
> http://www.htd.com/Products/level-tw...l-TWO-Surround
> 
> *Def Tech SR-8080BP (refurb) $242*
> http://compare.ebay.com/like/1906354...Types&var=sbar
> 
> *Premier Acoustic PA-6S $209*
> http://www.overstock.com/Electronics...3/product.html
> 
> *Premier Acoustic PA-8S $290*
> http://www.overstock.com/Electronics...3/product.html




Well those PA-8S got my attention.

Dual 8 inch woofers on a surround speaker... Now THAT's more like it !!!

Pity they only have a single front-firing tweeter. I imagine they'd be fairly monopole in their imaging, but has anyone heard these?


The Polk Polk FXi a4 are ok, but the FXi a6 would be a much better bet.

Dipole/bipole switchable and with a 6.5 inch woofer...

http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/r...?s=fxia4#fxia6 


Have you read the last few pages of this thread?

The Mirage OMD-5 or Axiom quadpoles are also well worth considering.


----------



## richandy

Anyone have the DCM TP160BDP-B? If so, how is it?


----------



## azula

Does anyone have experience with the Emotiva XRS-4.1? Seems like they discontinued the ERD's....I know, i'm late. lol.


----------



## richandy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *azula* /forum/post/21720720
> 
> 
> Does anyone have experience with the Emotiva XRS-4.1? Seems like they discontinued the ERD's....I know, i'm late. lol.



There is a review in Home theater magazine. It got a very good review. I am considering it also.


----------



## Kimwyn

I am considering them also but since they are 4-6 ohm I was wondering if I could push them sufficiently with my SC-27 in addition to my Paradigms? Anyone has experience with them?


----------



## cyde01




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/21702864
> 
> 
> Well those PA-8S got my attention.
> 
> Dual 8 inch woofers on a surround speaker... Now THAT's more like it !!!
> 
> Pity they only have a single front-firing tweeter. I imagine they'd be fairly monopole in their imaging, but has anyone heard these?
> 
> 
> The Polk Polk FXi a4 are ok, but the FXi a6 would be a much better bet.
> 
> Dipole/bipole switchable and with a 6.5 inch woofer...
> 
> http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/r...?s=fxia4#fxia6
> 
> 
> Have you read the last few pages of this thread?
> 
> The Mirage OMD-5 or Axiom quadpoles are also well worth considering.



I was considering the Axiom quads briefly, but they were outside of my budget. Also couldn't find any pairs used or refurbished. Ended up calling Polk and ordering a pair of refurbished FXi A6s for $318 shipped. It's a little more than I wanted to spend, but I rather get a decent pair now than a less expensive junk pair that would need to be swapped out.


Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cyde01* /forum/post/21728309
> 
> 
> I was considering the Axiom quads briefly, but they were outside of my budget. Also couldn't find any pairs used or refurbished. Ended up calling Polk and ordering a pair of refurbished FXi A6s for $318 shipped. It's a little more than I wanted to spend, but I rather get a decent pair now than a less expensive junk pair that would need to be swapped out.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.



No worries.


Sounds like you made the right choice, but just wondering if you considered the Mirage OMD-5 omnipoles ?


----------



## Akwalung71

Just wondering if anybody has used the in-ceiling Sonance VP65R SUR for surround and what they thinkg of them


----------



## LowTech1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/21729835
> 
> 
> No worries.
> 
> 
> Sounds like you made the right choice, but just wondering if you considered the Mirage OMD-5 omnipoles ?



I'm contemplating ordering those. I just got the OMD 15's and The OMD C1 should be showing up weds.. I'm just wondering if the OMD 5's are going to be enough speaker..


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LowTech1* /forum/post/21734125
> 
> 
> I'm contemplating ordering those. I just got the OMD 15's and The OMD C1 should be showing up weds.. I'm just wondering if the OMD 5's are going to be enough speaker..



For surrounds, I would say they'd be just enough - especially if you have 2 pairs in 7.1.


That said, it'd be great if Mirage made one with a 6.5 inch or even an 8 inch woofer.


















Has anyone compared the OMD-5 to their smaller speakers?

How did they fair?


----------



## levy07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/21735045
> 
> 
> For surrounds, I would say they'd be just enough - especially if you have 2 pairs in 7.1.
> 
> 
> That said, it'd be great if Mirage made one with a 6.5 inch or even an 8 inch woofer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone compared the OMD-5 to their smaller speakers?
> 
> How did they fair?



Haggis,


I currently have the JBL HLS610s & center up front and am considering 4 OMD-5s for surround duty. Should this work or should I get all mirage speakers? I currently have the Optimus LXII dipoles but never mounted due to size.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *levy07* /forum/post/21736690
> 
> 
> Haggis,
> 
> 
> I currently have the JBL HLS610s & center up front and am considering 4 OMD-5s for surround duty. Should this work or should I get all mirage speakers? I currently have the Optimus LXII dipoles but never mounted due to size.



The JBL seem OK. If you're happy enough with them, I'd stick with them for now and go for the four OMD-5s for surrounds.


When they arrive, give three a try as fronts to see how they compare to the JBLs.


It's not a fair comparison, as the JBLs have larger woofers and are better suited to front speakers - but it'll still be very educational.


I'm willing to bet you'll find the OMD-5 smoother and less harsh.

That said, I'd personally stay away from Mirages for the front trio, as I'm not a fan of diffuse sound at the front. For surrounds, however, it's just what you want.


If you keep them JBLs as fronts, having a different brand like the Mirages as surrounds will be just fine. Or you may find you want to replace the JBLs with something else anyway.


For front speakers, I'm a huge fan of larger woofers in a 2-way arrangement, be it bookshelf or floorstanding.

For the record, I have three VAF Research DC-X at the front and I absolutely love them. I've auditioned a _*LOT*_ of speakers over the years, and I can't imagine I'll ever replace these.


If I was only able to buy bookshelves, I'd probably consider a 2-way with at least a 7-inch woofer or preferably larger. JBL make them, as do Paradigm and others...


Let us know how you go!


----------



## LowTech1

Gentlemen,I lied..







I ordered the OMDR's instead.. I'm still breaking in the OMD 15's,but they sound really good. They aren't not as diffuse as you would think. They are very clear,nice sound stage and I was surprised by the bass.. It sounds like my sub is on with good music.. I'm only about 40 hrs in break in,so they should only get better..


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/21702864
> 
> 
> Have you read the last few pages of this thread?
> 
> The Mirage OMD-5 or Axiom quadpoles are also well worth considering.



Yes. It's my opinion that if you are buying surround speakers for a typical sized living room or modestly sized theater room (under 2500cuft) that the Mirage Omnipolar speakers or Axiom Quadpoles are bar-none, the very best surrounds speaker options available at just about any price.


I am planning to use the Mirage Omnipolar design for my future home theater when I move out of my condo and buy a house. The Axiom Quadpoles will also be a very strong consideration.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Timothy91* /forum/post/21742982
> 
> 
> Yes. It's my opinion that if you are buying surround speakers for a typical sized living room or modestly sized theater room (under 2500cuft) that the Mirage Omnipolar speakers or Axiom Quadpoles are bar-none, the very best surrounds speaker options available at just about any price.
> 
> 
> I am planning to use the Mirage Omnipolar design for my future home theater when I move out of my condo and buy a house. The Axiom Quadpoles will also be a very strong consideration.



Both are great, unique designs, but I my vote would probably go to the Mirages.


Has anyone had a chance to compare them?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LowTech1* /forum/post/21742358
> 
> 
> Gentlemen,I lied..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ordered the OMDR's instead.. I'm still breaking in the OMD 15's,but they sound really good. They aren't not as diffuse as you would think. They are very clear,nice sound stage and I was surprised by the bass.. It sounds like my sub is on with good music.. I'm only about 40 hrs in break in,so they should only get better..



I guess the OMD-15 would be a little less diffuse than the OMD-5 due to the front firing woofers.


It looks like the OMD-R is basically a bipole, yes?

Pretty sure it'd be noticeably less diffuse than the OMD-5.



*

I reckon the U-L-T-I-M-A-T-E surround speaker would have....


1. Omnipole design for tweeter and midrange.


2. Two sets of omnipole tweeter and midrange drivers at each side, angled out.


3. At least 5.25" midrange drivers.


4. One or even two 8 inch woofers (either top and bottom or angled out to the sides).


5. A vented design for cleaner bass.


6. Dipole / bipole / dual-monopole switchable (for four surround channels from two speakers, as with the Infinity/JBL design).


7. Dipole mode would affect only the tweeters, but leave the midrange & woofers in phase.

*


Now, that is pretty ultimate.... !


----------



## Kimwyn

^^^so when is that releasing and by whom?


----------



## cyde01




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/21729835
> 
> 
> No worries.
> 
> 
> Sounds like you made the right choice, but just wondering if you considered the Mirage OMD-5 omnipoles ?



Speakers arrived today, and Polk messed up by sending me two identical surrounds. They were very professional, apologetic and offered to replace the mistake with a brand new pair of FXi A6s. They were a bit too bulky for my taste, so I'm getting a refund and going with the OMD-5s instead. So it worked out in my favor.










Didn't really get a good feel for the FXi A6s since they couldn't be properly set up. After reading more about the OMD-5s, they seem like the best choice for me and would work well in either room I decide to dedicate a home theater in the new house.


I appreciate that nudge in the right direction.


----------



## liquisonic

This a very informative thread, Electric.(I'm glad it's here) I just started to think about surrounds recently, and am torn on the subject of direct vs 'ambient' surround speakers.


A good friend, and avowed audiophile, has recently argued with me that movie producers deliberately mix with direct sound in mind. Therefore rendering this whole 'ambient' representation invalid and inaccurate.










What do _*you*_ think, in regards to 'direct' surrounds? (Or should I start my own thread?)


Thanks...


----------



## cyde01




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *liquisonic* /forum/post/21749517
> 
> 
> This a very informative thread, Electric.(I'm glad it's here) I just started to think about surrounds recently, and am torn on the subject of direct vs 'ambient' surround speakers.
> 
> 
> A good friend, and avowed audiophile, has recently argued with me that movie producers deliberately mix with direct sound in mind. Therefore rendering this whole 'ambient' representation invalid and inaccurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do _*you*_ think, in regards to 'direct' surrounds? (Or should I start my own thread?)
> 
> 
> Thanks...



With my old set up, monopoles worked great as surrounds with a sofa against the wall. I set them on shelves 3 feet above listening position and pointed them inward. Got some decent reflection off the back wall and a nice ambient effect. Since they were a good distance above the ear, they didn't sound too direct. What are the dimensions of your room? If you can mount directs higher and farther away from listening position, they will work very well. Keep them from firing directly into your ear and not too close to your seat.


The direct firing surrounds will move to the rear position and OMD5s will take their place as side surrounds in the new house.


Old set up:


----------



## Bing




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *liquisonic* /forum/post/21749517
> 
> 
> A good friend, and avowed audiophile, has recently argued with me that movie producers deliberately mix with direct sound in mind. Therefore rendering this whole 'ambient' representation invalid and inaccurate.



They also intend their soundtracks to be heard in an auditorium with 20 surround speakers and maybe 25ft to the closest speaker. In an environment like that, the sound has space to radiate. I have never found surround material hot or distracting in a commercial theatre.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bing* /forum/post/21749688
> 
> 
> They also intend their soundtracks to be heard in an auditorium with 20 surround speakers and maybe 25ft to the closest speaker. In an environment like that, the sound has space to radiate. I have never found surround material hot or distracting in a commercial theatre.



Pretty much what I was going to say!


I once suggested to a professional cinema soundmixer that commercial and mixing theatres would be better off with multiple bipole-type speakers around the auditorium, rather than multiple point-source speakers. He agreed wholeheartedly.


I've heard of non-theatrical mixing studios using direct front-firers for surround monitoring, but the the next time I go to a big mixing theatre with a single pair of bookshelf speakers up the back, I'll let you know!








-


----------



## Gradenko




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/21745715
> 
> *
> 
> I reckon the U-L-T-I-M-A-T-E surround speaker would have....
> 
> 
> 1. Omnipole design for tweeter and midrange.
> 
> 
> 2. Two sets of omnipole tweeter and midrange drivers at each side, angled out.
> 
> 
> 3. At least 5.25" midrange drivers.
> 
> 
> 4. One or even two 8 inch woofers (either top and bottom or angled out to the sides).
> 
> 
> 5. A vented design for cleaner bass.
> 
> 
> 6. Dipole / bipole / dual-monopole switchable (for four surround channels from two speakers, as with the Infinity/JBL design).
> 
> 
> 7. Dipole mode would affect only the tweeters, but leave the midrange & woofers in phase.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Now, that is pretty ultimate.... !



That would be quite a speaker! But possibly too tall in the 8" 3-way version.


I've approached a local Australian speaker builder (Adelaide Speakers) to custom build a pair for dipoles for me. It's sad but none of the local manufacturers have dipoles in the their catalog, and stuff from overseas is either too expensive locally (Paradigm ADP3 - $4000AUD), or too expensive to ship (Axiom - $1200AUD landed with stands). My requirements go something like:
Half hexagon shaped bass reflex cabinet (as viewed from top down)
Two tweeters, one in each angled section
One 6.5" mid-range/woofer facing listener
External switch to toggle between tweeters out of phase to in phase


Using very high quality SB Acoustics drivers for the mid range and ribbons for tweeters, this ticks all the boxes for me. Just need to wait for my LCR's to arrive from Adelaide Speakers next week before going ahead with it.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gradenko* /forum/post/21760254
> 
> 
> That would be quite a speaker! But possibly too tall in the 8" 3-way version.
> 
> 
> I've approached a local Australian speaker builder (Adelaide Speakers) to custom build a pair for dipoles for me. It's sad but none of the local manufacturers have dipoles in the their catalog, and stuff from overseas is either too expensive locally (Paradigm ADP3 - $4000AUD), or too expensive to ship (Axiom - $1200AUD landed with stands). My requirements go something like:
> Half hexagon shaped bass reflex cabinet (as viewed from top down)
> Two tweeters, one in each angled section
> One 6.5" mid-range/woofer facing listener
> External switch to toggle between tweeters out of phase to in phase
> 
> 
> Using very high quality SB Acoustics drivers for the mid range and ribbons for tweeters, this ticks all the boxes for me. Just need to wait for my LCR's to arrive from Adelaide Speakers next week before going ahead with it.



Haven't heard of Adelaide Speakers. They have quite a serious of lineup of offerings there... but a bit crazy that they don't do bipole/dipoles, as you say.


What you're suggesting sounds good, and very similar to the Monitor Audio RXFX 

I wonder how the cost would compare?

It should be easy enough to throw in dual-monopole switching too, if that suits you.


I guess they can add it to their range after this!

Good to have a local option available...


----------



## Gradenko

Electric_Haggis,


Adelaide Speakers is a bit of a hidden gem. As a VAF owner I'm sure you can appreciate that city knows how to make speakers










I took a closer look at the RXFX, yes the layout is similar to that. I modelled it after the Emotive ERD-1's and its shared among some of the Paradigms too. The RXFX retails for $750USD so it probably sells for double that in Australia. I was quoted around ~$900 for the custom dipoles, less $100 if domes rather than ribbons are used for tweeters. Considering the quality of the components I think thats a fair price.


I considered allowing for dual-monopole, but really that would mean two 6.5" drivers to be effective, which would increase cabinet size and cost. It's not likely to be a feature I would use so I left it out.


But hey, now you know where to go if you want your dream 3-way 8" dipoles built


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gradenko* /forum/post/21763050
> 
> 
> Electric_Haggis,
> 
> 
> Adelaide Speakers is a bit of a hidden gem. As a VAF owner I'm sure you can appreciate that city knows how to make speakers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took a closer look at the RXFX, yes the layout is similar to that. I modelled it after the Emotive ERD-1's and its shared among some of the Paradigms too. The RXFX retails for $750USD so it probably sells for double that in Australia. I was quoted around ~$900 for the custom dipoles, less $100 if domes rather than ribbons are used for tweeters. Considering the quality of the components I think thats a fair price.
> 
> 
> I considered allowing for dual-monopole, but really that would mean two 6.5" drivers to be effective, which would increase cabinet size and cost. It's not likely to be a feature I would use so I left it out.
> 
> 
> But hey, now you know where to go if you want your dream 3-way 8" dipoles built




Sounds good.

Be sure to keep us posted and send pics when you've got 'em!



What will their efficiency and frequency response be? Will they be ported?


----------



## Gradenko

Electric_Haggis, will do! I'll let you know of all the details when I get them.

Yes, cabinet will be ported.


----------



## zheka

After reading this thread I just placed order for a pair of omd5s for my side surrounds.


They will be used in a (smallish) dedicated HT/music listening room, roughly 12x22x7.5

I can be fairly flexible about the placement.


How high should I place them?


I currently run a pair of ascend 170se (direct radiators) for side surround. They are positioned slightly behind of MLP and vertically aligned with the front stage speakers with tweeters approx at ear level.

Should I place the OMD-5s higher? Or vertical placement is not as important for omnipolars?


Any feedback is much appreciated.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zheka* /forum/post/21815443
> 
> 
> After reading this thread I just placed order for a pair of omd5s for my side surrounds.
> 
> 
> They will be used in a (smallish) dedicated HT/music listening room, roughly 12x22x7.5
> 
> I can be fairly flexible about the placement.
> 
> 
> How high should I place them?
> 
> 
> I currently run a pair of ascend 170se (direct radiators) for side surround. They are positioned slightly behind of MLP and vertically aligned with the front stage speakers with tweeters approx at ear level.
> 
> Should I place the OMD-5s higher? Or vertical placement is not as important for omnipolars?
> 
> 
> Any feedback is much appreciated.



They're pretty flexible, but each room is a different beast.


I'd suggest starting at ear level, then try moving them up in increments of a foot or so until you're happy with the soundstaging, diffusion and blending with the fronts.

Having them pointed down and perhaps angled inward or toward the front or back may also work nicely.


Let us know how you go! Anyone else care to chime in?


----------



## zheka

thank you for the advise, Electric_Haggis. it would be nice if i could use my existing stands without compromising on SQ.

i'll update you once i settle.


----------



## Pat Sexton

Setting up a dedicated HT (12.5' x 20') with two rows of seating (100% movies and HD programming). I ran into the surround (mono, bi, di, omni) problem due to the two rows, and I was wondering if this could be a posibble solution.


Decided:

AVR - Denon AVR 33312CI

L/C/R (x3)= CMT 340 SE behind an AT screen/false wall.

subs (x2) = SVS PC12 NSD


Problem:

was considering linking two mono pairs of HTM 200SE for surround at each row, And then having a another pair of HTM 200SE for rears. Then there was a discussion about problems linking the surrounds, and the clutter of 6 speakers that close to the rear wall.


Solution?

I have seen a lot of great reviews of the Mirage OMD5 on here but not much discussion regarding the Mirage OMD-R. I love the look of the OMD-R and am wondering if this will work mounted between the first and second row, and then useing the HTM 200's for rear surrounds to finish the 7.2.


Is the OMD-R a good fit for this set up?


Here's a sketch of the room with the screen wall pulled back. Please let me know what you think or what might be a better option.


Thanks,

Pat


----------



## plaszm

Hi,say thanks for all in this old threads for over 5 years! And it's happy to see the thread is continued after I read all 16 pages with 2 hours.


Why I took so much time for this thread?As I had question.I found this topic when I searched the answer for this reason:
*If I use a pair of dipole in wall surrounds for side use,but install them in ceiling on the top of the sofas,but not on side wall.........Can I install like this way?Is it absolutely wrong?*











I can't confirm if the images can be shown,so I describe some details here too:


The living room is a open area,22L 16.5W 8-9H,mergered from two rooms. There is a 5ft loading bear wall in 3/5 of the room by right side.The sofas is the main listening area in the front area,and the seats behind a work desk is the back second zones.The ceiling was also divided into two part as the loading structures in the line of loading wall.So,if I want to install the LRS-IW in the ceiling,I have to install them at the front or behind of the loading structures(the ceiling's low areas).


I want to build a 7.2 AV system:

The front speakes:a pair of Artison LR Marsterpiece.

The side surrounds: a pair of Artison LRS IW. Dipole mode.

The back surrounda: my old monopole shelf speakers

Sub:two Artison RCC300 subwoofers with a amp

Receiver:Intergra 70.3


My puzzles and questions:

1.Can I install the dipole IW side surrounds in Ceilng?But not on the side wall in null position.The Artison said theri IW LRS can be installed IW or IC.

2.For the exact or 'right' postion of the dipole side surround speakers,which opinions was right:the dipole side surrounds should be put a few front to the listening area as the dipole speakers' specifications;just like the normal side LRS,just install by the side of the listening area in null position,or a little behind less 20 degree.Which is right?

3.If install the dipole LRS-IW in ceiling,how to set the position? 6-8ft away? on the top of the listeners? Or fronter,behinder? If not,just install on side wall.Can I intall dipole on wall LRS at the asymmetric position in the images?

4.Artison's subs are special.For my room,a RCC600(equal to a 13' sub) or two RCC300,which is the better choice?And how to postion the sub?


The Artison's products were not the U L T I M A T E surrounds.I do hope everybody can talk about those speakers freely.I select it as it fit to my PDP,and I can get it easily.

In China,IW speakers just runed in the eyes of the users and fans in recent years.The selections was in narrow range.And the price of HT IW speakers are very high here(much higher than USA),although most of these speakers are made in China and we have a much lower salaries.


My English is poor.I hope I express my meaning accurately.Hope your respone.

Thanks!


----------



## Lukas252

Hello to you all

I am buying new speakers for my PC. I want 5.1. I will use it mainly for watching movies and sometimes playing some music and a little gaming. Now I have 3 choices 1. Edifier s550 for 435 (568$) 2. Logitech z-5500 for 389 (508$) 3. Logitech z906 for 288 (376$). Now can anyone tell me which is better, I only have this 3 choices. I want a bass that I can fell, and I want a loud set. Now I have Logitech x-540 they are good but not enough loud and clear. Please help.

Thanks


----------



## jes3287

I think I may have to place an order for the Mirage OMDRs. With 5000 cubic feet, they seem like a good choice. More than I wanted to spend, but an unlikely upgrade candidate.


----------



## zheka

Hello,


I am curious what you guys normally use to evaluate surrounds?

Specifically if you prefer di(/bi/tri/omi)-poles, what movies and, ideally, specific moments in the movies, that in your opinion do not sound right with direct radiators?


thank you in advance


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zheka* /forum/post/21903665
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> I am curious what you guys normally use to evaluate surrounds?
> 
> Specifically if you prefer di(/bi/tri/omi)-poles, what movies and, ideally, specific moments in the movies, that in your opinion do not sound right with direct radiators?
> 
> 
> thank you in advance



You don't want your surrounds to distract you from what is in front of you. The speakers should disappear, but not the audio. You should be encompassed with the audio, completely drawn into it all.


I don't think I answered your question, because I don't think there is a movie that represent the effect to distinguish between direct and pole speakers.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zheka* /forum/post/21903665
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> I am curious what you guys normally use to evaluate surrounds?
> 
> Specifically if you prefer di(/bi/tri/omi)-poles, what movies and, ideally, specific moments in the movies, that in your opinion do not sound right with direct radiators?
> 
> 
> thank you in advance




I use film material that I'm familiar with, including films that I've seen theatrically.

I work in post production, so I also use films and commercials that I've heard at the mixing studio / mixing theatre.


There's no shortage of surround-heavy Hollywood films of course, with Daredevil, Batman Forever, Casino Royale, Star Wars, Fight Club, and anything from Pixar providing good test material.


Always good to have Dolby/DTS/THX trailers on hand, most of which can be found here...
* http://www.demo-world.eu/ *



It's not so much a question of direct radiators "not sounding right".

Indeed, I'm now using direct-firing studio monitors for rear surrounds (In order to match my _KRK Rokit 10-3_ front trio). But I'm still using bipoles at the sides, and wish KRK made bipoles.


The thing is, having bi/tri/quad/omnipole surrounds simply gives you a greater spread of sound, as well as minimising distraction from the nearest speaker.

This more closely mimics the effect of multiple surrounds in a theatre - Especially if you're only running 5.1.



Just think of it as an alternative to having a dozen surround speakers in your loungeroom !


----------



## zheka

Thank you for the replies.


I think the trailers maybe exactly what I was looking for.


thanks again.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *plaszm* /forum/post/21867124
> 
> 
> Hi,say thanks for all in this old threads for over 5 years! And it's happy to see the thread is continued after I read all 16 pages with 2 hours.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...I want to build a 7.2 AV system:
> 
> The front speakes:a pair of Artison LR Marsterpiece.
> 
> The side surrounds: a pair of Artison LRS IW. Dipole mode.
> 
> The back surrounda: my old monopole shelf speakers
> 
> Sub:two Artison RCC300 subwoofers with a amp
> 
> Receiver:Intergra 70.3
> 
> 
> My puzzles and questions:
> 
> 1.Can I install the dipole IW side surrounds in Ceilng?But not on the side wall in null position.The Artison said theri IW LRS can be installed IW or IC.
> 
> 2.For the exact or 'right' postion of the dipole side surround speakers,which opinions was right:the dipole side surrounds should be put a few front to the listening area as the dipole speakers' specifications;just like the normal side LRS,just install by the side of the listening area in null position,or a little behind less 20 degree.Which is right?
> 
> 3.If install the dipole LRS-IW in ceiling,how to set the position? 6-8ft away? on the top of the listeners? Or fronter,behinder? If not,just install on side wall.Can I intall dipole on wall LRS at the asymmetric position in the images?
> 
> 4.Artison's subs are special.For my room,a RCC600(equal to a 13' sub) or two RCC300,which is the better choice?And how to postion the sub?
> 
> 
> The Artison's products were not the U L T I M A T E surrounds.I do hope everybody can talk about those speakers freely.I select it as it fit to my PDP,and I can get it easily.
> 
> In China,IW speakers just runed in the eyes of the users and fans in recent years.The selections was in narrow range.And the price of HT IW speakers are very high here(much higher than USA),although most of these speakers are made in China and we have a much lower salaries.
> 
> 
> My English is poor.I hope I express my meaning accurately.Hope your respone.
> 
> Thanks!



1. You can put them anywhere, really. But having them in ceiling may well be a noticeable compromise. Best thing is to test out by having some friends hold them in place while you listen.


2. Again, you can get away with having them anywhere, but ideally with dipoles, you should be in the null zone - That means, to the sides of the listening position. Having them in front or behind kind of defeats the purpose.

Have a google on dipole speakers and you'll see how they work.


3. You just measure from the speaker (wherever it is) to where your head will be in the listening position. End of story. Audyssey will work this out anyway, but it's good to measure so you can check it's right.


4. Hard to say. Not really the right thread for that question, but in general two subs are better than one for a more balanced output throughout the room.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jes3287* /forum/post/21903494
> 
> 
> I think I may have to place an order for the Mirage OMDRs. With 5000 cubic feet, they seem like a good choice. More than I wanted to spend, but an unlikely upgrade candidate.



Sounds like a safe bet. Probably not as diffuse as the OMD5's (_anyone?_), but wall-mountable.

Let us know how you go...


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zheka* /forum/post/21916170
> 
> 
> Thank you for the replies.
> 
> 
> I think the trailers maybe exactly what I was looking for.
> 
> 
> thanks again.



No worries. Loads and loads of great test material there.

The Dolby "Canyon", "Train (long)", "Stomp" and "Rain" trailers have always been favourites.


Dolby Canyon is especially good for testing surround panning. Beautiful.

Using IIx Movie, it also matrixes very well out to 7.1


Here's the site again, for others...
http://www.demo-world.eu/ 


Also, discovered more here...
http://www.demolandia.net/ 


...including new 7.1 trailers...
http://www.demolandia.net/vob-traile...al/page-6.html


----------



## easye9inches

I was reading first page and last four pages. All great info!!! I am looking into getting a house soon. So I am just speaker browsing. I narrowed speakers down to


axiom

aperion

decware

[email protected]

BIC

salk

paradigm

zu audio

tekton


I already own a HSU vtf4 sub with turbo. The question that I have is this. Tekton has some great towers, but I do not see them making centers. From reading on this post, some people mix and match, but I thought that was a BIG no-no? If you can, how do you "match" them?

Second Question seems like a mixed reaction too. I always thought bookshelf was the way to go for surrounds. Now, with bi/di and quads, etc... seems that is the new thing. Correct? So if I get axiom qs8 get 1, 2 pairs for surrounds. Right?

What about the 9 speakers for Dolby Z? Keep the trend going?


thanks peeps!


E9


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *easye9inches* /forum/post/21923429
> 
> 
> 
> Second Question seems like a mixed reaction too. I always thought bookshelf was the way to go for surrounds. Now, with bi/di and quads, etc... seems that is the new thing. Correct? So if I get axiom qs8 get 1, 2 pairs for surrounds. Right?
> 
> What about the 9 speakers for Dolby Z? Keep the trend going?



To stay on topic, I'll answer the 2nd question.

Bi/dipole speakers aren't so much the new thing, as quite an old thing.

THX started recommending dipoles back in the 90's I believe.


Yes, get two pairs.

I'm a huge fan of 7.1 over 5.1, provided you can make it work in your room.

I'm yet to hear a 5.1 mix that doesn't matrix seamlessly into 7.1


As for 9.1 and 11.1, I'm yet to be convinced....


----------



## zheka




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/21919806
> 
> 
> No worries. Loads and loads of great test material there.
> 
> The Dolby "Canyon", "Train (long)", "Stomp" and "Rain" trailers have always been favourites.
> 
> 
> Dolby Canyon is especially good for testing surround panning. Beautiful.
> 
> Using IIx Movie, it also matrixes very well out to 7.1
> 
> 
> Here's the site again, for others...
> http://www.demo-world.eu/
> 
> 
> Also, discovered more here...
> http://www.demolandia.net/
> 
> 
> ...including new 7.1 trailers...
> http://www.demolandia.net/vob-traile...al/page-6.html



this is great stuff, hugely helpful.


thank you very much


----------



## easye9inches

thanks for the reply electric!


----------



## plaszm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis* /forum/post/21919767
> 
> 
> 1. You can put them anywhere, really. But having them in ceiling may well be a noticeable compromise. Best thing is to test out by having some friends hold them in place while you listen.
> 
> 
> 2. Again, you can get away with having them anywhere, but ideally with dipoles, you should be in the null zone - That means, to the sides of the listening position. Having them in front or behind kind of defeats the purpose.
> 
> Have a google on dipole speakers and you'll see how they work.
> 
> 
> 3. You just measure from the speaker (wherever it is) to where your head will be in the listening position. End of story. Audyssey will work this out anyway, but it's good to measure so you can check it's right.
> 
> 
> 4. Hard to say. Not really the right thread for that question, but in general two subs are better than one for a more balanced output throughout the room.



Thanks!It is really not a easy work for the position.At last,I have to set the two side dipole surround in ceiling,as I can not put the speaker wires to other position invisiblely.I asked local dealers of Artison,they said their IW SRS can be set in ceiling as their special design.I can not test as the fitting-out work is continuing.

I do hope to set two subs if my budget is enough.Thanks again and kind regards.


----------



## levy07

should i mount these to sides of wall? Can I do a 7.1 in this room with two speakers behind and overhead? Currently using Optimus LXII on sides. Thanks.


----------



## mcbiidermen

Just finished installing 2 wall mounts for 2 Klipsch WB-14 Icon Speakers.


They sound amazing.


But one of the speakers seems to be causing a 'reverb' type of noise in the wall it is mounted to.


I was listening to music and could not hear it, but when I was watching last nights episode of Game of Thrones - on scenes that were loud or intense - I could hear the noise.


Does anyone know of a good way to prevent this?


Would doing something along the lines of taking some Dynamat and putting it between the speaker and the wall help?


Or would the only way to truly prevent it be to get a speaker stand / or put it on a shelf?


Thanks for any help / or input.


----------



## purplestallion

I'm trying to decide what to do for surrounds in my room but I have one side that's really tough for placement and I'm wondering which direction I should go. I've attached a rough diagram of the room to assist. Basically, I'm considering buying some used Paradigm Studio ADPs and wondering if they may work on the rear wall since I'm missing one side wall (open to the kitchen and breakfast area). Because I also have a series of windows along the rear wall, this would result in one side of each ADP firing directly at, and about 4 inches away from, the small side wall. Is this workable, or am I more likely to be happy with a direct radiator or one of the mirage omnipoles directed out of the corner. Obviously this isn't ideal, but what do you guys think?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *purplestallion*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/450#post_22107352
> 
> 
> I'm trying to decide what to do for surrounds in my room but I have one side that's really tough for placement and I'm wondering which direction I should go. I've attached a rough diagram of the room to assist. Basically, I'm considering buying some used Paradigm Studio ADPs and wondering if they may work on the rear wall since I'm missing one side wall (open to the kitchen and breakfast area). Because I also have a series of windows along the rear wall, this would result in one side of each ADP firing directly at, and about 4 inches away from, the small side wall. Is this workable, or am I more likely to be happy with a direct radiator or one of the mirage omnipoles directed out of the corner. Obviously this isn't ideal, but what do you guys think?



I'd probably go with the Mirage OMD5 omnipoles if you're sure you want to go with 5.1 and MUST have the surrounds out that far to the sides.


Personally, I'd try for 7.1, getting either...


* A pair of Infinity / JBL dual-monopoles mentioned earlier on this thread, and on my signature. Ideally set a couple of feet or so closer to the centre.


* Four Mirage OMD5's lined up along the back wall.


Let us know how you go!


----------



## levy07

Haggis,


Any suggestions for the surrounds on my set up? Thanks.


----------



## Twylight

I wanted to drop by this thread and say thanks - I replaced my back 4 (surround pair and back surround) with OMD 5. Crossover is around 150 if I recall. My mains are still monster speakers (philharmonic 2 + phil center). Denon 4311 running everything.


I bought them slightly used on fleabay for a song.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *levy07*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/450#post_22144375
> 
> 
> Haggis,
> 
> Any suggestions for the surrounds on my set up? Thanks.



The answer is yes.

I'd either put the Optimus on the back wall, and get omnipoles for the sides - or much better still, get 4 x omnipoles.


(Oh... and move those fronts out a bit wider! It must sound like mono from back there!!)


Let us know how you go.


----------



## pronghorn/az

Will these Paradigm's do well on a rear wall? Appox. 6' from listening area and appox. at 8' in height.

http://www.paradigm.com/products/products-by-category/surround-rear/paradigm/monitor-series-7/surround-3 

http://www.paradigm.com/products/products-by-category/surround-rear/paradigm/monitor-series-7/surround-1 


Keep in mind the left speaker will have a reflecting wall to bounce off of. The right speaker will have an open area. Or is there another option for that setup. And all this figures in IF we get the new house.


Jeff


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pronghorn/az*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/450#post_22163468
> 
> 
> Will these Paradigm's do well on a rear wall? Appox. 6' from listening area and appox. at 8' in height.
> http://www.paradigm.com/products/products-by-category/surround-rear/paradigm/monitor-series-7/surround-3
> http://www.paradigm.com/products/products-by-category/surround-rear/paradigm/monitor-series-7/surround-1
> 
> Keep in mind the left speaker will have a reflecting wall to bounce off of. The right speaker will have an open area. Or is there another option for that setup. And all this figures in IF we get the new house.
> 
> Jeff



They'd be excellent rears - especially the Surround 3.


Sure, having different side walls ain't ideal - but don't forget you can arrange the Paradigms to fire up and down rather than to the sides.

I'd seriously consider this, especially if you'll also have side surrounds for 7.1 (will you?)


----------



## Anhydro

I'm builing a house. My HT/Family Room will be 19"L X 15"W X 10'H. My primary use is for movies and TV, although I will play about 10% music. See diagram below for room dimensions and planned speaker placement (one square = 1 sq/ft)... sorry about the pic, I haven't figured out how to do the nice looking computer drawings.










I want to complete a 7.1 system:

Center Channel is a Paradigm Studio CC-490 v5 (placed below Panasonic Plasma 65VT50)

The front speakes:are Paradigm Studio 20s.v5 (placed on 26" stands)

The side surrounds: _*Unknown, but am leaning towards switchable... but am thinking about Paradigm ADP-390 (pretty good price now), the Monitor Surround 1 or 3s, and would keep me in my "Pardigm comfort zone"*_

The rear surrounds are Studio 10s v5

Sub is a HSU STF-2

Receiver is a Denon 3312ci


Here are my questions and thoughts:

1.The side speakers can be placed in the null position. Should I take a chance on the ADP-390's or the Surround 1 or 3's?... I live in a small town and don't have the luxury of comparing anything of quality.

2.I am planning to mount the rear surround Studio 10's about 6' high in the position shown (110 degrees), slightly pointed downward.

3.I would install the dipole/bipole/monopole in the null position at about 6' high in the position shown.

4.I would appreciate any other thoughts about speaker placement, especially the side surrounds (dipole and/or bipole. or switchable) that have not yet been purchased. In particular, it appears Paradigm has moved to bi-directional from the ADP in an attempt to keep up with changes in current audio according to one review. "Monitor Surround 1 and Surround 3 have replaced the ADP’s of the previous Monitor Series and feature revised design and technology in keeping with the way sound is being mastered and mixed in today’s recording studios." *What should I make of that?*

 


Thanks!


----------



## pronghorn/az




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/450#post_22163550
> 
> 
> They'd be excellent rears - especially the Surround 3.
> 
> Sure, having different side walls ain't ideal - but don't forget you can arrange the Paradigms to fire up and down rather than to the sides.
> 
> I'd seriously consider this, especially if you'll also have side surrounds for 7.1 (will you?)



If we buy this house there would be no side surrounds. Living room opens to the kitchen with a cathedrial (thankfully a small one!) ceiling. So rear surrounds might be my only option.


Jeff


----------



## Skylinestar

Anyone place their side surround speakers at 60-80 degree? How does it sound?

ITU spec states that surrounds for 7 channel setup can be placed between 60-150 degrees. With the side surrounds at 60-80 degree, it'll be closer to the arrangement of Audyssey DSX Front Wide. Problem is I'm not sure if Klipsch WDST design can work out for that placement. What say you?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Skylinestar*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/450#post_22201998
> 
> 
> Anyone place their side surround speakers at 60-80 degree? How does it sound?
> 
> ITU spec states that surrounds for 7 channel setup can be placed between 60-150 degrees. With the side surrounds at 60-80 degree, it'll be closer to the arrangement of Audyssey DSX Front Wide. Problem is I'm not sure if Klipsch WDST design can work out for that placement. What say you?



First I've seen of that.

Personally, I wouldn't even bother trying anything less than 90 degrees.


Surrounds aren't mixed to come from the front!

Having my dipole/bipole switchables at around 90 degrees and 2 rears at around 150 works beautifully.


Front speaker width has a big effect on front/back blending, though.


My front left/right are around 3 metres apart, and listening distance is about 3 metres back.

Side-Surrounds are about 4 metres apart, and rears are about 2 metres apart, and 2 metres back from listening position.

These relative distances are the best I've yet heard


----------



## Linkwitz Riley

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)?


----------



## Chris Ruhl

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


----------



## BeeMan458

^^^


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.


-


----------



## DanLW




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Skylinestar*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/450#post_22201998





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Paul Scarpelli*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one#post_11019926
> 
> 
> 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.



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


----------



## bucknuts07

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_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bucknuts07*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22330844
> 
> 
> 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



Do you mean that you already have RC10 satellites on the rear wall? Sounds like you want to go 7.1.


If so, have the VS surrounds to either side of the couch, perhaps on stands if you don't want to hurt the walls.


Looking at the VS, to be honest, I'm not crazy about their design.

I'm pretty sure that having only the midrange drivers firing out the sides and the tweeter front-firing wouldn't be diffuse enough.

I could be wrong, though.

If, in Dipole mode, the midranges are out of phase with the front drivers, rather than just each other, that might work quite well. I guess we'll find out soon...


----------



## bucknuts07

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 ?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bucknuts07*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22332000
> 
> 
> 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 ?



The VS shouldn't go in the rear corners.


Having had pretty much every possible configuration over the years, here's what I've found unbeatable:


* Run 7.1 rather than 5.1.


* Use ProLogic IIx on ALL surround soundtracks to matrix the extra 2 surround channels.

You will swear that the 5.1 films were mixed that way... Much better 3D spread of sound, a wider sweet spot, better 360-degree pans, better depth.

(Remember that cinemas & mixing theatres use multiple arrays of speakers down the sides and rear - not a single pair !)


* In your case, lose the HTIB speakers and put the RC10s at the rear wherever convenient (but ideally a little further in from the side walls).


* Wall-mount the VS directly to either side of the couch. Dipole mode will probably work best.


* Mount all four surrounds a foot or so above ear-level.


This will give you really sensational results, especially if the VS aren't as diffuse as some other dipole designs (as I suspect).


It's also worth finding out from that Energy thread how the dipole phasing works with the VS.

Are the 2 side midrange drivers out of phase with each other, or out of phase with the front tweeter/woofer as well? (Hopefully the latter).


Let us know how you go...


----------



## Alec88

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.


----------



## JOMV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bucknuts07*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22330844
> 
> 
> 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



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......??????


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOMV*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22347548
> 
> 
> 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......??????




In that situation, I'd go for Mirage OMD5 omnipoles.


----------



## JOMV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22348489
> 
> 
> In that situation, I'd go for Mirage OMD5 omnipoles.



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.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOMV*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22348803
> 
> 
> 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.



Yup. Me too. Really, most of us on this thread are chasing that kind of diffuse sound.


Most find that Omnipoles are best at disappearing, especially when placement options are limited and you're not able to run 7.1 (always preferable).


Have a read back a few pages, and you'll see more discussion on the Omnipoles.


Unfortunately, the OMD5 is the biggest omni that Mirage make. A 6", 6.5" or even 8 inch version would be pretty wonderful...


----------



## JOMV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22349159
> 
> 
> Yup. Me too. Really, most of us on this thread are chasing that kind of diffuse sound.
> 
> Most find that Omnipoles are best at disappearing, especially when placement options are limited and you're not able to run 7.1 (always preferable).
> 
> Have a read back a few pages, and you'll see more discussion on the Omnipoles.
> 
> Unfortunately, the OMD5 is the biggest omni that Mirage make. A 6", 6.5" or even 8 inch version would be pretty wonderful...



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


----------



## Timothy91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *levy07*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/450#post_22066910
> 
> 
> should i mount these to sides of wall? Can I do a 7.1 in this room with two speakers behind and overhead? Currently using Optimus LXII on sides. 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.


----------



## BeeMan458

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.)


----------



## Kimwyn

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.


----------



## BeeMan458




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kimwyn*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22398538
> 
> 
> 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.)


----------



## sherr127

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?


----------



## BeeMan458




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sherr127*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22401329
> 
> 
> 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.


----------



## sdurani




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sherr127*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22401329
> 
> 
> 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?


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.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sdurani*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22402206
> 
> 
> 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.



Agreed.

But even when you're butted up against the back wall, having 4 surrounds will still improve things.


In my previous room (which you can see by clicking on my signature below), I had a pair of dual-monopoles wired for 4 channels (I wasn't able to have speakers at the sides).

This was way better than 2 channels in either bipole or dipole, which I initially tried with the same speakers.


If I did it again in that room, a row of 4 Mirage OMD5's would be ideal !


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kimwyn*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22398538
> 
> 
> 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.



There's certainly no order of preference, but I've listed my personal favourites at the top of the page in the form of a Poll.

*CAST YOUR VOTES ABOVE !!!!*


----------



## Kimwyn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22410631
> 
> 
> There's certainly no order of preference, but I've listed my personal favourites at the top of the page in the form of a Poll.
> *CAST YOUR VOTES ABOVE !!!!*



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


----------



## Toknowshita

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.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toknowshita*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22464749
> 
> 
> 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.



To a point.

Mixers can do a certain amount to dodge localisation - but the point people always seem to forget is that _*a mixing theatre or cinema has multiple speakers at the sides and rear.*_


A home setup will usually only have 2 or 4 speakers.


One of the goals of di/bi/quad/omni-poles is to help overcome this, as well as providing a larger sweet-spot.


----------



## taichi4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BeeMan458*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/480#post_22398842
> 
> 
> 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.)



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.


----------



## utee05

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?


----------



## Kimwyn

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?


----------



## utee05

Is there another option similar to the Mirage OMD5s? It seems these are starting to be hard to get as they are being phased out.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *utee05*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/510#post_22497929
> 
> 
> Is there another option similar to the Mirage OMD5s? It seems these are starting to be hard to get as they are being phased out.



Hopefully, we'll find out soon!


Apparently, they're being "absorbed" into Jamo.... but hopefully the Omnipole design is retained or even improved.


If anyone hears of anything, please let us know!!!


----------



## JohnDG

Yet another setup question.


12 feet listening distance from the F/C speakers. Supporting two listening positions (large easy chairs), the rears of which are up against an open walk way access area leading to a door. No option to hang any surround speakers. Left side is up against a picture window with curtains. Right side is open to another walk way, with the wall 8 feet further away from the listening area than the window on the left.


I'm using a 6.1 setup, where the listening row is:

SL --> 3 feet --> 1st position --> 2 feet --> SB --> 2 feet --> 2nd position --> 3 feet --> SR.


Surrounds are cheap JBL surround monopoles. SB is on a stand; SL/SR are on bookcases. All are one foot above and one foot behind the listening positions, with the sides firing directly at each other and the SB firing straight ahead.


I use DD PLIIx Music when playing DD EX sources, as this spreads the SB channel to the two side speakers. As of result, any sounds directed to SB feel like they are coming from directly behind each of the two listening positions. Sounds directed solely to the two side surrounds are still pretty directional.


I have an 2011 model AVR that is Audyssey enabled. Timber matching the surrounds is not an issue.


Question is: by using DD PLIIx Music for movie playback, have I mitigated the setup restrictions as best I can for achieving surround effects? Or would dropping to a 5.1 setup, with the two side surrounds located in the same place as they are currently, and then upgrading to omnipole surround speakers give me the same surround effects, but with less localization of the surround channels?


jdg


----------



## weaselfest

just cast my vote with my wallet. 4 JBL P520WS's for $370 on the 'bay. Starting with dipole settings on the sides, and bipole on the rears, which are almost on top of the 2nd row of seats. Love the fact that phase is switchable........we'll see what happens.


----------



## Noman74656





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *utee05*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/510#post_22497929
> 
> 
> Is there another option similar to the Mirage OMD5s? It seems these are starting to be hard to get as they are being phased out.



I substituted the OS3 for the OMD since they were about half the price at the time. I'm pleased with the sound, but wish I could match the look of my rosewood fronts. The specs between the two aren't very different.


----------



## Anhydro

I'm trying to decide between bipole and direct radiating speakers for my side and back surrounds in a 7.1 system. My front 3 are from the Paradigm Signature series. I'm curious as to what others have used in a set-up similar to the layout below, with the sides and rears about 6.5 to 7 feet from the floor.


I'm looking at two rooms... one a dedicated theater room 17'X20'X9' (acoustically treated, sound isolated, and two rows of seats) and the other a multi-function family room about 20'X20'X10'. Thanks!


----------



## mtbdudex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mtbdudex*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/510#post_22532823
> 
> 
> P
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my 32GB iPhone4 using Tapatalk


Wow the above got cut off when uploading to AVS from my iphone in a restaurant....


Ok - This might help you Anhydro, posted in this thread Feb-2012.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/390#post_21695055 





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HAMP568*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/390#post_21695055
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mtbdudex*  /forum/post/21692054
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bing*  /forum/post/21688032
> 
> 
> People shouldn't confuse reflected sound as this out-of-phase hollow sound. For those who don't know what dipole sounds like, just experiment with your fronts. Wire one speaker with + to - and see what that sounds like. It's annoying.
> 
> 
> Bi/Tri/Quad or Omni can give you a big sound without resorting to dipole.
> 
> 
> Comment to that Paradigm rep:
> 
> 
> He said what the company wanted him to say. Here's me reading between the lines.
> 
> 
> "We (Paradigm) have long invested in the ADP design. It made sense back in the day of Pro-Logic. However, we can't simply admit that we're outdated but we do recognize that other forms of multi directional speakers are better for discrete channels. Tell you what we'll do. We'll take our best selling line (I'm guessing) and convert them to bipoles. Give the customers some market-speak about how bipoles work for non-ideal layouts but still say ADP is best. But! If the bipoles sell like hotcakes, then we'll revamp the Reference line and says it's customer demand. That way, we'll never have to admit we were wrong not to switch years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are probably not far off from the truth.
> 
> 
> I actually started to engage him into the whole history of surrounds, from the initial THX recommendation of di-pole and how/why that was "good" back then.....and what is "best" for dedicated home theatres now that we have true discrete surround channels mixed that way.....
> 
> 
> Started to discuss "what speakers are used in todays mixing" viewpoint and how that carries over into HT design and usage, but did not take it too far.
> 
> 
> Problem was, he was trying to get his Signature S8's up and running, and I was heading off to Ash Wed 5pm family service, so did not get into the discussion so much.
> 
> 
> So - which one?
> 
> For me, the ADP-390's I have "seem" to work fine in my dedicated HT.
> 
> The monopole front firing bass with the side di-pole does give ambience soundfield. Yet, on discrete sounds I can also localize them...bullets, etc.
> 
> Could I "get better"? Well, these are paid for....
> 
> 
> Now, if I knew in 2008 what I've learned thru 2012, I'd seriously look at other options. I like the switchable ones, like the ones my brother in law bought last year.
> 
> 
> Gives flexibility. Monitor Audio Gold GX-FX Di-pole, mono-pole.
> http://www.monitoraudio.co.uk/products/gold-gx/gxfx/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The picture your showing are of the GSFX, which is the previous model. The newer GXFX are also switchable, and both those options are really nice. When you switch to monopole your using the ribbon tweeter which matches the front stage. If you select the di-pole mode, you will be using the two tweeters on the side of them.
> 
> 
> The GXFX's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have the RXFX's, which are selectable also, but only between di & bi-pole.
Click to expand...


----------



## ratboy

Hi All,


Question on surrounds for my secondary setup in my living room. This room is 17x13 and has an open space (pictured below) behind the seating area. This room will be almost entirely TV/sports/Movie oriented as I have a dedicated setup for music. I will be getting the Onkyo 818 for this room (XT32). I have always been a direct fire guy due to priority for MC music. With this setup however, I am heavily considering bi-pole or omnipole for surrounds. Would love some suggestions. I have noticed that the Mirage OM5 is no longer available. Any help would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## DDigitalGuy05


do anyone here toe in your side surrounds?.

or straight forward at each  other?. I don't think cinemas toe their surrounds


----------



## sdurani




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DDigitalGuy05*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/510#post_22618961
> 
> 
> do anyone here toe in your side surrounds?


I tilt them down towards the listening area, pointing them at the person at the opposite end of the couch (so that listeners at each end of the couch aren't overwhelmed by the nearby speaker). I don't need to toe them in horizontally since the are almost directly to my sides (±82°).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DDigitalGuy05*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/510#post_22618961
> 
> 
> I don't think cinemas toe their surrounds


The front baffles of many commercial surround speakers are already sloped to aim the drivers down towards the audience.


----------



## DDigitalGuy05


thanks so much for the reply.

I have them toe in slightly according to dolby suggestion. But i guess i can try them both way's


----------



## htuccaroglu

Hi guys,


I have a similar problem with the surrounds as Ratboy had and need some urgent advice! You can see below the room layout my living room and I was planning to get bipole/dipole speakers however I am not quite sure if they would work effectively due to none existence of back wall ( ı mean far away from the rear speakers) so what would you guys advice?


----------



## masterjer

I called the Mirage customer support line to inquire about a newer model of the omd-5s. The rep told me that Mirage has been fully absorbed into Jamo and the Omd-5s will not be replaced. He did say; however, that Jamo is using the omnipolar concept in its 360 series speakers, with the Jamo S35 being the closest cousin in size and specs to the Omd-5. Unfortunately, the S-35 is hideous.


----------



## BentZero

Great info in this thread. You guys have helped me decide to stick with my bipoles for my sides in my new house. I'm still confused as to what to do with the rears in my future 7.1 setup.


Here's a view of my room when looking from my media wall. I basically don't have a back wall since my seating position is too far from the back of the room. My current plan is to go with direct firing speakers mounted on the walls. You can see the holes for the future speaker wire wall plates in the picture. Is that the way i should go or should I use bipoles back the there too? Thanks.


----------



## alexandru27

Hi,

I'm currently upgrading my 5.1 system and just discovered this thread. I bought a pair of MA BX2 and a MA BXCenter, and about to buy MA BXFX for surrounds - but now I found in the thread poll that BXFX has got no vote. Is it because nobody has listened to them, or because you all have hated them?









Also, this will be my first experience with dipole/bipole surrounds (instead of normal speakers) - are they as bad as I hear for music? I listen mostly symphonic, but occasionally also some rock.


The BXFX will be placed on the side walls, right on the lines where they meet the back wall, and my listening position will be very close(if not leaned) to the back wall. I do watch movies too and so wouldn't want to use MA BX1 as surrounds, but if your musical listening experience would ask for it, I would prefer them instead of the BXFX.


My room is 13.5 square meters (probably 40 square feet) and I intend to match them with a Yamaha 673 receiver, and a cheap Pioneer bluray player (probably 150K). Do you think this speaker/receiver choice would be a bit overkill for a rather small room like mine and I should get some smaller speakers and a lower range receiver (like Yamaha 473), or the chosen setup would be fine?


Thank you.


P.S. I'm on the verge of reading the thread so probably part if not all of my questions will be answered. Still: I have the option of choosing Onkyo 609 as receiver - do you think that, paired with the MAs and the Pioneer BR player, the sound will be brighter/harsher than with Yamaha 673?


PS2: Apparently, not quite. Oh and just to rectify the room dimensions: it's 12x10 feet.

Additionally, is there anything wrong if I will put/hang my front speakers higher on the front wall, the left being just behind and above the TV? So their position will be about 2 feet above my ears (from the listening position). Still, the centre speaker will remain hanged on the same wall, in the middle of front speakers, right at my ear level (from listening position). As about the surrounds (BXFX), they will be positioned as I have noted, at about 2 feet above ear level (listening position, on a couch between them).


So the fronts and the surrounds will be at about same hight, only the centre will be about 2 feet lower. Anything wrong with that? Is it really advisable to keep the fronts and the centre speakers at the same level? Also: if the fronts need be directed towards my ear level, I can raise their back a bit (maybe 1/2 inch) until they point to my face.


----------



## alexandru27

I've changed my mind, returned the MA's and chosen a cheaper package (Yamaha 475 & 5.0 Heco Victa Prime, plus a BR player). Apart from money saving, I think the MA's were too massive for my tiny room.


The only problem now will be that Heco speakers are back ported for bass, so the surrounds (which will inevitably be placed very close to the back/side wall) will have the bass diminished. But I guess I can live with that...


Also, I hope the 473 will have the power to drive those Heco's (the fronts can be bi-wired, but unfortunately this receiver cannot do that - it's 5.1)


----------



## mythrenegade

After reading everything I had settled on bipole for my surrounds.


I installed them and tried them in both modes and found that I prefer dipole.


That's what ears are for 


Joel


PS - I think they sound great for music as well. No complaints.


----------



## alexandru27

Hi,

changed mind again, got back to Yammy RX-673 andthe 5.0 MA Bronze pack.

As about the BXFX: I've read some half of the entries in this thread, very interesting stuff. So I'd have to hang them either on the side walls, or on the back wall. I listen 50/50 to music/movies. I do prefer listening to multichannel music (stereo it's not so good amplified by this Yammy).

So, if I decide to hang them on the back wall, I should put them on bipole, and if I choose the side walls, on dipole, right?

Here's a picture of listening position configuration.


----------



## alexandru27

Having read all but some 4-5 pages of this thread, I think I''l start by drilling holes on the side walls, and listen the BXFX both on dipole and bipole modes. Then I'll drill holes in the back wall (at about the same hight as those in the side walls - about 2 feet above listening position - or a bit higher, what do you think?) and hang the BXFX on those, to see the difference, especially in bipole mode.


I take it I shouldnt bother to buy another pair of BXFX in order to have them hanged in both positions, so i could enjoy a sort of 7.1 - or am I wrong?


Oh and one more thing: what if I hang them (somehow) right on the corners (that would solve at least the wire visibility issue - being less obvious along the corner line) - instead of the former home cinema surround speakers that are visible in the posted picture?

Would this position affect sound quality? They would be facing the centre of the room/centre speaker.


----------



## alexandru27

Anybody?...


----------



## mtbdudex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexandru27*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/510#post_22975365
> 
> 
> Anybody?...



With a small room like yours 10 x 12 feet I'd do 5.1 and give up on 7.1


Try in some of your possible locations with temp mtg, seems the back wall may work best for you instead of side wall.


Does this layout guide help?
 


Wires, you can run your wires at baseboard and then up the inside of walls, depends on if you have fire blocking between the studs.

Sent from my 32GB iPhone4 using Tapatalk


----------



## alexandru27

Thanks, not of much help as those are totally different positions as compared to mine.

I'm not sure I am going to go with an inside-wall solution for the wires.

Today I have drilled holes in the side walls, unfortunatelly in the left one I've reached something hard with the drill and had to stop. I'll have to change the position a bit, or put them on the back wall.


----------



## mtbdudex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexandru27*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/510#post_22980655
> 
> 
> Thanks, not of much help as those are totally different positions as compared to mine.
> 
> I'm not sure I am going to go with an inside-wall solution for the wires.
> 
> Today I have drilled holes in the side walls, unfortunatelly in the left one I've reached something hard with the drill and had to stop. I'll have to change the position a bit, or put them on the back wall.



My point was making sure you understood the baseline for 5.1 and 7.1 speaker locations, from a viewpoint the mixing is also done with understanding they will be somewhat in/near those locations so @ playback time you hear the surround field as the mixer intended.


I've had to comprimise my family room 5.1 set-up, flipped wall di-poles onto a cross beam firing down, re-wired them as bi-poles because the null did not work in a open room.

The surround field is actually pretty decent now.









(wow, above pict is 5+ years old now, looking at the picture on fireplace mantle just realized how the 3 kids have grown)


Good luck on your install and set-up.


----------



## alexandru27

Congratulations for your kids.


I was aware of dolby requirements for speaker placement. The problem is that the fronts will have to be placed wider, that is closer to the side walls, so a bigger diastance from the centre speaker.

The fronts will have between them just a slight smaller distance, as compared to the distance between the surrounds (side walls hanged)


Unfortunatelly some additional problem arised from the fact that I can't seem to drill deep enough holes neither for the centre and right front speaker. I might have to choose another location for the fronts - that is to put them on shelves higher on the front wall. But like that they wont be in line anymore with the centre. Also, I dont think I will be able to position the fronts leaned forward, so that they face the listening position (couch on the opposite wall)


----------



## mtbdudex

Basic problem is we are putting demands onto home design that was not in most of those plans.

It's a paradigm shift that even now has not taken into the mindset of home designers and builders.


Layout stds for kitchen, bath, etc are there.

If you look at guides for family room/living room there aren't std guides to consider 5.1 sound and video...


Good luck on your project.



Sent from my 32GB iPhone4 using Tapatalk


----------



## alexandru27

You are right.

And thank you, I will let you know about the -sounding - results.


----------



## Anhydro

I'm looking fior an in-wall switchable biplole/dipole spaekers for my home theater and my living room. My new home construction is almost finished and I still haven't decided on the surrounds.... I have Paradigm Sigs for the LCR in each room. Each system will be used primarily for HT. I would very much appreciate any recommendations. Thanks!


My HT build thread, with some info on my Living Room, is here... http://www.avsforum.com/t/1426275/anhydro-no-sweat-theater-build-the-musings-of-an-armchair-quarterback#post_22620292 


P.S. My default solution is the Atlantic Tech IWTS-30 SR, but they are not sealed and don't come with back boxes. I would like one or the other.


----------



## Ther

Hey all,


very interesting thread.


I have few questions for my setup.

I have installed audiocables for 7.1 surround sound in my new home. But due to the layout of the living room, the surround speakers on the sides arent placed correctly.

The size of the living room is 8 metres by 5 metres. Thats 26ft by 16ft. The red squares in the picture are cables installed for speakers at about 5ft high.

The ceiling is 2m50 high so about 8ft. The adjacant space is dinnertable and kitchen and is completely open, 7m by 5 meters or 22feet by 16 feet.


What kind of speakers would be best to use for side surrounds and rear surrounds. Dipole or bipole or something else??


i prefer not to move the couch forward since im projecting my image on the wall where fronts, sub and center are located. Couch is located at about 15 feet, 4m50 from projected wall. The rear surrounds at about 11,5 feet, 3m50 from couch. The side surrounds about 8feet, 2m50 from couch. The cables for all surrounds are located at a little more the 4feet, 1m25 height in the wall. I can use stands or wall mount for the surrounds


----------



## mtbdudex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexandru27*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/510#post_22996677
> 
> 
> You are right.
> 
> And thank you, I will let you know about the -sounding - results.


2 months later , how is your project going?



Sent from my 32GB iPhone4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

From what I've read on the newer, upcoming object-oriented audio formats (like Dolby Atmos and DTS Multi-dimensional Audio... it really looks like exact timbre matching monopoles are the surround speakers of choice due to the type of mixing done.


The highly directionalized height/depth/width metadata rendering "cues" are embedded in the track and these codecs work with more speakers (true overhead height quadrants included), so it appears dipole surrounds would improperly introduce an added smearing effect to these types of advanced soundtracks.


FYI


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Hey all.


Having recently moved house, I'm now in a situation where I need a new pair of rear-surrounds for my 7.0 setup.


(See my signature & gear below)


Currently, I'm making do with my trusty Infinity ES-250's in dual-monopole mode, but what would really make the surrounds sing is a pair of white Mirage OS3-SAT omnipoles (angles outwards on the rear bookshelf).


The problem is that Mirage have been taken over by Jamo and they're no longer making them.


The other problem is that I'm in Australia and the local distributor never bothered bringing in anything higher that the NanoSat.


There's nothing on eBay.

Might anyone know where I can go in the US that might still stock them and can ship to Australia?

Alternatively, maybe someone has a used pair they'd like to sell?


Thanks in advance!


----------



## dctrombly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/500_100#post_23215717
> 
> 
> Hey all.
> 
> 
> Having recently moved house, I'm now in a situation where I need a new pair of rear-surrounds for my 7.0 setup.
> 
> 
> (See my signature & gear below)
> 
> 
> Currently, I'm making do with my trusty Infinity ES-250's in dual-monopole mode, but what would really make the surrounds sing is a pair of white Mirage OS3-SAT omnipoles (angles outwards on the rear bookshelf).
> 
> 
> The problem is that Mirage have been taken over by Jamo and they're no longer making them.
> 
> 
> The other problem is that I'm in Australia and the local distributor never bothered bringing in anything higher that the NanoSat.
> 
> 
> There's nothing on eBay.
> 
> Might anyone know where I can go in the US that might still stock them and can ship to Australia?
> 
> Alternatively, maybe someone has a used pair they'd like to sell?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance!



Crutchfield has them online but I'm not sure where they ship to. Check it out.

Crutchfield OMD-5


----------



## Chad711

Hello,


I'm new to this Dipole and bipole stuff. When i built my HT i bought all Monitor Audio speakers. I am running them in Dipole right now. Is it me or does it seems like it's hard to tell where the surround sound is coming from? I was playing a star wars movie during the pod races and thought I would be able to clearly tell when the surround went from left, rear to right and I never once felt that.


I need to switch it to Bipole and see if it matters or not. Just the way I have them mounted it's going to be a PIA to do it!


Just curious if this is why I am not sensing that left to back to right feeling, or right, rear to left, etc.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chad711*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/540#post_23412314
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> I'm new to this Dipole and bipole stuff. When i built my HT i bought all Monitor Audio speakers. I am running them in Dipole right now. Is it me or does it seems like it's hard to tell where the surround sound is coming from? I was playing a star wars movie during the pod races and thought I would be able to clearly tell when the surround went from left, rear to right and I never once felt that.
> 
> 
> I need to switch it to Bipole and see if it matters or not. Just the way I have them mounted it's going to be a PIA to do it!
> 
> 
> Just curious if this is why I am not sensing that left to back to right feeling, or right, rear to left, etc.



If you have them in dipole mode, they'll be noticeably more diffuse.


But placement makes a huge difference.

How / where are they mounted, relative to your seat?


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chad711*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/540#post_23412314
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> I'm new to this Dipole and bipole stuff. When i built my HT i bought all Monitor Audio speakers. I am running them in Dipole right now. Is it me or does it seems like it's hard to tell where the surround sound is coming from? I was playing a star wars movie during the pod races and thought I would be able to clearly tell when the surround went from left, rear to right and I never once felt that.
> 
> 
> I need to switch it to Bipole and see if it matters or not. Just the way I have them mounted it's going to be a PIA to do it!
> 
> 
> Just curious if this is why I am not sensing that left to back to right feeling, or right, rear to left, etc.




I have all Monitor Audio all the way around too, and I have my surrounds set to Di-pole.


I have to admit, it does seem cool to know where the speakers are and when the audio shift from one speaker to the other, but that effect is not what you want.


You want to be surrounded/encompassed with the audio and NOT be able to point out where the speakers are when the lights are out and you are watching a movie.


In your statement, you say it’s hard to tell where the surrounds are coming from, well that is a good thing, and how it should be. I too questions this, and sometimes goto each speaker to make sure they are on, but I am surrounded with audio, and that is how it should be.


An example, in a movie scene, when the rain is falling, you want to think it’s raining everywhere, and not from the left back corner where that speaker is located.


----------



## GIEGAR

Here are a couple of relatively new *switchable surround* options:

*1. Aperion Audio Verus Surround .::. dipole/bipole*

 

*Specs:*

• Weight: 13.0 lbs

• Frequency response: (+/- 3dB) 90Hz to 18,000Hz; (+/- 6dB) 80Hz to 20,000Hz

• Impedance: 6 Ohms

• Sensitivity: Bipole: 88dB; Dipole: 78dB

• Recommended power: 20 - 200 Watts

• Tweeter: Dual 1" Audiophile-grade Custom Aperion ASR Tweeters

• Woofer: Dual 4.25" Aperion PhaseSync Drivers

• Driver configuration: 2-Way

• Enclosure type: 1" HDF, Ported

• Dimensions: 9.5" H x 13" W x 7" D


Product page: http://www.aperionaudio.com/speakers/verus-home-theater-speakers/verus-surround-dipole-bipole-speaker 


*2. SVSound Ultra Surround .::. dipole/bipole/dual channel*

 

*Specs:*

• Rated bandwidth: 58Hz - 32kHz (± 3dB)

• Nominal impedance: 8 ohms

• Sensitivity: 87dB (2.83V @ 1 meter full-space, 300Hz - 3kHz)

• Recommended amplifier power: 20 - 250 Watts

• Dimensions (HxWxD): 14" x 12.3" x 5.4", 35.6 x 31.2 x 13.7 cm

• Weight: 18 lbs., 8.1 kgs

• 1" tweeter features FEA-optimized diffuser and aluminum dome

• 5.25" woofer features composite glass-fiber cone, aluminum shorting ring, cast aluminum basket and vented voice coil former

• Dual isolated crossover networks allows for bipole, dipole or unique Duet mode

• Tweeter to woofer crossover: 2 kHz


Product page: http://www.svsound.com/speakers/ultra-series/ultra-surround#.UbcJiBaBK2x


----------



## Chad711




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/540#post_23412894
> 
> 
> If you have them in dipole mode, they'll be noticeably more diffuse.
> 
> 
> But placement makes a huge difference.
> 
> How / where are they mounted, relative to your seat?



Here is a short video of where they are located. The surrounds are directly left of right of my seat and the rears are between 5-6 feet behind me. Room is 18 L and 15 W. I'd say the surrounds and rears are higher up then what I would prefer but the house was prewired when I had it built and back then I didn't know surrounds should be at head level. They are about 4-5 foot above head level.

Video 


Thanks for that info Hamp568, I see what you mean. The rain statement really makes sense. Maybe I will keep it the way I have it then. I just wanted to make sure that it was working as intended!


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Clicked on the video, but it doesn't open - says "Video not found"


----------



## Ratclib2014

MonoPole, Bi-Pole, DiPole Speaket Type and Placement???


I'm looking to upgrade my Current 20 year old Surround Speakers to dual BiPoleDiPole from Polk, Monitor Audio, or Other but wasn't sure if my room set up would allow for.

I listen to 50% Music / 50% Movies.

Room Dims24’ Long x 12’ Wide x 8’ Height.

The listening position is against the entire long back wall on sectional sofa / recliner


It is my understanding BiPoles Surrounds should be behind you / DiPoles Surrounds should be on the side of your listening position.

In my case the DiPoles could be mounted on the sidewall but near the rear wall - Will this be a Problem? Please any comments or advice???


What mounting and speaker type would be preferred based on these options:

Option 1. Dipole Speakers mounted on side wall near corners in line with listeners?

Option 2: Monopole Speakers mounted in corners of room firing straight out?

Option 3: BiPole Type mounted on Side Wall or rear Wall but not behind the listeners but rather above?

Speaker Surround Placement.docx 143k .docx file


----------



## Goat1

Can you move the couch a little off the back wall. Being right against the wall is going to be pretty tough. You won't really have much room for dipole/bipole. The whole point of dipoles is to use the wall to disperse the sound,Bipoles work the same way,but I think they are more forgiving. I'd put bipoles up 2-3 ft up on the side walls. On the back wall up above you is an option,but again,they will be right over you.


----------



## fleishher

I am trying to decide if I should place my monopole surround speakers in the back corners of my media room or centered on the back wall behind the couch.


These are the speakers:

 
 


This is the room setup and dimensions:


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleishher*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/540#post_23608263
> 
> 
> I am trying to decide if I should place my monopole surround speakers in the back corners of my media room or centered on the back wall behind the couch.
> 
> 
> These are the speakers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the room setup and dimensions:



Looks like a 5.1 configuration. I'd go with Placement B.


----------



## fleishher

I am hearing more and more that if the rear monopole speakers are placed on the back wall they will fire directly at the front wall causing weirdness. Placement on the sides or in the corners would be more ideal.


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleishher*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/540#post_23608985
> 
> 
> I am hearing more and more that if the rear monopole speakers are placed on the back wall they will fire directly at the front wall causing weirdness. Placement on the sides or in the corners would be more ideal.



You could certainly try them temporarily both ways to see which position sounds best in your less than optimal listening space. Though, are you sure those are strictly monopole surrounds? They look more like omni-polar designs: Front firing tweeter and midrange are in-phase with the woofers out of phase. What make and model are they?


----------



## fleishher

Great idea. The thing is, my house is being built right now and we are in the pre-wire phase. I would like to have the wires behind the walls coming out in exactly the proper place. Too expensive to run two additional wires to have both areas wired for testing out both positions.


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleishher*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/540#post_23609050
> 
> 
> Great idea. The thing is, my house is being built right now and we are in the pre-wire phase. I would like to have the wires behind the walls coming out in exactly the proper place. Too expensive to run two additional wires to have both areas wired for testing out both positions.



Just tack some wires up and slap the speakers temporarily into place. Then whichever position sounds better to you, would be where you permanently ran your speaker wire.


----------



## caloyzki

Hi guys. Which one is better for surrounds speakers. Energy rc 10 or energy rc r?


----------



## Gradenko




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleishher*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/540#post_23609050
> 
> 
> Great idea. The thing is, my house is being built right now and we are in the pre-wire phase. I would like to have the wires behind the walls coming out in exactly the proper place. Too expensive to run two additional wires to have both areas wired for testing out both positions.



That's actually a pretty good idea. Wire up both locations now. If (when) you decide to go 7.1 in the future, you're sorted










Back to your original question, if those are truly direct radiating monopoles then position B would be best.


----------



## byronlobo

Hi posting here instead of the wrong thread.


I've got a tricky HT/Lounge room in our new house and I'm struggling to work out the best place for the rear and side surrounds. I've googled and googled, read a lot of things.


The sides are Monitor Audio FXI Silver bipole speakers. I think they can also be set as dipole.

The rears are Monopole bookshelf speakers.


The complication is more with the sides than the rears.


As you can see in the diagrams below there is a built in bookshelf on the back wall. This is ideal for the placement of the rear surrounds. I can basically put them on a shelf at the desired height and placement and either in against the back wall or lined up the front edge (I can experiment).


The sides are a bit harder. I had them on the sides in the old house at the recommended 2-3 feet above head height and they worked well (a real sense of wrap around sound).


In the new house the 2 options are:

1) At the sides (bipole), however due to windows (SR) and a sliding door (SL) the lowest the speakers (bottom of the speaker) is 2.1m (7 feet). This is higher than the recommended (my calcs show 1.6 to 1.9m).


There is a reasonable distance from the primary seating positions to them but I do have concerns that it will sound like everything is above you?


From what I've read bipoles should be in this position, though ideally lower down on stands, but the wife won't allow it.


2) At the rear corners (bipole). I can put them at the recommended heights here but they will actually be behind the rears then and I'm concerned about weird sound reflections.


My thinking is option 1. If so should the rears be at the same height or lower?


Any and all advice much appreciated.


I'll be using the new Yamaha A3030 to help EQ all of this so that may help a little.

 
 


Regards


Byron


----------



## byronlobo

Further digging shows that option 1 is probably best.


The next question is dipole vs bipole. The fxi are in bipole mode by default and that's how I used them before. Reading this thread and elsewhere I gather bipole is the correct setup, though I do see a lot of variation. I'd try dipole but their is no manual and the fxis simply have a 2 pairs of pos/neg jacks with little wires between them. Is it just a matter of crossing this wires over to put it in dipole mode? I'd have to experiment to find out which way around it is.


Thanks


Byron


----------



## rana_kirti

Hi forum members,


Recently i've relocated to a smaller room. I've setup the front 3 speakers but i'm not so sure about my PSB IMAGE S5 Bipole surrounds. My seating position at my ears is 1 ft from the back wall. i was wondering which would be a better option....


1. Install the Bipole surrounds on the side wall of my listening postion. In this installation the side of the Bipole speaker will touch the edge of the meeting of the side wall and back wall. so the surround will be exactly at the corner facing me at 90 degrees.


or...


2. Install the Bipole surrounds on the back wall. ? If you ask me to choose the 2nd option then how far apart the bipole speakers be ? the width of the room is 9 ft 3 inches and i sit right in the center.


Thanks in advance... 


Rana


----------



## Stephen1254

My 5.1 system uses bipole speakers for the surrounds. If I go to a 7.1 system and add rear speakers should they be bipole as well or direct radiating? The seating position is 5 - 6 feet in front of the rear wall. I suspect the bipole would work best but I haven't heard a 7.1 setup and I don't know exactly what signal is carried in the rear. Is there actual directional steering so that certain sounds appear only in the rears and not in the sides or the fronts?


----------



## NAIM101

omnipole or dipole. But 100% NOT direct radiating.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Stephen1254*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/540#post_23834117
> 
> 
> My 5.1 system uses bipole speakers for the surrounds. If I go to a 7.1 system and add rear speakers should they be bipole as well or direct radiating? The seating position is 5 - 6 feet in front of the rear wall. I suspect the bipole would work best but I haven't heard a 7.1 setup and I don't know exactly what signal is carried in the rear. Is there actual directional steering so that certain sounds appear only in the rears and not in the sides or the fronts?



Yes there is, whether it's a proper 7.1 mix or you apply Dolby ProLogic IIx to a 5.1 mix.


And yes, they should be bipoles at the rear too - ideally the same speakers as the sides.


If anything, it's usually worth having dipole / bipole switchables at the sides at least, so you have the option to experiment and see what gives you the best diffusion & blending.


Have a good read through this thread, though.

Omnipoles and quadpoles can also be excellent options.


----------



## newc33

Edit wrong topic


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kimwyn*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/390#post_21687160
> 
> 
> Wow, i find that quite interesting now because everyone was saying dipoles are best....regardless......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wonder where this leaves me?????



Actually, matching monopoles may end up being the best solution for surrounds if and when object based surround formats are delivered to the home. All the ambient and x-y-z axis location cues are in the mix itself. Dipoles, and perhaps bipoles, will probably smear the soundfield. The speakers from front to back (and ceiling) will also need to timbre match. Gone are the days of advice stating that it doesn't matter. I've heard Atmos and it surely _does_.


----------



## deeda

I am using B&W CCM 684 in-ceiling speakers as surround speakers in a 5.1 system with B&W CCM 818 as LCR. The room is about 20 x 15 with 8 ft ceilings. I am wondering what I am missing by not having a bipole / dipole speakers?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan Hitchman*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/540#post_23891706
> 
> 
> Actually, matching monopoles may end up being the best solution for surrounds if and when object based surround formats are delivered to the home. All the ambient and x-y-z axis location cues are in the mix itself. Dipoles, and perhaps bipoles, will probably smear the soundfield. The speakers from front to back (and ceiling) will also need to timbre match. Gone are the days of advice stating that it doesn't matter. I've heard Atmos and it surely _does_.



Very good point.


Dipoles with Atmos wouldn't be a good idea.


But bipoles?

I guess it would depend how many speakers you choose to have, relative to the space you want to cover.


For example, if you chose to have a single pair of surrounds for your side walls (rather than a bank of several), then bipoles would still provide a wider sweet spot and more even coverage than regular front-firing speakers.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deeda*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/540#post_23891894
> 
> 
> I am using B&W CCM 684 in-ceiling speakers as surround speakers in a 5.1 system with B&W CCM 818 as LCR. The room is about 20 x 15 with 8 ft ceilings. I am wondering what I am missing by not having a bipole / dipole speakers?



In short - a bigger, more even spread of sound and a wider sweet spot, wherever you're seated.


That said, consider 7.1 as well.


All 5.1 mixes upconvert brilliantly to 7.1 and you'll get the above benefits, plus more three-dimensional sound-staging and panning.


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/540#post_23912298
> 
> 
> Very good point.
> 
> 
> Dipoles with Atmos wouldn't be a good idea.
> 
> 
> But bipoles?
> 
> I guess it would depend how many speakers you choose to have, relative to the space you want to cover.
> 
> 
> For example, if you chose to have a single pair of surrounds for your side walls (rather than a bank of several), then bipoles would still provide a wider sweet spot and more even coverage than regular front-firing speakers.



Here's the rub, in order for object based positional 3D audio to be effective... you will need more than the traditional one pair of side and rear surrounds (and then the amount of ceiling speakers would probably need to mirror at least the amount of side surrounds going off of typical Auro3D and Atmos layouts). Speaker manufacturers are going to love this!


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan Hitchman*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_23912346
> 
> 
> Here's the rub, in order for object based positional 3D audio to be effective... you will need more than the traditional one pair of side and rear surrounds (and then the amount of ceiling speakers would probably need to mirror at least the amount of side surrounds going off of typical Auro3D and Atmos layouts). Speaker manufacturers are going to love this!



Thinking about this, perhaps having dual-monopoles for sides, rear AND ceiling would work best with Atmos.


You'd get 2 channels per enclosure, better steering and soundstaging - with most of the benefits of bipoles.

With 6 surround speakers, you'd get 12 channels.


----------



## dave in gva




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_23916093
> 
> 
> Thinking about this, perhaps having dual-monopoles for sides, rear AND ceiling would work best with Atmos.
> 
> 
> You'd get 2 channels per enclosure, better steering and soundstaging - with most of the benefits of bipoles.
> 
> With 6 surround speakers, you'd get 12 channels.



Excuse me but what the heck are dual-monopole speakers? Any examples you can link to?


Also, if Atmos and/or other object-oriented audio solutions make it to home theater how will the amplification requirements work? If for example one has 2 side surrounds, 2 rear surrounds, and another 2 speakers overhead in the ceiling then wouldn't you need 6 channels for those (plus the 3.1 for the front end)?


Dave M


----------



## GIEGAR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dave in gva*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_23934313
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_23916093
> 
> 
> Thinking about this, perhaps having dual-monopoles for sides, rear AND ceiling would work best with Atmos.
> 
> 
> You'd get 2 channels per enclosure, better steering and soundstaging - with most of the benefits of bipoles.
> 
> With 6 surround speakers, you'd get 12 channels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me but what the heck are dual-monopole speakers? Any examples you can link to?
Click to expand...


I think E_H is referring to dual channel surrounds. Two that I'm aware of are:

 SVS Ultra Surround (link) 
 PSB Imagine S Surround (link)



Both are switchable between dipole, bipole and dual channel mode.



> Quote:
> Also, if Atmos and/or other object-oriented audio solutions make it to home theater how will the amplification requirements work? If for example one has 2 side surrounds, 2 rear surrounds, and another 2 speakers overhead in the ceiling then wouldn't you need 6 channels for those (plus the 3.1 for the front end)?
> 
> 
> Dave M



Yes, Dave I believe that's the case. As I understand it, the processor will still produce discrete signals for each available channel and each channel will therefore require amplification.


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_23916093
> 
> 
> Thinking about this, perhaps having dual-monopoles for sides, rear AND ceiling would work best with Atmos.
> 
> 
> You'd get 2 channels per enclosure, better steering and soundstaging - with most of the benefits of bipoles.
> 
> With 6 surround speakers, you'd get 12 channels.



The monopole pattern dual-channel speakers wouldn't work because the "channels" would be too close together due to being in one speaker. You still need to spread each of the speakers out for object sound, so you have both better localization _and_ sound spread (for panned effects) at various points in the room. Where an angled _bipole_ surround might work is for each of the multiple overhead speaker locations.


----------



## caloyzki

Is this the right or proper placemenr for my surrounds? Im using 5.2 and i switch those surrounds to bipole mode. Or my speaker placement not good? Here is the pic


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *caloyzki*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_23940532
> 
> 
> Is this the right or proper placement for my surrounds? I'm using 5.2 and I switched those surrounds to bipole mode. Or is my speaker placement not good? Here is the pic



Look at this basic layout for 5.1 and 7.1 channel speaker configurations. You need to spread your surrounds out more, at least as much as possible, in your situation. For 5.1, you'd want to place them closer to the 110 degree locations.


----------



## caloyzki




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan Hitchman*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_23940566
> 
> 
> Look at this basic layout for 5.1 and 7.1 channel speaker configurations. You need to spread your surrounds out more, at least as much as possible, in your situation. For 5.1, you'd want to place them closer to the 110 degree locations.


But i am using bipole speakers. Not just direct firing speakers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *caloyzki*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_23940624
> 
> 
> But i am using bipole speakers. Not just direct firing speakers.



That's right. Most say having bipolar speakers a bit behind your listening position is better, but for 5.1 not right behind you as these are not rear channel surround locations for 7.1 tracks, but side surrounds. Dipole speakers are better directly between the null pattern of the two out-of-phase driver sets, at 90 degrees.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *caloyzki*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_23940532
> 
> 
> Is this the right or proper placemenr for my surrounds? Im using 5.2 and i switch those surrounds to bipole mode. Or my speaker placement not good? Here is the pic




That sort of placement wouldn't be so bad if they were rear surrounds in 7.1 - but not for 5.1


Remember that in a cinema, you have multiple surround speakers down the sides and at the back. Here, you have just two.


In your setup, what I'd do is get those surrounds out to the sides, in line with the back corners of the couch, then spread them as wide as your room will allow.

Then try angling them diagonally with the middle pointed at your the centre of the couch. This is to maximise room reflections.

What you want is for one set of drivers to bounce off the rear wall, and the other set to bounce off the side walls.


Try and get as more distance between the surrounds and your ears. Maybe move the couch forward if poss.


If you can get taller stands to mount them above ear level, that'd help diffuse them. If not, no biggie.


If they can switch between Dipole and Bipole, try out both with a range of tests and see what works best. As they're so damn close to your head, Dipole may be the better bet.


Don't forget to redo Audyssey / Room EQ after you're done.


Experiment with placement, but the above should do the trick.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan Hitchman*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_23940415
> 
> 
> The monopole pattern dual-channel speakers wouldn't work because the "channels" would be too close together due to being in one speaker. You still need to spread each of the speakers out for object sound, so you have both better localization _and_ sound spread (for panned effects) at various points in the room. Where an angled _bipole_ surround might work is for each of the multiple overhead speaker locations.




True. A dual-monopole can't beat simply having more speakers spread further apart - but it would still be noticeably more effective in getting the most out of each enclosure.

The reflections off the surfaces in front of each set of drivers is a big factor, too.


You'd definitely notice better steering, panning, dimensionality, etc.


I know this because in the past, I've had dual-monos running 7.1 where I only had space for 2 surrounds (see HERE ) and it was big improvement over bipole or dipole with 5.1


----------



## talonqc


I am looking at purchasing the Polk F/XiA6 Bi/Dipole speakers for my surrounds.  I am not sure where I should place them on my sidewall and whether I should use them as Bi or Dipole.

 

I will have two rows of seating and the dimensions of the room are 10x24x9 (w,l,h). The projector I am using will be mounted at 13'8" so I am going to put the seating starting at 12' back, the next row would be approximately 2-3 feet behind that for leg room.

 

I am not sure if I can use the speakers as dipole since there is 2 rows of seating and I doubt I would be able to get both into the null zone.  Is it best to place the speakers between the two rows, behind the 2nd row, or directly in line with 1 of the two rows?  Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *talonqc*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24036585
> 
> 
> I am looking at purchasing the Polk F/XiA6 Bi/Dipole speakers for my surrounds.  I am not sure where I should place them on my sidewall and whether I should use them as Bi or Dipole.
> 
> 
> I will have two rows of seating and the dimensions of the room are 10x24x9 (w,l,h). The projector I am using will be mounted at 13'8" so I am going to put the seating starting at 12' back, the next row would be approximately 2-3 feet behind that for leg room.
> 
> 
> I am not sure if I can use the speakers as dipole since there is 2 rows of seating and I doubt I would be able to get both into the null zone.  Is it best to place the speakers between the two rows, behind the 2nd row, or directly in line with 1 of the two rows?  Any help would be appreciated.



With that setup, I'd do this:


* Place the side-surrounds around half-way between the 2 rows, perhaps a little closer the rear row.


* Add 2 more on the rear wall for 7.1.


* Run all films in Dolby ProLogic IIx.
You will not believe the difference it makes over just a single pair of surrounds - especially in a room like yours.

Remember that cinemas have whole banks of surround speakers down the sides and at the back.


* Experiment with Bipole and Dipole.

It's possible (but unlikely) you'll get better results running the sides in Dipole, but the rears should definitely be left Bipole.


Let us know how you go and post pics!


----------



## talonqc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24063005
> 
> 
> 
> With that setup, I'd do this:
> 
> 
> * Place the side-surrounds around half-way between the 2 rows, perhaps a little closer the rear row.
> 
> 
> * Add 2 more on the rear wall for 7.1.
> 
> 
> * Run all films in Dolby ProLogic IIx.
> You will not believe the difference it makes over just a single pair of surrounds - especially in a room like yours.
> 
> Remember that cinemas have whole banks of surround speakers down the sides and at the back.
> 
> 
> * Experiment with Bipole and Dipole.
> 
> It's possible (but unlikely) you'll get better results running the sides in Dipole, but the rears should definitely be left Bipole.
> 
> 
> Let us know how you go and post pics!


 

 

I really like this idea, but from the look of death I got from the wife I don't think she is excited about 2 more speakers for 7.1 yet.  It will take a little convincing after she has heard the 5.1 setup to be able to hit the pocket book for more speakers.  Once we close on the house and I start working on everything I will definitely post some pics.

 

I do have another question in regards to power source.  The two options I am leaning towards are:

 

          1) Marantz SR5008 with an Emotiva XPA-3 to power the LCR and use the Marantz to handle the surrounds

          2) Emotiva UMC 200 with and Emotiva XPA-5

 

In your opinion do you feel there would be any noticeable difference between the two?  Would receiver power to the surrounds in the first option be enough to keep up with the fronts receiving 200w apiece?

 

Either option would leave me with the ability to upgrade in the future, there would be a price difference at 5.1 but that would essentially wash if I upgraded to 7.1 as I could run the rears off the Marantz but would need another amp with the Emotiva.


----------



## cloudbuster

Hi guys so Bi-Di poles are still a good buy?

As I was reading is seem people now prefer regular bookshelf because DVD incorporate the diffusion for you or something like that.


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cloudbuster*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24098802
> 
> 
> Hi guys so Bi-Di poles are still a good buy?
> 
> As I was reading is seem people now prefer regular bookshelf because DVD incorporate the diffusion for you or something like that.



Once object based surround formats catch on, bipole and dipole speakers will be less effective. The positioning of the sound will be the primary mission of the object renderer and the amount of speakers in a particular system to create an effective 3D space, not the surround speaker diffusion pattern itself. In fact, given a mix like Gravity, it will be imperative to have timbre matched speakers all the way around the room.


----------



## cloudbuster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan Hitchman*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24099532
> 
> 
> Once object based surround formats catch on, bipole and dipole speakers will be less effective. The positioning of the sound will be the primary mission of the object renderer and the amount of speakers in a particular system to create an effective 3D space, not the surround speaker diffusion pattern itself. In fact, given a mix like Gravity, it will be imperative to have timbre matched speakers all the way around the room.



thanks, so up to this day they still useful. I asked cause I was looking at a speaker line and they dont have their own Di or Bi poles but I guess you can always use a different brand or not a good idea?

It would be for a 5.1 setup.


Also I think I will set the rear/surround a long the wall on the sides of the couch the back of the couch is touching the wall, I have space to move it forward but I think I would prefer to leave it close to the wall. would that also determine what to use between regular bookshelf or Di/Bi poles.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *talonqc*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24069716
> 
> 
> 
> I really like this idea, but from the look of death I got from the wife I don't think she is excited about 2 more speakers for 7.1 yet.  It will take a little convincing after she has heard the 5.1 setup to be able to hit the pocket book for more speakers.  Once we close on the house and I start working on everything I will definitely post some pics.
> 
> 
> I do have another question in regards to power source.  The two options I am leaning towards are:
> 
> 
> 1) Marantz SR5008 with an Emotiva XPA-3 to power the LCR and use the Marantz to handle the surrounds
> 
> 2) Emotiva UMC 200 with and Emotiva XPA-5
> 
> 
> In your opinion do you feel there would be any noticeable difference between the two?  Would receiver power to the surrounds in the first option be enough to keep up with the fronts receiving 200w apiece?
> 
> 
> Either option would leave me with the ability to upgrade in the future, there would be a price difference at 5.1 but that would essentially wash if I upgraded to 7.1 as I could run the rears off the Marantz but would need another amp with the Emotiva.




Option 1.

I can vouch for Marantz wholeheartedly, and it will make the upgrade to 7.1 easier.

There'll be no appreciable difference between options 1 & 2, especially after Audyssey.


I'd still push for 7.1 now, despite the death stares. That's a difference you WILL notice.


Perhaps get smaller, cheaper speakers for the rear wall, then upgrade them later.

Having tried everything over the years, I'd actually rather have 7.1 with lower grade rears than 5.1 without! !


Also consider a pair of wife-friendly, white Jamo S25 omnipoles for the rear:

http://www.jamo.com/speaker-types/bookshelf/?sku=S-25


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cloudbuster*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24099786
> 
> 
> thanks, so up to this day they still useful.



Well beyond this day!

About 0.01 % of all films to date have been mixed in Dolby Atmos or Barco's 11.1 system.

Uptake of these new formats will be VEEERY SLOW, especially in the home.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cloudbuster*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24099786
> 
> 
> I asked cause I was looking at a speaker line and they dont have their own Di or Bi poles but I guess you can always use a different brand or not a good idea?
> 
> It would be for a 5.1 setup.



Totally fine to use different brand surrounds. I've done it many times. Audyssey will also help correct for them.

I'd use a different brand for the surrounds that has bi-pole-dipole-switchables, dual-monopole or omnipole.

Have a good read through this thread to get the lowdown!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cloudbuster*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24099786
> 
> 
> Also I think I will set the rear/surround a long the wall on the sides of the couch the back of the couch is touching the wall, I have space to move it forward but I think I would prefer to leave it close to the wall. would that also determine what to use between regular bookshelf or Di/Bi poles.




DEFINITELY don't use bookshelves if your couch is so close to the walls.



If you're going 5.1, look at doing what I did here and getting dual-monopole speakers (also BI-DIpole switchable)

7.1 from 2 speakers.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1117258/tidy-home-unit-setup-the-benefits-of-masking 


That's absolutely the best option if you're close to the walls and only want 2 speakers.

Run all movies in ProLogic IIx and it will "upgrade" them to 7.1

BIG difference.


The best place for them would be at the back corners and angled in at 45 degrees.




Let us know how you go...


----------



## cloudbuster

Thanks, I would end up with 5.1

I was considering SVS ultra Tower until I read they are complicated to setup.

So now I have this on the list

Arx A5

Image T6

MA Silver 8, MA have surround with the Di/Bi switch.

Focal 836v on sale

Focal Profile 918 on sale


It looks that surround with the triple switch are hard to find. The SVS surround look good they have a duet mode to simulate 7.1
http://www.svsound.com/speakers/Ultra-Surround#.UrTS2O_nYiE 


But from the list I think I be better of with the Arx A5 and their matching Center plus SVS Sub or HSU and if those SVS surround are good get them.


Any opinion/advice is appreciated.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cloudbuster*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24100417
> 
> 
> Thanks, I would end up with 5.1
> 
> I was considering SVS ultra Tower until I read they are complicated to setup.
> 
> So now I have this on the list
> 
> Arx A5
> 
> Image T6
> 
> MA Silver 8, MA have surround with the Di/Bi switch.
> 
> Focal 836v on sale
> 
> Focal Profile 918 on sale
> 
> 
> It looks that surround with the triple switch are hard to find. The SVS surround look good they have a duet mode to simulate 7.1
> http://www.svsound.com/speakers/Ultra-Surround#.UrTS2O_nYiE
> 
> 
> But from the list I think I be better of with the Arx A5 and their matching Center plus SVS Sub or HSU and if those SVS surround are good get them.
> 
> 
> Any opinion/advice is appreciated.



Get the SVS Ultra Surround. Period.


That way you get the lot.

"Duet" mode is just their name for Dual-Monopole. It doesn't simulate 7.1. It actually delivers.

*Is your amp 7.1 ?


If so, you simply run an extra pair of wires to each surround (notice the 2 terminals on the back):


- The drivers firing along your back wall are the Rear surrounds.

- The drivers firing along the side wall are the Side surrounds.



You set all movies to run in ProLogic IIx.


MUCH better than bipole, dipole, quadpole or omnipole if you can only acommodate 2 speakers.









*


----------



## cloudbuster

Thanks for the super clear explanation.

It seem they would work in one corner the other dont know because there only a small aisle to divide the room.

I dont have a receiver yet.

I be buying those svs surrounds then. I like the, they deliver comment










Still cant decide on front speakers.

I love the look of the focal 800 series with the grill, not so much of the 836 without the grill. But i guess you cant go by look.

And like i mentioned the arx a5 got my atention for their price and good reviews.


I know this is the surround area but any advice on what fronts to get?

Thanks!


----------



## caloyzki




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24100655
> 
> 
> Get the SVS Ultra Surround. Period.
> 
> 
> That way you get the lot.
> 
> "Duet" mode is just their name for Dual-Monopole. It doesn't simulate 7.1. It actually delivers.
> 
> *Is your amp 7.1 ?
> 
> 
> If so, you simply run an extra pair of wires to each surround (notice the 2 terminals on the back):
> 
> 
> - The drivers firing along your back wall are the Rear surrounds.
> 
> - The drivers firing along the side wall are the Side surrounds.
> 
> 
> 
> You set all movies to run in ProLogic IIx.
> 
> 
> MUCH better than bipole, dipole, quadpole or omnipole if you can only acommodate 2 speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



Hi my avr is capable for 7.1.but i am using 5.1 due to my limited space for rear speakers. What doting mean by run wires and use prologic?


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *caloyzki*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24100923
> 
> 
> Hi my avr is capable for 7.1.but i am using 5.1 due to my limited space for rear speakers. What doting mean by run wires and use prologic?



Haha. Sounds like you need to read my post again and maybe google it!


It's simple. Dual-monopole means you have 2 speakers built into 1 enclosure - Hence the 2 terminals on the back.


You have only 2 speaker boxes in the room, but as there are 2 built into each - you really have 4 speakers.

So you can have 7.1 - 4 surrounds from just 2 speakers. Easy.


All you need is to run an extra pair of speaker cables from your amp to the surrounds, tell the amp you're 7.1 and use ProLogic IIx mode to "up-rez" 5.1 movies to 7.1


Suddenly you've got better 3D spread of sound, sound-staging, panning, etc.

Not as good as having a separate pair of rears on the rear wall - but it's way better than 5.1 and 2 surrounds with bipole, dipole, quadpole or omnipole.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cloudbuster*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24100911
> 
> 
> Thanks for the super clear explanation.
> 
> It seem they would work in one corner the other dont know because there only a small aisle to divide the room.
> 
> I dont have a receiver yet.
> 
> I be buying those svs surrounds then. I like the, they deliver comment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still cant decide on front speakers.
> 
> I love the look of the focal 800 series with the grill, not so much of the 836 without the grill. But i guess you cant go by look.
> 
> And like i mentioned the arx a5 got my atention for their price and good reviews.
> 
> 
> I know this is the surround area but any advice on what fronts to get?
> 
> Thanks!



The ARX look great for the money, but the Focals do seem like the superior speaker, have larger drivers (which I always prefer), are front-ported (also prefer), and many happy owners.


For the record, I've thrown in the towel on passive hi-fi speakers (except for surrounds).

I'm using three KRK 10-3 pro studio monitors with the (awesome) Marantz AV7005 pre-pro and have never looked back.



Active studio monitors are way better value, they're all about accuracy, you can buy them in threes, they have XLR connections, they have their own amps specially suited to each driver (meaning bi-amped or tri-amped) and they have active crossovers.


A very, very sweet deal if you want the best sound for the least money.


----------



## CineManno

I just read through this great thread. Any opinions on differences between

- Monitor Audio RXFX

- Kef Q800ds

- Klipsch RS42/52 II

on the characteristics of the sound?


The

- Axiom

- Asperion

- SVS Ultra Surround speakers

look good as well, but are hard to come by in Europe. If I order them through mail from the US, I would have to pay import tax, 21% VAT and customs handling.


I am looking for surrounds to complement my Usher mini dancer 2 fronts. My listening room is 9x5,5 meters, with TV and front speaker at the short side. My couch is about half way at 5 meters from the TV and 4 meters of "empty" space. I can position the surround speakers at the sides on a wall, at about 95-100degrees. I have no speaker connections at the rear. I would only use surround for film, I listen my music in stereo. But I don 't know how to choose between them. There is no store nearby that would have them to audition.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CineManno*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24105189
> 
> 
> I just read through this great thread. Any opinions on differences between
> 
> - Monitor Audio RXFX
> 
> - Kef Q800ds
> 
> - Klipsch RS42/52 II
> 
> on the characteristics of the sound?
> 
> 
> The
> 
> - Axiom
> 
> - Asperion
> 
> - SVS Ultra Surround speakers
> 
> look good as well, but are hard to come by in Europe. If I order them through mail from the US, I would have to pay import tax, 21% VAT and customs handling.
> 
> 
> I am looking for surrounds to complement my Usher mini dancer 2 fronts. My listening room is 9x5,5 meters, with TV and front speaker at the short side. My couch is about half way at 5 meters from the TV and 4 meters of "empty" space. I can position the surround speakers at the sides on a wall, at about 95-100degrees. I have no speaker connections at the rear. I would only use surround for film, I listen my music in stereo. But I don 't know how to choose between them. There is no store nearby that would have them to audition.



Easy.

Of your shortlist - the Monitor Audio RXFX.

- Dipole/bipole switchable

- 6" woofer and good bass

- Tweeter rather than horn to match your fronts

- Range of colours available


----------



## CineManno




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24105642
> 
> 
> Easy.
> 
> Of your shortlist - the Monitor Audio RXFX.
> 
> - Dipole/bipole switchable
> 
> - 6" woofer and good bass
> 
> - Tweeter rather than horn to match your fronts
> 
> - Range of colours available



Thanks for the tip. I did like that MA come in whiteas well. I noted that the MA has the woofer facing sideways straight to the listener.(90 degrees) and that only the tweeter is dipole or bipole. In what way does this give a different sound than those bipoles or dipoles that have both woofer and tweeter facing 45 and 135 degrees?


By the way I did discover the PSB S5 as well, that are sold here. How do they hold up to the MA?

PSB are 450 each, while the MA FX (new version of RXFX) are 350 each. Euro's that is.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CineManno*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24106326
> 
> 
> Thanks for the tip. I did like that MA come in whiteas well. I noted that the MA has the woofer facing sideways straight to the listener.(90 degrees) and that only the tweeter is dipole or bipole. In what way does this give a different sound than those bipoles or dipoles that have both woofer and tweeter facing 45 and 135 degrees?
> 
> 
> By the way I did discover the PSB S5 as well, that are sold here. How do they hold up to the MA?
> 
> PSB are 450 each, while the MA FX (new version of RXFX) are 350 each. Euro's that is.



Nup. Get the MA.


The PSB's are Bipole only, have lesser bass response and only come in black.


Having a single woofer on the MA is good and bad.

It's bad because you don't get quite as much diffusion and spread of sound.

It's good because you get a larger woofer and DIpole sounds better with 1 woofer than with 2.

I've noticed 2 woofers running in Dipole often has a drop in bass response and more "phasey" sound.


----------



## caloyzki

Is this a good speakers for surrounds? I am not sure, someone is selling me energy V2.0r.


----------



## CineManno




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24106707
> 
> 
> Nup. Get the MA.
> 
> 
> The PSB's are Bipole only, have lesser bass response and only come in black.
> 
> 
> Having a single woofer on the MA is good and bad.
> 
> It's bad because you don't get quite as much diffusion and spread of sound.
> 
> It's good because you get a larger woofer and DIpole sounds better with 1 woofer than with 2.
> 
> I've noticed 2 woofers running in Dipole often has a drop in bass response and more "phasey" sound.



Thanks. I already discovered that many bipoles, like the Kef or Jamo C80, for instance run the bass up to 250-300 Hertz in bipole, even when they are labeled as dipoles. Because otherwise at such low frequencies the woofers would cancel out mostly no matter where you sit, as the distance between the woofers is much smaller than the wavelength.


I really like the look and size of the MA's and I know it is a well respected brand with a lot of fans. The only thing holding me back a bit is that when I upgraded my speakers in 2004 I opted out on MA (Silver RS at that time) because they sounded a bit brighter/metallic than my taste (and I couldn't afford the Gold series at that time). I went for the B&W 9NTs instead. And upgraded to n804s 2 years later. I hope the new Silver FX is smoother than the Rs at that time.


The Beryllium tweeter in the Usher fronts are so nice. I traded my B&W n804s for them 2 years ago and haven't regretted that move for a bit.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *caloyzki*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_24106733
> 
> 
> Is this a good speakers for surrounds? I am not sure, someone is selling me energy V2.0r.



No they're not, really.

This has been asked a couple of times on this thread.


Only the midrange drivers fire outwards, so they're not much better than front-firing speakers.


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CineManno*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24106764
> 
> 
> Thanks. I already discovered that many bipoles, like the Kef or Jamo C80, for instance run the bass up to 250-300 Hertz in bipole, even when they are labeled as dipoles. Because otherwise at such low frequencies the woofers would cancel out mostly no matter where you sit, as the distance between the woofers is much smaller than the wavelength.
> 
> 
> I really like the look and size of the MA's and I know it is a well respected brand with a lot of fans. The only thing holding me back a bit is that when I upgraded my speakers in 2004 I opted out on MA (Silver RS at that time) because they sounded a bit brighter/metallic than my taste (and I couldn't afford the Gold series at that time). I went for the B&W 9NTs instead. And upgraded to n804s 2 years later. I hope the new Silver FX is smoother than the Rs at that time.
> 
> 
> The Beryllium tweeter in the Usher fronts are so nice. I traded my B&W n804s for them 2 years ago and haven't regretted that move for a bit.



That's a fair concern about Monitor Audio's brighter / metallic sound. From memory, I've noticed this myself.


Any Monitor Audio owners care to chime in?


If the Jamo or KEF do run their woofers in phase, they're a safer purchase and well worth considering. Where did you read this?


----------



## caloyzki




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24107097
> 
> 
> No they're not, really.
> 
> This has been asked a couple of times on this thread.
> 
> 
> Only the midrange drivers fire outwards, so they're not much better than front-firing speakers.



Wow really? I didnt know that


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CineManno*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24106764
> 
> 
> Thanks. I already discovered that many bipoles, like the Kef or Jamo C80, for instance run the bass up to 250-300 Hertz in bipole, even when they are labeled as dipoles. Because otherwise at such low frequencies the woofers would cancel out mostly no matter where you sit, as the distance between the woofers is much smaller than the wavelength.
> 
> 
> I really like the look and size of the MA's and I know it is a well respected brand with a lot of fans. The only thing holding me back a bit is that when I upgraded my speakers in 2004 I opted out on MA (Silver RS at that time) because they sounded a bit brighter/metallic than my taste (and I couldn't afford the Gold series at that time). I went for the B&W 9NTs instead. And upgraded to n804s 2 years later. I hope the new Silver FX is smoother than the Rs at that time.
> 
> 
> The Beryllium tweeter in the Usher fronts are so nice. I traded my B&W n804s for them 2 years ago and haven't regretted that move for a bit.



Hey CineManno, I have to tell you upfront that I am bias and a huge fanboy of Monitor Audio and simply just love the RXFX’s. That is because of the absolute love I have for the sound from MA and the effect I receive from the surrounds. Honestly I am hard to please and MA went above and beyond my expectation especially at their price point.


I believe you mentioned you had an issue with the RS from awhile ago and hope that the new Silver line would be better. Well there was a nice leap in audio quality from the RS to the RX and I have been told that leap is even greater from the RX to the new Silver.


You room is a nice size and I believe the MA FX’s will be fine. My room is 13x34 feet, but I am using 13x17 with my sides surrounds place at about 9ft facing the front MLP.

My room: 4x10 meter

Using: 4x5 meters

Side surrounds at about: 2.7 meters

Rear surrounds at : 5 meters


I have mine set to di-pole mode, and I had every intention with using them that way, not only from a list of advantages/dis-advantages from bi-pole or even monopole speakers, it is also suggested by MA to have them in di-pole if all four are FX’s.


I did try with bi-pole recently just to see if I noticed a difference between 5.1 di or bi, 7.1 di or bi, and maybe I am truly use to the di-pole selections, but I find it far more spacious than any other settings. They do a fantastic job of hiding themselves and not being distracting when watching a movie. Sitting in the null and not having them blaster in your ears and not really being able to point them out are a few more reasons I love’em.


----------



## CineManno




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24107139
> 
> 
> That's a fair concern about Monitor Audio's brighter / metallic sound. Form memory, I've noticed this myself.
> 
> 
> Any Monitor Audio owners care to chime in?
> 
> 
> If the Jamo or KEF do run their woofers in phase, they're a safer purchase and well worth considering. Where did you read this?



On Kef, here is a thread: http://www.avforums.com/threads/kef-q800ds-and-r800ds-important-question-for-kef.1583804/ 

Jack and audio engineer chimes in and explains that for low frequencies only one woofer operates (monpole) and from midway and up it is a dipole. This is also immediately a problem. Kef doesn't sell L and R dipoles. They are all the same. So if you mount the speakers to the sides it seems that one woofer fires to the front for LF and one to the back. This is bad design and if you search for "Kef q800ds phases" you find some threads about this. If you want to correct this than you should mount one speaker upside down....


Jamo: http://www.jamo.com/support/tech-talk/ and scroll to XBR. However it seems that Jamo is (going) out of production. Most stores here only sell low end Jamo and those that do sell the concert series couldn't order them anymore from the dealer.


Klipsch also does something between dipole and bipole for their speakers. https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/116205-rs-42-bipole-or-dipole/?hl=%2Bbipole+%2Bdipole 

Although that answer leaves some questions open for me. What did he mean with "The single woofer", or should it read "One of the woofers"?


I can buy the MA from a "local" dealer on the Internet. That would give me 7 days return policy. Good thing is they also sell Kef, Klipsch and PSB. Unfortunately they only sell SVS subwoofers and not the SVSurounds. (The subs are quite popular here, although expensive, among HT fans.) But on the other hand, 7 days will not be enough to fully break in and appreciate the MA.


I read from others that indeed the new Silver series should be smoother than the old ones when it comes to brightness. And I suspect that Klipsch is even brighter than MA. Ah decisions decisions.....


----------



## cloudbuster

I dint notice the Infinity Classia c255es, how would it compare to the SVS Ultra surround?
http://bestofaudio.com/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=10&products_id=9493 

seem to have the same versatility but cheaper


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cloudbuster*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24113371
> 
> 
> I dint notice the Infinity Classia c255es, how would it compare to the SVS Ultra surround?
> http://bestofaudio.com/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=10&products_id=9493
> 
> seem to have the same versatility but cheaper



Well, I own their predecessor - the Infinity ES-250.

The Classia is pretty much the same... but classier to look at!


Apart from them running the woofers out of phase in Bipole mode - I can absolutely recommend them. One of the best surround speakers ever made.


----------



## AllenA07

Looking for some advice on upgrading my surrounds. My room acoustics suck, but eventually I will move and hopefully move towards a dedicated theater. I'm looking for surrounds where I can play between bi/dipole. Not sure which will sound best so I do want the ability to switch the phase control. I've been looking at Atlantic technology and Polk speakers, both of which are switchable. I would consider the SVS speakers, but I will be a happier person if I could keep this project under $1000 ($800 would be best, I've also got some EMP bookshelf speakers in mind for my surround backs). For everybody's information, I've got a 7. 1 system right, my fronts are EMP towers and the EMP wife center. Any advice is appreciated.


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AllenA07*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24144180
> 
> 
> Looking for some advice on upgrading my surrounds. My room acoustics suck, but eventually I will move and hopefully move towards a dedicated theater. I'm looking for surrounds where I can play between bi/dipole. Not sure which will sound best so I do want the ability to switch the phase control. I've been looking at Atlantic technology and Polk speakers, both of which are switchable. I would consider the SVS speakers, but I will be a happier person if I could keep this project under $1000 ($800 would be best, I've also got some EMP bookshelf speakers in mind for my surround backs). For everybody's information, I've got a 7. 1 system right, my fronts are EMP towers and the EMP wife center. Any advice is appreciated.



Only advice I would like to add, is knowing placement does make a difference between bi or di-pole. It isn’t just about making a change with a switch.


Bi-pole are much easier to place, while di-pole are much harder then all three(direct/di/bi) for placement. I find that once you have the di-pole placed correctly they are the most spacious of the three and give a great soundfield while sitting in the null.


Any of the three is about taste.


Since you are buying now, and also plan to move soon, I believe getting a selectable is a great idea.


----------



## AllenA07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HAMP568*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24147415
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are buying now, and also plan to move soon, I believe getting a selectable is a great idea.



That's the exact reason I want something where I can change the phase. Ultimately I would like to go to a dipole setup, but I'm not sure my current room will allow it. I figure if I buy a pair that I can switch, I can grow into the speakers and switch over into dipole mode when the situation allows it.


----------



## bear123


I am considering bipole surround speakers.  I currently do not have any surround speakers, and thought this might be a good option as I have some seating positions that will be very close to one of the surrounds.

 

What is the advantage/difference between bipole and dipole, and anyone have some good recommendations in the 2-$300 range?


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bear123*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24218512
> 
> 
> I am considering bipole surround speakers.  I currently do not have any surround speakers, and thought this might be a good option as I have some seating positions that will be very close to one of the surrounds.
> 
> 
> What is the advantage/difference between bipole and dipole, and anyone have some good recommendations in the 2-$300 range?



I’m not sure how big of a list you will get with the difference between bi/di-pole, but I look at the advantages and disadvantages of having mono/di/bi-pole speakers? Having bi-pole is closer to monopole speakers, as di-pole has a bigger difference from monopole, by having a far more spacious sound.

I’m sure you have read some things about having bi/di-pole to be interested in them, and I really don’t want to repeat what you have already read.


Me personally I always recommend either bi/di-pole, because I love the audio effect they produce.


Reading your post, you mentioned you only have your front stage. Do you mind telling us which speakers you have and what is driving them? Also, can you give the dimension and shape of your room, because placement does make for a better experience between bi/di-pole. It is much easier to place bi-pole, while getting the best effect from di-pole is much harder to do.


I’m not sure about the price range you have, but I will look on Audiogon after I post to see if I can come across some nice used ones.


----------



## bear123


Front stage is HSU HB1 MK2 for left and right, HC1 center driven by Yamaha RXV-375, PB12-NSD sub, room is 17x16.5, u shaped sectional is 2 feet from the right wall where one of the side surrounds will mount.  The left side of the sectional is about 5 ft from the left wall.  Both surrounds will mount directly to either side of the sectional.

 

As far as budget I don't really have one yet, but I think maybe $200/pair would be reasonable.


----------



## ezrangel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HAMP568*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24108043
> 
> 
> Hey CineManno, I have to tell you upfront that I am bias and a huge fanboy of Monitor Audio and simply just love the RXFX’s. That is because of the absolute love I have for the sound from MA and the effect I receive from the surrounds. Honestly I am hard to please and MA went above and beyond my expectation especially at their price point.
> 
> 
> I believe you mentioned you had an issue with the RS from awhile ago and hope that the new Silver line would be better. Well there was a nice leap in audio quality from the RS to the RX and I have been told that leap is even greater from the RX to the new Silver.
> 
> 
> You room is a nice size and I believe the MA FX’s will be fine. My room is 13x34 feet, but I am using 13x17 with my sides surrounds place at about 9ft facing the front MLP.
> 
> My room: 4x10 meter
> 
> Using: 4x5 meters
> 
> Side surrounds at about: 2.7 meters
> 
> Rear surrounds at : 5 meters
> 
> 
> I have mine set to di-pole mode, and I had every intention with using them that way, not only from a list of advantages/dis-advantages from bi-pole or even monopole speakers, it is also suggested by MA to have them in di-pole if all four are FX’s.
> 
> 
> I did try with bi-pole recently just to see if I noticed a difference between 5.1 di or bi, 7.1 di or bi, and maybe I am truly use to the di-pole selections, but I find it far more spacious than any other settings. They do a fantastic job of hiding themselves and not being distracting when watching a movie. Sitting in the null and not having them blaster in your ears and not really being able to point them out are a few more reasons I love’em.



Hamp, thanks for your opinion!

I have a pair of RXFX set as Bipolar in my rear wall. They are absolutely great for what they cost! I will be moving to a new apartment soon and I will have a dedicated room, smaller than yours (3 x 5,4 meters).

I will move the RXFX to the side walls and set them to Dipolar. Now, for the surround back speakers... What would you recommend: another pair of RXFX in Dipolar or a pair of RX-1 (direct)? If you (and the others) recommend the RXFX for the back, is the difference to the RX-1 really big? I am asking because these speakers are getting hard to find here in Brazil since the new Silver line has come out and I can get the RX-1 cheaper than the RXFX. In fact, I already have a pair of the RX-1 that I was planning to use as front heights or just set them in the living room.

I appreciate any input on that.

Thanks.


Edit: One more thing, did you hear the new Silver FX? Is there a real leap between the Silver and the RXFX? Thanks.


----------



## HAMP568




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ezrangel*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24262579
> 
> 
> Hamp, thanks for your opinion!
> 
> I have a pair of RXFX set as Bipolar in my rear wall. They are absolutely great for what they cost! I will be moving to a new apartment soon and I will have a dedicated room, smaller than yours (3 x 5,4 meters).
> 
> I will move the RXFX to the side walls and set them to Dipolar. Now, for the surround back speakers... What would you recommend: another pair of RXFX in Dipolar or a pair of RX-1 (direct)? If you (and the others) recommend the RXFX for the back, is the difference to the RX-1 really big? I am asking because these speakers are getting hard to find here in Brazil since the new Silver line has come out and I can get the RX-1 cheaper than the RXFX. In fact, I already have a pair of the RX-1 that I was planning to use as front heights or just set them in the living room.
> 
> I appreciate any input on that.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> Edit: One more thing, did you hear the new Silver FX? Is there a real leap between the Silver and the RXFX? Thanks.



I answered this one in the Monitor Audio thread.


----------



## Acousticality




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GIEGAR*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/570#post_23934492
> 
> 
> I think E_H is referring to dual channel surrounds. Two that I'm aware of are:
> 
> SVS Ultra Surround (link)
> PSB Imagine S Surround (link)
> 
> 
> 
> Both are switchable between dipole, bipole and dual channel mode.
> 
> Yes, Dave I believe that's the case. As I understand it, the processor will still produce discrete signals for each available channel and each channel will therefore require amplification.



I have some Polk Audio FXi A6's that also have this feature, there is a selectable knob on the rear surrounds that allows you to select bipole or dipole.


----------



## wattnut

has anyone had any experience with the klipsch rs 62 surrounds? I like the specs however there are no stores in my area to demo them and they would have to be mail ordered. any feedback would be appreciated.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

I've heard lower model Klipsch, and they're very good.


The 62's look excellent (love the 6.5" woofers), but I'd personally only get them if I had Klipsch front speakers and needed to match that horn sound.


Also, as the horns tend to be more directional and there's no Dipole mode with these, they're not as diffuse as I'd like.

I'd only use them as rears or rears / sides in a 7.1 setup, myself.


----------



## wattnut




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Electric_Haggis*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24543394
> 
> 
> I've heard lower model Klipsch, and they're very good.
> 
> 
> The 62's look excellent (love the 6.5" woofers), but I'd personally only get them if I had Klipsch front speakers and needed to match that horn sound.
> 
> 
> Also, as the horns tend to be more directional and there's no Dipole mode with these, they're not as diffuse as I'd like.
> 
> I'd only use them as rears or rears / sides in a 7.1 setup, myself.


thank you for the reply I failed to mention that I have klipsch reference series fronts and center speakers and also like to listen to music in 7 channel stereo as well using the speakers for ht


----------



## Electric_Haggis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattnut*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24543720
> 
> 
> thank you for the reply I failed to mention that I have klipsch reference series fronts and center speakers and also like to listen to music in 7 channel stereo as well using the speakers for ht



Then you should be right to buy 2 pairs of 62's... and be very happy with them


Post pics when you can, and all the best!


----------



## Electric_Haggis

As always, be sure to run all movies in Dolby ProLogic IIx.


This will brilliantly convert 5.1 (and everything else) to 7.1.


----------



## Cinemafreak1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Paul Scarpelli*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one#post_11019926
> 
> 
> I could have predicted where this thread would go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've chimed in on the dipole debate before, and here's my spiel again. If your room is smallish and/or acoustically dead and/or you have multiple seats, dipoles _tend_ to work better, with an even but compromised listening window. If you have a larger and/or more live room with less seating, or seating away from the surround speakers, direct-radiating surrounds can be better. 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All rooms are different, and no generalization can be made about surround speakers without considering the room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now back to the bickering. I am enjoying it.


 



Still funny on 4/2/2014


----------



## Cinemafreak1

I have Paradigm Mini Monitor v6 for Left and Right and a CC390 v6 center. What would be my best option on-wall or in ceiling options for sides and rears. Sides can be either, rears have to be in ceiling as the back wall is too far away.


Thanks


Michael


----------



## ex-labdriver

I recently upgraded from the QS4V3s to the new QS8V4s. I don't hear a lot of difference but the V4 tweeters look really cool in person.


Great design, especially for difficult rooms where placement is at best a compromise - like myHT...


TAM


----------



## Cinemafreak1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ex-labdriver*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24561287
> 
> 
> I recently upgraded from the QS4V3s to the new QS8V4s. I don't hear a lot of difference but the V4 tweeters look really cool in person.
> 
> 
> Great design, especially for difficult rooms where placement is at best a compromise - like myHT...
> 
> 
> TAM


Finally figured out those were Axioms, lol.  The seem to be an option, but from the pictures I am not sure I like the look.  I have Paradigms that are black with wood grain and match great with my new SVS PB2000.  So not sure these are the answer but in the mix for now and price is what I am looking for.


----------



## ex-labdriver

Sorry, I thought that the brand would be apparent due to the poll, ha!


Besides being a great audio design, the supplied Powered T-Mount with the QS series is more than slick for wall mounting.


The new tweeter looks much better than in pics - quite hi-tech looking actually. That perforated aluminum face plate improves heat dissipation for higher power handling & the new guide behind it smooths off-axis dispersion at higher freqs...


TAM


----------



## Goat1

I have energy v-s surrounds, they are dipole/bipole. I have them in dipole, sounds awesome!


----------



## audio0947




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattnut*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24542321
> 
> 
> has anyone had any experience with the klipsch rs 62 surrounds? I like the specs however there are no stores in my area to demo them and they would have to be mail ordered. any feedback would be appreciated.



If you are still looking, I have a brand new sealed pair of Klipsch KS525THX that I would part with. PM me


----------



## Benjitb


(i've posted this in the MA thread but Hopefully someone here will know about the Monitor Audio Bronze *BRFX/BXFX Rears*)

 

Hello everyone, I have just completed my 5.0 setup.

For those on mobiles i have: Yamaha RX V-*475*, Monitor Audio Bronze *BX2 Speakers*, Monitor Audio Bronze *BX Centre* & Monitor Audio Bronze *BRFX Rears.*

I got the BRFX rears used for £80, they are Bipole/Dipole (previous model to the matching BXFX rears.)

I have a couple of Q's

 

1. The Nominal Impedance is 6 on *my* BRFX http://www.monitoraudio.co.uk/support/past-products/bronze-br/brfx/#/specification but 8 on the matching BXFX's http://www.monitoraudio.co.uk/products/bronze-bx/bxfx/#/specification . I don't understand the Nominal Impedance differerence.

 

2. Drive Unit Complement (again, no idea) is different.

 

3. Is there anything i need to do/adjust on my AVR before using them because of this.

 

When i've got them on the walls i'll get some positioning help too.


----------



## danielrg

I'm not sure how much I should spend on surrounds.


I have a longer narrow room. I'm pretty much set on getting switchable di/bipole for the sides, and bookshelves for the rear.


On the front I'll have B&W 600 series, or Monitor Audio Bronze, or KEF, or something at that same price range. If I get MA I'll get matching surrounds I think - if I can afford it.


I'm looking at Home Theater Direct Level II di/bipole and bookshelves (


----------



## Benjitb


Hi danielrg,

 

I have recently bought the MA BX Bronze Centre and BX2's, but decided to get cheaper rears in the form of the previous model the BRFX for a 5.0 setup. I got the rears used but have not decided the optimal positioning yet. Here in the UK BXFX new cost £250 (same as BX2 fronts) thats why I didn't get them. But your deal on ebay sounds like a good one. I'd choose the fronts and centre baed on what sounds best before thinking about the bi/dipole surrounds, but if you have any questions in regards to MA you'll be answered much faster at our forum over here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/679047/monitor-audio-owners-thread/10050 .

 

I can't answer your other questions because i don't have good knowledge of the other series you're looking at. I am happy with my MA though. Good luck to you


----------



## Benjitb


Hi everyone, I'm after some Rear placement advice for my BRFX's. (Yamaha 475 - MA BX Centre - MA BX2's - MA BRFX's.)

 

The room is approx 13 feet by 11 feet (10 feet in height). Brick walls, wooden floorboards with rugs.

MA BX2's on stands either side of TV. Centre below.

My seating position will be slightly left of centre (or centre if i shuffle the chair over!) about 7 feet from TV/LCR speakers.

 

Please see my diagram/vid below:

 

1. What position would you advise i put the BRFX's in ( Red/ Yellow / Green ) ?

2. What height should they be ? (i've heard ear height)

3. For your chosen position would you put them in Bipole or Dipole.


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *danielrg*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600#post_24664753
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how much I should spend on surrounds.
> 
> 
> I have a longer narrow room. I'm pretty much set on getting switchable di/bipole for the sides, and bookshelves for the rear.
> 
> 
> On the front I'll have B&W 600 series, or Monitor Audio Bronze, or KEF, or something at that same price range. If I get MA I'll get matching surrounds I think - if I can afford it.
> 
> 
> I'm looking at Home Theater Direct Level II di/bipole and bookshelves (


----------



## danielrg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Benjitb*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600_60#post_24665604
> 
> 
> Hi everyone, I'm after some Rear placement advice for my BRFX's. (Yamaha 475 - MA BX Centre - MA BX2's - MA BRFX's.)
> 
> 
> The room is approx 13 feet by 11 feet (10 feet in height). Brick walls, wooden floorboards with rugs.
> 
> MA BX2's on stands either side of TV. Centre below.
> 
> My seating position will be slightly left of centre (or centre if i shuffle the chair over!) about 7 feet from TV/LCR speakers.
> 
> 
> Please see my diagram/vid below:
> 
> 
> 1. What position would you advise i put the BRFX's in ( Red/ Yellow / Green ) ?
> 
> 2. What height should they be ? (i've heard ear height)
> 
> 3. For your chosen position would you put them in Bipole or Dipole.



Well, I'm no expert, but since you posted a reply to me I think I owe you the favor!


I think yellow is bad, due to the nook. I imagine it would muddy the sound to be in the nook.


From what I've read on here, if you pick red you'll want dipole mode. There are others I've seen on here that picked the green location, particularly if they had 5.1. But in that case you aren't in the null anymore so go bipole?


As for ear height, I've read 1-2 ft above seating position and at seating position both. Seems preference comes into it a lot. For those with the speakers so close, I imagine for the red position you'd want them above you so the red isn't right next to your ear. For green maybe one ft higher so the chair is less in the way?


I imagine you'll try them both...


Good luck!


I figure if I give bad advice, then someone will come by to correct me - then I still did you a favor by stirring the hornet's nest!


----------



## danielrg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan Hitchman*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/600_60#post_24668820
> 
> 
> Get surrounds from the same make and model line to timbre match. When surround formats migrate to object based techniques you will be glad you did. The next thing: get monopoles if you possibly can because positional cues are in the mix and you don't want the surround speaker's diffuse dispersal pattern messing that up. That may mean bookshelves depending on the brand and how many types of speakers are in their lineup.



Yeah, I'd like to do that, but I'm considering making a trade-off here. I want to get pretty nice fronts, and I can't afford in my budget to get matching quality sides and rears. I opted instead to sacrifice on the surround speakers to get nicer ones up front. That means pretty much categorically that I can't afford the same make and model line. Is that a good tradeoff?


My dad's theater room has monos on the side and rear and I like them. I wanted to try something different but perhaps I'll go back to monopoles either way. That's why I shy away from the ebay deals (even though the MA BXFX are tempting) - I want something I can return if I want to try something else.


Later I might have money to upgrade the rears to match the fronts, that's another reason I was thinking of sticking to a budget of $500 for the rears.


----------



## Benjitb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *danielrg*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/630#post_24672904
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm no expert, but since you posted a reply to me I think I owe you the favor!
> 
> 
> I think yellow is bad, due to the nook. I imagine it would muddy the sound to be in the nook.
> 
> 
> From what I've read on here, if you pick red you'll want dipole mode. There are others I've seen on here that picked the green location, particularly if they had 5.1. But in that case you aren't in the null anymore so go bipole?
> 
> 
> As for ear height, I've read 1-2 ft above seating position and at seating position both. Seems preference comes into it a lot. For those with the speakers so close, I imagine for the red position you'd want them above you so the red isn't right next to your ear. For green maybe one ft higher so the chair is less in the way?
> 
> 
> I imagine you'll try them both...
> 
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> 
> I figure if I give bad advice, then someone will come by to correct me - then I still did you a favor by stirring the hornet's nest!


Hi Dan, thanks for the reply, everyone else on this thread seems to have given up the ghost!

 

Red seems far too close, but someone else has said something similar to you and yellow is the typical 5.1 layout. I think i may just have to trial and error positions prior to drilling and see what works best.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Thanks Dan.

Sorry to go AWOL...Sometimes there are just nowhere near enough hours in the day!!


----------



## wyattroa

Any advice from fellow members. In the process of changing out my orb audio system. I have jbl l820 for the front and am either going to put another l820 for a center or lc2 for center. My side surround are my big question. They are ceiling mounted, not ideal, but i have kids and my walls do not give me the options to mount them there. The speakers are 6ft8in from listening position on both sides and 7ft high a foot off the ceiling. They can be adjusted to 6ft off the ceiling. My couch is against the back wall, the speakers will be directly to the sides of us hanging down.


My initial thought was to use two jbl l820 angled down for 5 matching speakers all the way around. But I am wondering if soemthing else would be better for my situation. I notice the omd5 and axiom qs8 have good votes here and I have to say I am intrigued.


----------



## AllenA07

I'm thinking I'm going to add 4 EMP bipole speakers later this year. Anybody have any experience with the EMP surrounds?


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AllenA07*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/630#post_24727327
> 
> 
> I'm thinking I'm going to add 4 EMP bipole speakers later this year. Anybody have any experience with the EMP surrounds?



What are your front speakers?


If you truly want to be ahead of the game, you'll want your surrounds to be 100% timbre matched to your fronts. If they're EMP surrounds, you'll want the front speakers from the same EMP model family in order to keep the sonic attributes the same as sound effects and dialog travel around the room. That's because surround formats are moving towards a 3D audio/object based approach. Bipoles will probably better than dipoles because they're less diffuse, though every object based home system or rendering studio I've run across have timbre matched monopoles throughout.


----------



## AllenA07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan Hitchman*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/630#post_24727353
> 
> 
> What are your front speakers?
> 
> 
> If you truly want to be ahead of the game, you'll want your surrounds to be 100% timbre matched to your fronts. If they're EMP surrounds, you'll want the front speakers from the same EMP model family in order to keep the sonic attributes the same as sound effects and dialog travel around the room. That's because surround formats are moving towards a 3D audio/object based approach. Bipoles will probably better than dipoles because they're less diffuse, though every object based home system or rendering studio I've run across have timbre matched monopoles throughout.



I am running EMP's in the front. I would be staying in the same speaker family so I would be completely Timbre matched.


----------



## Dan Hitchman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AllenA07*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/630#post_24727363
> 
> 
> I am running EMP's in the front. I would be staying in the same speaker family so I would be completely Timbre matched.



Do you have the E55Ti's up front?


If you have the WAF squared away for your theater space (or you're single), then it might be better to utilize wall mounted monopole E5Bi bookshelves on adjustable brackets for at least the side, back, and front wide surrounds. They have a screw in mounting point on the back unlike some bookshelves. With adjustable mounts, you can then aim the surrounds to get the optimal sound spread in the room. They become more like surrounds seen in a commercial theater venue where the left surround is aimed towards the farthest seated listener's ear level on the right side of the room and vice versa. The rear surrounds are aimed towards the seated listener's ear level in the farthest front of the seating area.


If you have multiple rows of seating, you should have a pair of side wall surrounds for each row. In object based surround, each speaker would be individually addressed by the soundtrack.


No one is quite sure what the optimal position for the top/ceiling height surrounds will be. That would determine the best surround models to use in those positions.


----------



## CherylJosie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudman*  /t/874378/surround-speakers-bipole-dipole-quadpole-omnipole-which-one/30#post_11028856
> 
> 
> This is not the audio gospel according to Rudman, but simply my personal subjective experience in trying to grapple with this issue...
> 
> 
> ...To summarise:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) IF surrounds are within 7 feet, then dipoles and bipoles are preferred.
> 
> 
> 2) IF more than 7 feet away, then monopoles are at least equal.
> 
> 
> 3) Any full range surround that moves much air such as a floorstander is preferred (even if you have to mount them on the roof or up on the sidewall! - just how serious are you about your sound?)
> 
> 
> 4) Multiple side monopole speakers offer by far the most improvement. More than moving from monopole to dipole or bipole.
> 
> towers in the side/rear
> 
> 5) Positioning side (not rear) monopoles firing over the head of listeners were considered inferior.
> 
> 
> 6) Dipoles have a narrow edge over bipoles. This appears to be material dependent. If explosions, rain etc. If single voice, then the other way round.
> 
> 
> 7) Having to switch speaker mode depending on material - not for me.
> 
> 
> 8) Using different speaker brands for main LCR > disliked.
> 
> 
> 9) Using different speaker brands for surrounds > hardly noticed, unless mixing point source and electrostatics...




I found these points to be true, but I will add some of my own:


1) I found that mixing side surrounds and rear surrounds that are dipole for one set and monopole for the other set leads to a scenario where the direct-radiating monopoles drown out the more diffuse dipoles. It is not that the monopoles are louder, but their more coherent presentation is more noticeable and distracts from the diffuse sound of the dipoles next to them. If you are planning on using dipoles, you should probably use them for all the side/rear surround speakers, regardless of how far from the listener the back or side wall is. I also found that (for discrete multichannel i.e. 7.1 at least) using mismatched speaker brand/technology in the surround channels is even worse than mixing monopole and dipole. This is a warning to anyone contemplating an HTIB set where the rear surrounds are cheap full-range drivers that do not match the rest of the channels. The sound may not be blatantly inferior but it is obviously inferior nonetheless, since I noticed it.


2) I found that, even though the diffuse sound of dipoles across the side/rear surround stage creates a nice, spacious, larger-than-the-room effect (especially in a smallish room like mine), I prefer monopoles even in my smallish room. The sound of a jet flying overhead toward the rear (or front) of the room seems to fizz out and widen when it is in the rear. This makes locating the side/rear surround 'image' in your mind much more difficult and lends an aura of unreality to the sound. Music sounds bad through dipoles, unless it is a surround recording of a live performance with the performers in front and audience-only ambience in the side/rear. Studio 5.1 music sounds horrible through dipoles compared to hearing it through 4 matched towers w/center. My dipoles are in a flat/square-backed box that hangs on screws in the wall. They have one front-firing sealed woofer that EQ's down to 40Hz in auto-cal, and two angular-firing tweeters wired out of phase with each other. I found the effect of the out-of-phase tweeters pointing in different directions to be plenty of decorrelation, even though my old/damaged hearing cuts out at 11KHz. I suppose dipoles could be distracting for the younger crowd that can still hear tweeters.


3) The size of the room affects the size of the speaker. No one listens to headphones with 12" woofers in them. Smaller rooms require smaller speakers. Large multi-driver towers with side-firing woofers sound terrible close up in a small room. The drivers are all pointing in different directions and need space for their 'dispersion cones' to disperse and overlap each other so that they all are heard at the same sound pressure level across the full spectrum. Large, bass-heavy woofers and cabinets overpower a small room with too much boundary reinforcement and cause muddy bass even at a distance. Besides, who wants to squeeze through a room crammed with speakers? There is no hard/fast rule on speaker size. It is all relative. Using dipoles to decorrelate the sound and make it seem farther away is one solution. Putting small speakers on/in the wall is another.


4) The more channels you have, the less dipoles contribute. All the synthesized channels (no discrete data in the stream for a given speaker) already include decorrelation and ambiance effects in the surround algorithm that derives the synthesized channels. It even decorrelates the channels with discrete information, since it 'steals' information from them and 'steers' it to the synthesized channels as well as blending the space between discrete channels with user-adjustable panorama. Besides, recording engineers also add ambiance and echo to their mixes to enrich the surround experience. Even without the use of 'sound mode' algorithmic effects or 'recording-engineer-induced' ambiance effects on channels that reproduce discrete information from the bitstream (as opposed to synthesized channels that are created from other 'discrete' channels), adding more and more channels creates more and more point sources in the room, creating a more immersive experience regardless of any deliberate enhancement to the ambient content of any single channel. Now that I have an 11.1 system with dual subwoofers, I feel no need to consider dipoles any longer. The decorrelation and ambiance steering capability of the advanced 11-channel surround algorithms is adequate to de-locate the side/rear surround channels just as it does the same for the front wide/high channels. Dipoles need to be removed from 11-channel surround specifications because they muddy the sound and Audyssey even warns against using them for their own extracted wide/high channels. I suspect that multiple monopoles on a long side wall is a better approach for 11-channel systems, if the room allows. The point is that as the technology advances, the job that dipoles used to do is now better handled in the DSP. With the move to object-oriented sound and with the advanced sound processing capability and multichannel capability of commercial sound studio effects, dipoles are no longer relevant. They might be part of a quaint retro 5.1 or 7.1 solution with old VCR source material in Pro Logic, but for a modern home theater running 11 or more channels with discrete sources on most of them and advanced DSP extracting ambiance for the rest of them, dipoles are a step backward. If your speakers are too close, buy smaller speakers and hang them on/in the walls. Forget dipoles for a modern installation unless you really object to the sound of a surround speaker in your ear or behind your head.


5) One factor no one seems to talk about is the horrendous sound of the average center channel. They all sound bad compared to the front towers unless we are talking major ordinance here for $$$. I addressed this issue by mounting two additional towers on a shelf on their sides for a center channel speaker, with the MTM arrays next to each other and the side-firing woofers pointed up. The sound of my center channel then approximated the sound of my front towers and the front image cleaned up considerably, even though the center channel is so high (above my TV) that it masks the front high channels. Unfortunately, now that I am moving to front projection, not only do I not have room to mount these tower speakers horizontally over my TV, I also have to horizontally-mount my front left/right towers BELOW my screen to get them out of the way of the picture. This means stacking center and left/right horizontally-mounted speakers on top of each other below the screen, or reverting to the lousy original center channel and placing it between the two horizontal front left/right straddling the subwoofers and equipment/tv stand. I have no room to hang an acoustically transparent screen in front of the speakers. The image would be in my lap and anyway I am so short on budget that I prefer to hang a cheap fixed screen on the wall. Hopefully, the contribution of the front high/wide speakers, and the 'screen-centered dialog' panaorama control, and the horizontally-mounted front towers in the same orientation and height as the MTM center channel, and the dual subwoofers with 80Hz THX crossover, will smooth out the front soundstage enough that trucks rolling by do seem to go in a straight line, and dialog no longer sounds like it is emanating from a barrel, due to a lousy, boomy, two-way center channel.


6) I also had to come up with a custom stand solution for my side surround dipoles. I tied them to floor stands with bungees. They were so thin they would just topple off the stands. The side walls were located in the wrong place. One was too far away and the only place to mount the dipole was on a stand. It was also adjacent to a walkway so it had to be quite close to the sofa. To match its distance, the other dipole also had to be on a close stand rather than on the wall slightly further away. They were both too close and at ear height instead of above the head as specified, and the rear dipoles were too close also, directly behind and above my head, so I had many compromises going on all at once. The woofers cut out at 80Hz when stand-mounted instead of at 40Hz. The wall behind them really is a critical part of the cabinet design. Now that I have 11.1 with dual subwoofer and front projection, space in front is at a premium so I am going back to a conventional 2-way MTM center channel, and I find myself with two extra pair of towers so I am going with all 11 monopoles and putting the dipoles in storage.


I suppose I tried just about everything in terms of speaker choice and placement (that fit my low budget anyway). So I guess the final point here is that there are no hard and fast rules in this game. It is all about compromises between imperfect solutions that each have their strengths and weaknesses. It is all about prioritizing to your need/desire and analyzing/trying your alternatives to make an informed choice, not just a matter of taste or preference but truly an engineering exercise in optimization the solution to the problem. Since cost is a major consideration for most people, I guess I would say that dipoles can be a great enhancement for people in smallish rooms with a desire to emulate a larger space, at a cost of smeared rear sound stage imaging. Otherwise, use monopoles, multiple monopoles, or even bipoles, depending on how your solution is constrained by space, source material, and budget. Also, the more channels you are using, the more speakers you have in the room, with enhanced sound modes that provide all the synthesized decorrelation and ambiance you need. With more speakers, their individual shortcomings of each speaker are less critical to the imaging too, because they all work together to create an image in space.


I took advantage of this fact when I chose used Sapphire speakers (at $100 each, average price) and used SVS dual subwoofers. Even though Sapphires are only 'consumer' quality, they have fairly linear frequency response and lack the bass-heavy twinkly-treble over-emphasized (i.e. no midrange) presentation of most big-box speakers. (Note, when you listen to a speaker at low volume without any loudness compensation, it should sound midrangy because of the way hearing works. Only at reference will you hear balanced frequency response without any loudness compensation algorithm. Speakers that sound naturally deep bassy and twinkly trebly at low volume are actually distorting the sound.) At 80Hz THX crossover and with SVS subwoofers that really hit 20Hz without attenuation or boom, I can afford to use tower/bookshelf speakers that lack solid deep bass and take advantage of the (relative) linearity of the Sapphire tower sound. The front wide/high sound fine with bookshelf speakers since they are just extracted ambiance anyway and specified wall/ceiling mount. For an 11.1 system I had no other reasonable choice but to find a source of cheap used speakers for approximately $100 each, and just live with the lack of cabinet bracing and (relatively) cheap drivers, relying on the crossover design of the speakers and receiver auto EQ to minimize any nasty resonances or dips. I could easily have spent $2200 for inferior-sounding new speakers when I spent only $1100 and got better sound without going into even more debt. Imagine if I paid $1000 per speaker. I could get a decent car for that money. The one speaker I did not compromise on was the subwoofer, because a cheap subwoofer is an oxymoron. I did manage to get them at half price used though.


Hard choices. That is what choosing speakers is all about.


I hope that my experiments help someone. I spent a lot of time and money (relative to my circumstances anyway) playing around with equipment to reach these conclusions.


Forget about following in my footsteps and buying lots of used Sapphires for your own budget 11.1 system. I bought them already. The inventory seems to be almost exhausted now. Try using Infinity Primus. Good budget speaker, new it only costs twice what I paid for used Sapphires and the line includes everything except the dipoles that you do not need anyway.


----------



## Benjitb


I've been using my 5 channel setup for a while now and have found the best sound for the setup. Rears opposite the fronts (1 1/2 feet above), with the rears set to Dipole (out of phase). This makes the sound significantly better than in bipole mode and creates an all encommpassing feel. In Bipole with its like sitting in a 5 channel setup, but in Dipole its hard to work out where it all starts and begins such is the immerssion.

 

Happy Listening.


----------



## wyattroa

Alright quick question. Currently I have a 5.1 setup. My surrounds are 7 feet outside the listening area and 90 degrees to the side. They are 3ft above ear level and shooting straight across to eachother.


Now I see the likes of JBL pro speaker and JTR who sell slanted surround speakers like the slanted 8. I have the ability with my hanging ceiling mount and my JBL L820 to slant them if I want to, but am not sure if this is ideal or not. What is the difference? I thought they were supposed to be aimed directly at eachother.

Robert


----------



## fatbottom

Dan Hitchman said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by *danielrg*
> 
> Get surrounds from the same make and model line to timbre match. When surround formats migrate to object based techniques you will be glad you did. The next thing: get monopoles if you possibly can because positional cues are in the mix and you don't want the surround speaker's diffuse dispersal pattern messing that up. That may mean bookshelves depending on the brand and how many types of speakers are in their lineup.



Not always possible. Some brands don't release matching surround speakers, if they do they're either floorstanders, standmounts- so not ideal.

My side & surrounds aren't matching, nor do they match the front three. Can't be helped.

Also "get monopoles" isn't always ideal either, I had monopoles for surrounds. Didn't like them. Monopoles are too distracting, non direct speakers work better in my room, with the distance I'm away from them. Perhaps if you had 6'+ space, that would help. However in most homes the side/surrounds are close to the listening position.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

fatbottom said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by *danielrg*
> 
> Get surrounds from the same make and model line to timbre match. When surround formats migrate to object based techniques you will be glad you did. The next thing: get monopoles if you possibly can because positional cues are in the mix and you don't want the surround speaker's diffuse dispersal pattern messing that up. That may mean bookshelves depending on the brand and how many types of speakers are in their lineup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not always possible. Some brands don't release matching surround speakers, if they do they're either floorstanders, standmounts- so not ideal.
> 
> My side & surrounds aren't matching, nor do they match the front three. Can't be helped.
> 
> Also "get monopoles" isn't always ideal either, I had monopoles for surrounds. Didn't like them. Monopoles are too distracting, non direct speakers work better in my room, with the distance I'm away from them. Perhaps if you had 6'+ space, that would help. However in most homes the side/surrounds are close to the listening position.
Click to expand...

Monopoles work best with object based surround, which is coming. Audio x/y/z axis rendering doesn't quite work like traditional channel-only based surround. Speaker diffusion can mess up the 3D sound cues embedded in these advanced audio tracks.


----------



## fatbottom

again what works on paper doesn't work in-situ. I would not change di/bi to monopoles, just because Dolby/DTS labs say so. Perhaps dipole could be replaced with bipole, if you don't like the reversed phase effect.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

fatbottom said:


> again what works on paper doesn't work in-situ. I would not change di/bi to monopoles, just because Dolby/DTS labs say so. Perhaps dipole could be replaced with bipole, if you don't like the reversed phase effect.


It's not what's on paper, it's what the particular 3D mixing technology requires in actual use. Diffuse speakers muddy up the sound field created by multi-positional object rendering. 

All press demos conducted thus far for at-home Dolby Atmos and DTS-UHD, and all mixing facilities designed for object surround use timbre matched monopoles... and more of them. The more speakers you have, the better the 3D effect. 

You can definitely use whatever traditional speakers are a part of a current setup, but the subsequent audio experience will not be optimal. 

If someone is contemplating building a surround speaker system then object audio and its more stringent requirements should be part of any buying decision.


----------



## fatbottom

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's not what's on paper, it's what the particular 3D mixing technology requires in actual use. Diffuse speakers muddy up the sound field created by multi-positional object rendering.
> 
> All press demos conducted thus far for at-home Dolby Atmos and DTS-UHD, and all mixing facilities designed for object surround use timbre matched monopoles... and more of them. The more speakers you have, the better the 3D effect.
> 
> You can definitely use whatever traditional speakers are a part of a current setup, but the subsequent audio experience will not be optimal.
> 
> If someone is contemplating building a surround speaker system then object audio and its more stringent requirements should be part of any buying decision.


Have you tried bipole, dipole or tripole speakers?

Are you close to the side/rear walls?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

fatbottom said:


> Have you tried bipole, dipole or tripole speakers?
> 
> Are you close to the side/rear walls?


I've sat in home theaters with all three. As of right now, my system is not set up. My living situation has had to change due to the economy. 

Not a fan of dipoles... but remember, dipoles were designed when surround for the home consisted of Dolby Stereo with a matrixed mono surround ambiance. It needed a fake stereo effect to give it some sort of dimensionality due to the poor separation of front and rear sounds and its monaural aspect. 

3D audio, again, is a whole new animal. In order to really get anything beneficial out of it beyond the normal channel based systems, you need more speakers (side wall, rear wall, and ceiling, especially) rather than a pair of out of phase dipoles. 3D audio, at its best, has far more positional cues for height, width, and depth than current linear channel based systems. There is also a great deal more opportunity to shift dialog into other speakers around the room, so tonal matching is a must. Sound engineers tried this with _Gravity'_s Atmos mix... and it really opened up the soundfield for greater dimensionality. _Gravity_ also won two technical Oscars for sound... after experiencing it in Atmos I can understand why.

You could not pull off a cohesive object track like that with mismatched speakers for timbre and diffusion.


----------



## fatbottom

I'm fully aware diffused speakers were used in Pro-Logic era . In fact I had monopoles before I bought the diffused speakers, had Dolby Digital and didn't like the monopole surround effect. It's just too distracting. This is correctly calibrated not with rears +10dB.

Also as for matching, not always possible. Not all brands have matching center and surround speakers, or in di/tri/bi pole configuration.

Personally it depends on the room, distance to speakers, and personal preference. Also considering most people's home theatre is the living room, there is already a compromise anyway, and surround speakers fit into the decor better than four floorstanders lol

You can't buy matching side and surround speakers for my speakers either (wall mount monopole, dipole, bipole, or tripole)

Or especially now the speakers are end of line.

Plus surround speakers are usually thinner, and have built in wall mount brackets, with monopoles they're twice as deep, and in all three homes I've seen a home theatre, bookshelf/standmount monopoles would get in the way, even if they're on speaker stands or wall stands.


----------



## caloyzki

Hi guys I have 2 spare center speakers which is the energy RC LCR. And I am planning them for my surrounds. Is it okay if I can place them horizontally for my surrounds or back surrounds? Thanks


----------



## Dan Hitchman

caloyzki said:


> Hi guys I have 2 spare center speakers which is the energy RC LCR. And I am planning them for my surrounds. Is it okay if I can place them horizontally for my surrounds or back surrounds? Thanks


Any particular reason why you need to place them _horizontally_ as surrounds? They are L/C/R... made for all three positions as timbre matched monitors, so most likely designed for _vertical_ placement for optimal sound dispersal. 

And what are your other speakers?


----------



## caloyzki

Dan Hitchman said:


> Any particular reason why you need to place them _horizontally_ as surrounds? They are L/C/R... made for all three positions as timbre matched monitors, so most likely designed for _vertical_ placement for optimal sound dispersal.
> 
> And what are your other speakers?


Because of my room placement. Small room with couch against the wall. My speakers are energy rc 70 fronts, energy V2.0C center, energy V2.0R surrounds dipole/bipole/direct and energy rc lcr rear surrounds.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

caloyzki said:


> Because of my room placement. Small room with couch against the wall. My speakers are energy rc 70 fronts, energy V2.0C center, energy V2.0R surrounds dipole/bipole/direct and energy rc lcr rear surrounds.


Can you send some pictures of the room? It seems like you have all the speaker bases covered, except for using the RC's for left and right that don't timbre match with the rest of the Veritas system. 

Are you wanting to switch out your current surrounds with those older RC speakers? Personally, I wouldn't and instead look at getting the matching Veritas L/R speakers. You really don't want to mix and match speakers like this, especially with newer surround formats coming to the market that *REALLY* stress timbre matching across the entire system.


----------



## caloyzki

Dan Hitchman said:


> Can you send some pictures of the room? It seems like you have all the speaker bases covered, except for using the RC's for left and right that don't timbre match with the rest of the Veritas system.
> 
> Are you wanting to switch out your current surrounds with those older RC speakers? Personally, I wouldn't and instead look at getting the matching Veritas L/R speakers. You really don't want to mix and match speakers like this, especially with newer surround formats coming to the market that *REALLY* stress timbre matching across the entire system.


Here is my set up now. Running 5.1 at the moment. Using the energy v2.0r as my surrounds.im planning to put the 2 rc lcr on that middle of the 2 surrounds at the back of the couch. Dont know if I can place them verically coz its too high. Thats why planning to place them horizontaly if its okay.
















ps : with 7.1 pics that was before and I decided to removed them and planning to place horizontal.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

caloyzki said:


> Here is my set up now. Running 5.1 at the moment. Using the energy v2.0r as my surrounds.im planning to put the 2 rc lcr on that middle of the 2 surrounds at the back of the couch. Dont know if I can place them verically coz its too high. Thats why planning to place them horizontaly if its okay.
> View attachment 131122
> 
> 
> View attachment 131130
> 
> 
> ps : with 7.1 pics that was before and I decided to removed them and planning to place horizontal.


You have very, very limited space to do 7.1 properly. Here's what I would do. Keep your couch pulled a little bit away from the wall and put your side surrounds at the 110 degree locations as seen here: 










It's better to have great 5.1 than poorly implemented 7.1. You need a longer room, my friend. 

Keep the RC L/C/R's and perhaps use them as wide front side surrounds or height speakers for upcoming object based surround formats (Dolby Atmos or DTS-UHD -- it is almost guaranteed they'll have front wide surround and top/ceiling speaker positions with discrete information coming out of every speaker)... or if you can't wait... for a receiver or pre-amp that can do DTS Neo:X synthetic matrix post-processing now.


----------



## caloyzki

Dan Hitchman said:


> You have very, very limited space to do 7.1 properly. Here's what I would do. Keep your couch pulled a little bit away from the wall and put your side surrounds at the 110 degree locations as seen here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's better to have great 5.1 than poorly implemented 7.1. You need a longer room, my friend.
> 
> Keep the RC L/C/R's and perhaps use them as wide front side surrounds or height speakers for upcoming object based surround formats (Dolby Atmos or DTS-UHD -- it is almost guaranteed they'll have front wide surround and top/ceiling speaker positions with discrete information coming out of every speaker)... or if you can't wait... for a receiver or pre-amp than can do DTS Neo:X synthetic matrix post-processing now.


Thanks for the heads up. Okay for now im sticking with 5.1. So its better for.me to use the v2.0r as my surrounds right? is the atmos will be on the next features avr? I cant do wides or heights on my avr I only have denon 2112ci.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

caloyzki said:


> Thanks for the heads up. Okay for now im sticking with 5.1. So its better for.me to use the v2.0r as my surrounds right? is the atmos will be on the next features avr? I cant do wides or heights on my avr I only have denon 2112ci.


Yeah, I would use the V2.0r's for your side surrounds. I would switch them to bipole mode, but that's a subjective audio taste. Never did like the really diffuse, out-of-phase dipole sound. 

Dolby Atmos and DTS-UHD are probably going to be implemented in Ultra High Def. (2160p) media. So, possibly in the 2015/2016 time frame to coincide with this roll out. I don't expect to see object-based 3D surround added to current 1080p Blu-ray discs before UHD discs and/or downloads show up... unless the industry surprises everyone (don't bet on it).


----------



## caloyzki

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yeah, I would use the V2.0r's for your side surrounds. I would switch them to bipole mode, but that's a subjective audio taste. Never did like the really diffuse, out-of-phase dipole sound.
> 
> Dolby Atmos and DTS-UHD are probably going to be implemented in Ultra High Def. (2160p) media. So, possibly in the 2015/2016 time frame to coincide with this roll out. I don't expect to see object-based 3D surround added to current 1080p Blu-ray discs before UHD discs and/or downloads show up... unless the industry surprises everyone (don't bet on it).


Okay thanks and I will do what you suggest. Maybe I will sell my v2.0c and one rc lcr. If I cant ise them for now. 
Is doldy atmos really needs to be timbre match all speakers including surrounds?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

caloyzki said:


> Okay thanks and I will do what you suggest. Maybe I will sell my v2.0c and one rc lcr. If I cant ise them for now.
> *Is dolby atmos really going to need to be timbre matched across all speakers, including the surrounds?*


Yes. All demonstrations of these two consumer oriented formats follow their larger commercial theater implementations of timbre matched, monopole speakers in all areas of the room (fronts, surrounds, and heights). Now, that doesn't mean the surrounds have to be BIG like the front three. It just means that the sonic characteristics of the speakers (not the subs) have to match (same brand, same model family). There are added subwoofer outputs specifically for the surround speakers in case they cannot handle really low bass frequencies. 

Since the Veritas speakers are better than the RC line of Energy's, if you're going to sell anything, I would sell the RC L/C/R's and RC fronts and get the matching Veritas front tower speakers, if you can find them on the used market (or by chance new at a factory closeout special). 

It's whatever sounds best to you. Just keep them all matched, whatever you choose.


----------



## caloyzki

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes. All demonstrations of these two consumer oriented formats follow their larger commercial theater implementations of timbre matched, monopole speakers in all areas of the room (fronts, surrounds, and heights). Now, that doesn't mean the surrounds have to be BIG like the front three. It just means that the sonic characteristics of the speakers (not the subs) have to match (same brand, same model family). There are added subwoofer outputs specifically for the surround speakers in case they cannot handle really low bass frequencies.
> 
> Since the Veritas speakers are better than the RC line of Energy's, if you're going to sell anything, I would sell the RC L/C/R's and RC fronts and get the matching Veritas front tower speakers, if you can find them on the used market (or by chance new at a factory closeout special).
> 
> It's whatever sounds best to you. Just keep them all matched, whatever you choose.


Thanks. Looking forward on the atmos. Sounds like very interesting. 

I cant sell the rc speakers. Because the veritas line are very hard to find especially in the used market. If some very expensive too.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

caloyzki said:


> Thanks. Looking forward on the atmos. Sounds like very interesting.
> 
> I cant sell the rc speakers. Because the veritas line are very hard to find especially in the used market. If some very expensive too.


Hmmm... well, unless you don't mind starting over from scratch with all new speakers at some point, it sounds like maybe you should get rid of the Veritas models and get the easier to procure RC line... if you still enjoy their sound. Keep the L/C/R's you have for the side surrounds, get another single unit to replace your Veritas center and, if you can, get another set or two of L/C/R's as spares for the future (since they too are no longer manufactured).

I actually saw "Gravity" in Dolby Atmos at a theater in Denver. Didn't care for the movie, but the object surround mix was really, really cool (I can see why the mix won two Oscars). Every speaker in the auditorium (and since it was a retrofit they added more for the ceiling grid and along the front of the side walls... and more subs) was utilized for the mix (object surround, at least for commercial use, is scalable up to 62.2 outputs... many consumer demos have been around 20). It was very enveloping with primary dialog placed all over... one big example of why timbre matching your speakers is critical. 

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/dolby-atmos-video.html


----------



## caloyzki

Dan Hitchman said:


> Hmmm... well, unless you don't mind starting over from scratch with all new speakers at some point, it sounds like maybe you should get rid of the Veritas models and get the easier to procure RC line... if you still enjoy their sound. Keep the L/C/R's you have for the side surrounds, get another single unit to replace your Veritas center and, if you can, get another set or two of L/C/R's as spares for the future (since they too are no longer manufactured).
> 
> I actually saw "Gravity" in Dolby Atmos at a theater in Denver. Didn't care for the movie, but the object surround mix was really, really cool (I can see why the mix won two Oscars). Every speaker in the auditorium (and since it was a retrofit they added more for the ceiling grid and along the front of the side walls... and more subs) was utilized for the mix (object surround, at least for commercial use, is scalable up to 62.2 outputs... many consumer demos have been around 20). It was very enveloping with primary dialog placed all over... one big example of why timbre matching your speakers is critical.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/dolby-atmos-video.html


Thanks. Maybe thats what I am gonna do. Sell the veritas center and the rc lcr center. and buy the rc 10 for surrounds. 
I think for now dolby atmos set up is not gonna work on my living room. Unless I have a dedicated HT room?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

caloyzki said:


> Thanks. Maybe thats what I am gonna do. Sell the veritas center and the rc lcr center. and buy the rc 10 for surrounds.
> I think for now dolby atmos set up is not gonna work on my living room. Unless I have a dedicated HT room?


I would probably keep the RC LCR's. They would actually work better as surrounds for these more advanced formats coming down the pike. Sell the Veritas center and the surrounds you have now. And, for now, just get another single RC LCR for the center. That way it's all timbre matched. 

Another really, really awesome thing, besides movies, that would make these larger LCR's as surrounds sing would be multi-channel music discs. Depending on your player (primarily Sony or Oppo - since they're easiest to come by), there are thousands of Super Audio-CD 5.1 discs and also many Blu-ray music discs. AIX Records (online) sells absolutely amazing 24 bit lossless audiophile Blu-ray music discs with various mixes included on one disc (audience perspective with a front sound stage and ambient back surrounds, or a within-the-performance perspective where the instruments and vocalists surround you, along with other variations). There are also a number of live performance Blu-ray discs on the market from AC/DC to Rush and from jazz to opera. 

With Atmos and DTS-UHD you could add at least two height speakers to what you have now and that would help add a third dimension to the experience. As the video mentioned... object surround is quite scalable to whatever sized system you have. Though, obviously, the bigger the room and system, the better the 3D effect.


----------



## caloyzki

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would probably keep the RC LCR's. They would actually work better as surrounds for these more advanced formats coming down the pike. Sell the Veritas center and the surrounds you have now. And, for now, just get another single RC LCR for the center. That way it's all timbre matched.
> 
> Another really, really awesome thing, besides movies, that would make these larger LCR's as surrounds sing would be multi-channel music discs. Depending on your player (primarily Sony or Oppo - since they're easiest to come by), there are thousands of Super Audio-CD 5.1 discs and also many Blu-ray music discs. AIX Records (online) sells absolutely amazing 24 bit lossless audiophile Blu-ray music discs with various mixes included on one disc (audience perspective with a front sound stage and ambient back surrounds, or a within-the-performance perspective where the instruments and vocalists surround you, along with other variations). There are also a number of live performance Blu-ray discs on the market from AC/DC to Rush and from jazz to opera.
> 
> With Atmos and DTS-UHD you could add at least two height speakers to what you have now and that would help add a third dimension to the experience. As the video mentioned... object surround is quite scalable to whatever sized system you have. Though, obviously, the bigger the room and system, the better the 3D effect.


Thanks for the nice advice again. Have a question what if im gonna use the RC LCR as my side surrounds and V2.0R as my back and switch it to bipole? Is that be okay just to try it out?

I know multi channel will be awesome as my a surrounds but the problem is i dont really listen to.music . I just use my system just only for.bluray movies. But that would be a nice idea too. 

As far as the atmos, still looking forward how they will be use or what kind of speakers we will be using to get all the effects. I read that we need to install speakers above to our listening area. I think that might not work on my living room and also most of us who doesnt have a dedicated HT room.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

caloyzki said:


> Thanks for the nice advice again. Have a question what if im gonna use the RC LCR as my side surrounds and V2.0R as my back and switch it to bipole? Is that be okay just to try it out?
> 
> I know multi channel will be awesome as my a surrounds but the problem is i dont really listen to.music . I just use my system just only for.bluray movies. But that would be a nice idea too.
> 
> As far as the atmos, still looking forward how they will be use or what kind of speakers we will be using to get all the effects. I read that we need to install speakers above to our listening area. I think that might not work on my living room and also most of us who doesnt have a dedicated HT room.


You're really missing out by only using your surround system to listen to movies. Multi-channel music is really fantastic and you may become more of a music connoisseur.  Check out SA-CD.net for a list of titles in that particular format. You do need a player that will also play SA-CD discs (like an Oppo or Sony Blu-ray player). There are many genres from rock to classical on SA-CD. One of the coolest is Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" album. Friggin' fantastic classic rock in 5.1! 

I would think in your room you could get away with a 5.1+2 setup for Dolby Atmos. The two being the top/ceiling speakers in addition to the traditional 5.1 layout. Mount the V2.0R's on the ceiling with brackets (making sure they're securely fastened for safety) and put them in bipole mode since the ceiling speakers should be wider dispersal speakers than the sides, backs, and fronts. 










There are flat, ribbon speaker wire spools with add-on terminals to convert the flat wire to regular wire for termination at either end. You can get that are quite inconspicuous with self adhesive (and paintable) for the ceiling speakers. 

http://www.firefold.com/flat-speaker-wire

Of course, that's when you're ready for an Atmos receiver or pre-amp. 

If you really want to use the RC LCR's with V2.0r's as surrounds, I would use the bipoles as side surrounds with the RC LCR's for the rear channels. But you will still run into the mismatched timbre we talked about earlier. It would be less noticeable if the V2.0r's were the ceiling speakers.


----------



## caloyzki

Dan Hitchman said:


> You're really missing out by only using your surround system to listen to movies. Multi-channel music is really fantastic and you may become more of a music connoisseur.  Check out SA-CD.net for a list of titles in that particular format. You do need a player that will also play SA-CD discs (like an Oppo or Sony Blu-ray player). There are many genres from rock to classical on SA-CD. One of the coolest is Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" album. Friggin' fantastic classic rock in 5.1!
> 
> I would think in your room you could get away with a 5.1+2 setup for Dolby Atmos. The two being the top/ceiling speakers in addition to the traditional 5.1 layout. Mount the V2.0R's on the ceiling with brackets (making sure they're securely fastened for safety) and put them in bipole mode since the ceiling speakers should be wider dispersal speakers than the sides, backs, and fronts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are flat, ribbon speaker wire spools with add-on terminals to convert the flat wire to regular wire for termination at either end. You can get that are quite inconspicuous with self adhesive (and paintable) for the ceiling speakers.
> 
> http://www.firefold.com/flat-speaker-wire
> 
> Of course, that's when you're ready for an Atmos receiver or pre-amp.
> 
> If you really want to use the RC LCR's with V2.0r's as surrounds, I would use the bipoles as side surrounds with the RC LCR's for the rear channels. But you will still run into the mismatched timbre we talked about earlier. It would be less noticeable if the V2.0r's were the ceiling speakers.


I just checked those sacd music website. And are they only for sale? No testing or download? I don't have any sacd player or oppo. I only use my PS3 as my bluray player. 

Wow atmos set up are pretty nice with the ceiling speakers lol. But for now I still dont have space for atmos, cant put the speakers on the ceiling. Maybe until get my own house. And I guess atmos avr will be expensive though .

Here is my set up now just for trial feel free to comment what do you think. Just put them back now. Is this okay or should I interchanged them? I know they are not timbre match, maybe for bow im gonna stick with them until I found same like RC LCR


----------



## Dan Hitchman

caloyzki said:


> I just checked those sacd music website. And are they only for sale? No testing or download? I don't have any sacd player or oppo. I only use my PS3 as my bluray player.
> 
> Wow atmos set up are pretty nice with the ceiling speakers lol. But for now I still dont have space for atmos, cant put the speakers on the ceiling. Maybe until get my own house. And I guess atmos avr will be expensive though .
> 
> Here is my set up now just for trial feel free to comment what do you think. Just put them back now. Is this okay or should I interchanged them? I know they are not timbre match, maybe for bow im gonna stick with them until I found same like RC LCR


If you click on an SA-CD title in question, there are links on the edge of the page on where to purchase the disc. They also list Blu-ray high resolution music disc titles as well. It's a site that lists available discs (the most comprehensive on the web), not a place to buy them. By the way, which PS3 do you have? The original "Fat" PS3 players (the first on the market that could only output multi-channel PCM) could play SA-CD's. Not the newer "slim" models that could bitstream lossless audio. Just have to look in the manual or on the box for this logo:










Almost any regular Sony Blu-ray player model (and they're cheap) can play SA-CD's too. They're really cool. So are many of the Blu-ray music and concert discs as well (that just need any Blu-ray player to work). Many are fully immersive... practically like you're there at the performance! Blow the doors off CD's and cruddy MP3's. 

The top Atmos receivers coming out this fall are $1,000 and over. There are a couple Onkyo models that will be less than that, but they'll have scaled down versions of consumer Atmos.

As a temporary speaker setup, I think you'll be just fine. Remember to re-run Audyssey calibration when the kids are not around.


----------



## fatbottom

It's getting to the point, with the number of channels that Bose sats start to make sense.

Speakers the size of sugar cubes around the room would work.


----------



## cxr369

Dan Hitchman said:


> You're really missing out by only using your surround system to listen to movies. Multi-channel music is really fantastic and you may become more of a music connoisseur.  Check out SA-CD.net for a list of titles in that particular format. You do need a player that will also play SA-CD discs (like an Oppo or Sony Blu-ray player). There are many genres from rock to classical on SA-CD. One of the coolest is Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" album. Friggin' fantastic classic rock in 5.1!
> 
> I would think in your room you could get away with a 5.1+2 setup for Dolby Atmos. The two being the top/ceiling speakers in addition to the traditional 5.1 layout. Mount the V2.0R's on the ceiling with brackets (making sure they're securely fastened for safety) and put them in bipole mode since the ceiling speakers should be wider dispersal speakers than the sides, backs, and fronts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are flat, ribbon speaker wire spools with add-on terminals to convert the flat wire to regular wire for termination at either end. You can get that are quite inconspicuous with self adhesive (and paintable) for the ceiling speakers.
> 
> http://www.firefold.com/flat-speaker-wire
> 
> Of course, that's when you're ready for an Atmos receiver or pre-amp.
> 
> If you really want to use the RC LCR's with V2.0r's as surrounds, I would use the bipoles as side surrounds with the RC LCR's for the rear channels. But you will still run into the mismatched timbre we talked about earlier. It would be less noticeable if the V2.0r's were the ceiling speakers.


I currently have 11 RC speakers. Four RC 70s, a RC LCR, a pair of RC 10s, and two pairs of the RC-Rs. Mt concern with atoms was that in ceiling speakers seem to be best with that system. Will my front heights even work with that system or is it better to try and find an in ceiling speaker like the Energy RC-8C so that the system stays timbre matched. The problem is that I can only find the energy EAS-8C. Do I sell my RCR and use my RC10s as rear surrounds or do I sell my RC 10s and just put my RCRs in monopole mode?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cxr369 said:


> I currently have 11 RC speakers. Four RC 70s, a RC LCR, a pair of RC 10s, and two pairs of the RC-Rs. Mt concern with atmos was that in ceiling speakers seem to be best with that system. Will my front heights even work with that system or is it better to try and find an in ceiling speaker like the Energy RC-8C so that the system stays timbre matched. The problem is that I can only find the energy EAS-8C. Do I sell my RCR and use my RC10s as rear surrounds or do I sell my RC 10s and just put my RCRs in monopole mode?


The problem with in-ceiling speakers right now is that most of them are not fully aimable. Atmos top/ceiling speakers don't fire straight down, they fire at an angle towards the listening space and have a wider sound dispersal pattern. 

What is your speaker breakdown? Which models are being utilized in what positions currently? Do you have pictures of your setup that would help start painting an idea of what you have to work with?

Thanks!


----------



## cxr369

Dan Hitchman said:


> The problem with in-ceiling speakers right now is that most of them are not fully aimable. Atmos top/ceiling speakers don't fire straight down, they fire at an angle towards the listening space and have a wider sound dispersal pattern.
> 
> What is your speaker breakdown? Which models are being utilized in what positions currently? Do you have pictures of your setup that would help start painting an idea of what you have to work with?
> 
> Thanks!


I currently have a room that is 22 x 15 by 8. I haven't setup the room yet so I can install whatever I need. I was going to use the energy rc-lcr as my center, the RC 70s as my fronts and wides, the RC-Rs as my side surrounds and rear surrounds, I have the RC- 10s for front heights, but I can sell the heights if they will not work with Atmos. I was looking at the energy RC-8Cs in ceiling because they have a amiable tweeter and they would be an exact timbre match, but I can't find them anywhere. I am now looking at the Def Tech UIW-RCS I I or UIW-RSS II. I just don't know how important the ceiling speakers would be to have timbre match or which ones would be best for Atmos. The def techs are angled speakers.


----------



## fatbottom

Kef had a few motorised speakers that angle out, although if that seems waste spending money on something that you leave in the angled position. Not too sure about cutting holes in the ceiling lol...also mounting it, have to find the joist..


----------



## cxr369

fatbottom said:


> Kef had a few motorised speakers that angle out, although if that seems waste spending money on something that you leave in the angled position. Not too sure about cutting holes in the ceiling lol...also mounting it, have to find the joist..


I still have 4 holes in the ceiling that I have to repair from the previous owners having in ceiling speakers in the theater room, so I'm not concerned with that. It's gonna be the man cave / theater so I can do whatever I need to do. I just don't know what my best option, especially considering that I want to keep my whole RC lineup


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cxr369 said:


> I currently have a room that is 22 x 15 by 8. I haven't setup the room yet so I can install whatever I need. I was going to use the energy rc-lcr as my center, the RC 70s as my fronts and wides, the RC-Rs as my side surrounds and rear surrounds, I have the RC- 10s for front heights, but I can sell the heights if they will not work with Atmos. I was looking at the energy RC-8Cs in ceiling because they have a amiable tweeter and they would be an exact timbre match, but I can't find them anywhere. I am now looking at the Def Tech UIW-RCS I I or UIW-RSS II. *I just don't know how important the ceiling speakers would be to have timbre match or which ones would be best for Atmos*. The def techs are angled speakers.


Timbre matching is very important for all object based formats for a seamless 3D sound scape. Here's what I would do: Get four short, positional ceiling mount brackets and use the RC-R's in *bipole* mode to use as the on ceiling surrounds. Position each with the side drivers firing towards the front and back of the room and angled so that the left array fires towards the farthest listener on the right and the right array fires towards the farthest listener on the left of the room. 

We just have commercial Dolby Atmos specs. to go by right now.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos.html?utm_campaign=cin-atmos-pro

Are you planning on a front projection screen by any chance?


----------



## cxr369

Dan Hitchman said:


> Timbre matching is very important for all object based formats for a seamless 3D sound scape. Here's what I would do: Get four short, positional ceiling mount brackets and use the RC-R's in *bipole* mode to use as the on ceiling surrounds. Position each with the side drivers firing towards the front and back of the room and angled so that the left array fires towards the farthest listener on the right and the right array fires towards the farthest listener on the left of the room.
> 
> We just have commercial Dolby Atmos specs. to go by right now.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos.html?utm_campaign=cin-atmos-pro
> 
> Are you planning on a front projection screen by any chance?


Yea I'm currently looking at the Epson 5030 but I might wait a little to see what else comes out in the fall


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cxr369 said:


> Yea I'm currently looking at the Epson 5030 but I might wait a little to see what else comes out in the fall


Does the RC 70 have rear ports, by any chance?


----------



## cxr369

Dan Hitchman said:


> Does the RC 70 have rear ports, by any chance?


Yea, they have rear ports and they also come with port plugs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cxr369 said:


> Yea, they have rear ports and they also come with port plugs.


Have you considered bunging the ports up  and doing a shallow false wall with acoustically transparent screen? Are you going to have one or two rows of seating?


----------



## cxr369

Dan Hitchman said:


> Have you considered bunging the ports up  and doing a shallow false wall with acoustically transparent screen? Are you going to have one or two rows of seating?



I hadn't thought of that, but I was planning on a having a curved screen and a modular couch. I'm trying to fit a bar and if there's room a pool table.

I'm looking at putting a thin brick facade up on the side wall and may be the back wall. If I need more space for the bar I could always take a few feet from the garage by building the bar into the side wall, but I don't know. I also am not sure if I want to do an in wall rack system, because I would have to build it into the wall going into the garage.


----------



## cxr369

Pic


----------



## cxr369

Pic


----------



## cxr369

Pic


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cxr369 said:


> I hadn't thought of that, but I was planning on a having a curved screen and a modular couch. I'm trying to fit a bar and if there's room a pool table.
> 
> I'm looking at putting a thin brick facade up on the side wall and may be the back wall. If I need more space for the bar I could always take a few feet from the garage by building the bar into the side wall, but I don't know. I also am not sure if I want to do an in wall rack system, because I would have to build it into the wall going into the garage.


I helped a friend of mine with a theater space about the same size as yours (maybe a couple feet longer, and a bit narrower), so I have an idea of the space this stuff can take up. 

You are really going to be squeezing things to the bursting point if you try to place a pool table and a full bar in there. Just do one row with the couch and perhaps a slim, U-shaped bar top with stools for elevated seating right behind the couch... not a full bar... just a place to put something like a bowl of snacks and a drink (that's what he did). And you could do a false wall and AT screen, though it would be easier if the subs were not behind the screen to save space. Take one of your RC 70's (you'd have one spare in case you have a driver blow out... or need spare parts, which would be handy) and use it as the center channel speaker... just like a commercial theater or dubbing stage (they always use identical _vertical_ speakers behind the screen for proper sound dispersal and timbre matching). You can place them closer to the wall if you plug their rear ports and augment the lack of some low mid bass with the subs. It would tighten the sound of the speakers anyway because they would become sealed units. 

Get another RC LCR (while they're still available) and use those two vertically as the angled front wide surrounds. Use the other four bipole surrounds for the ceiling speakers. Personally, I would sell the RC-10's and get another four RC LCR's as my surrounds (so five). Here's why: Dolby now recommends Atmos friendly surrounds that can go down to ~40 Hz. The surrounds need to be able to handle more mid bass presence. The RC-10's are too bass anemic for Atmos. That is, if that can be worked into your budget. If not... sell the RC-LCR and get more RC-10's for the front wides, sides, and rear.


----------



## cxr369

Dan Hitchman said:


> I helped a friend of mine with a theater space about the same size as yours (maybe a couple feet longer, and a bit narrower), so I have an idea of the space this stuff can take up.
> 
> You are really going to be squeezing things to the bursting point if you try to place a pool table and a full bar in there. Just do one row with the couch and perhaps a slim, U-shaped bar top with stools for elevated seating right behind the couch... not a full bar... just a place to put something like a bowl of snacks and a drink (that's what he did). And you could do a false wall and AT screen, though it would be easier if the subs were not behind the screen to save space. Take one of your RC 70's (you'd have one spare in case you have a driver blow out... or need spare parts, which would be handy) and use it as the center channel speaker... just like a commercial theater or dubbing stage (they always use identical _vertical_ speakers behind the screen for proper sound dispersal and timbre matching). You can place them closer to the wall if you plug their rear ports and augment the lack of some low mid bass with the subs. It would tighten the sound of the speakers anyway because they would become sealed units.
> 
> Get another RC LCR (while they're still available) and use those two vertically as the angled front wide surrounds. Use the other four bipole surrounds for the ceiling speakers. Personally, I would sell the RC-10's and get another four RC LCR's as my surrounds (so five). Here's why: Dolby now recommends Atmos friendly surrounds that can go down to ~40 Hz. The surrounds need to be able to handle more mid bass presence. The RC-10's are too bass anemic for Atmos. That is, if that can be worked into your budget. If not... sell the RC-LCR and get more RC-10's for the front wides, sides, and rear.


Do you have any pics of your friend's setup? The problem with the false wall is that it couldn't be anymore than a foot and a half deep due to the vents and the side window. I could buy another RC 70 on sale for $300 and sell the RC 10s but then I would have to put the screen right a over the speaker putting it at 40 inches off the ground. I can't buy anymore RC-Rs as they are very hard to come by and rarely are sold. That's why I have been looking for two pairs of Energy RC-8Cs or the def tech RCS-II. Would it be possible to keep my RC-Rs as my surrounds, sell the RC10s and build four RC-LCRs in the ceiling so that would be flat to the ceiling and not ruin the aesthetics of the room?


----------



## cxr369

What do you think about the Sonance Cinema LCR1S or the SUR1S?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cxr369 said:


> What do you think about the Sonance Cinema LCR1S or the SUR1S?


It's been awhile since we did the theater, so I don't have the pictures handy. Just recollections of what we went through. 

If you're thinking of selling your RC speakers and instead going in-walls (fronts) and on-walls or in-room's or all in-walls, I would move up a notch in quality and look at U.S. Made Triad Silver LCR's and corresponding Silver speakers (the Monitors are the higher priced premium versions with drivers from their upper level lines). Sonance is definitely not as good in either sound or build quality and Triad speakers come in a wide variety of styles. Would you have a budget in mind? http://triadspeakers.com/index.html 








Silver LCR in-wall's

In-wall's at least for the front three (with Triad in-wall speakers, they're completely boxed so they're like slim/tall in-room speakers, so you don't even have to place them in the wall, just mounted flush to it... or make a slim acoustic _baffle wall_ for better acoustics- instructions are here on this forum - and place the screen in front). Some people also use in-wall's as surrounds inside of columns... again, so you don't have to cut in to the wall perimeters to help lower the sound transfer to other rooms. 

Another more cost cutting in-wall alternative would be Def Tech UIW RLS II's for the three screen fronts, UIW 75's for the sides and backs, UIW RCS II's for the ceiling. If you like your Energy RC's you'll definitely like these. They can be found new at considerable discounts on Ebay through the more reliable sellers. Everything but the UIW 75's are boxed. 

My first choice would absolutely be Triad's.


----------



## cxr369

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's been awhile since we did the theater, so I don't have the pictures handy. Just recollections of what we went through.
> 
> If you're thinking of selling your RC speakers and instead going in-walls (fronts) and on-walls or in-room's or all in-walls, I would move up a notch in quality and look at U.S. Made Triad Silver LCR's and corresponding Silver speakers (the Monitors are the higher priced premium versions with drivers from their upper level lines). Sonance is definitely not as good in either sound or build quality and Triad speakers come in a wide variety of styles. Would you have a budget in mind? http://triadspeakers.com/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver LCR in-wall's
> 
> In-wall's at least for the front three (with Triad in-wall speakers, they're completely boxed so they're like slim/tall in-room speakers, so you don't even have to place them in the wall, just mounted flush to it... or make a slim acoustic _baffle wall_ for better acoustics- instructions are here on this forum - and place the screen in front). Some people also use in-wall's as surrounds inside of columns... again, so you don't have to cut in to the wall perimeters to cut down on sound transfer.
> 
> Another more cost cutting in-wall alternative would be Def Tech UIW RLS II's for the three screen fronts, UIW 75's for the sides and backs, UIW RCS II's for the ceiling. If you like your Energy RC's you'll definitely like these. They can be found new at considerable discounts on Ebay through the more reliable sellers. Everything but the UIW 75's are boxed.
> 
> My first choice would absolutely be Triad's.


I appreciate all the insight. I do want to keep my RC line, so I wanted to know which out of those speakers that you mentioned would best for the four in ceiling speakers that the atoms setup would require. What about the placement too. I saw a diagram where the fronts ceiling speakers were above the main fronts and another where they were above the wides. Then the rear ceilings were right above the listener and in another pic they were above the rear surrounds. What is your take on that, and which of those speakers that you mentioned would timbre match the best. Thanks again


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cxr369 said:


> I appreciate all the insight. I do want to keep my RC line, so I wanted to know which out of those speakers that you mentioned would best for the four in ceiling speakers that the atoms setup would require. What about the placement too. I saw a diagram where the fronts ceiling speakers were above the main fronts and another where they were above the wides. Then the rear ceilings were right above the listener and in another pic they were above the rear surrounds. What is your take on that, and which of those speakers that you mentioned would timbre match the best. Thanks again


Def Tech UIW RCS II in-ceiling speakers would be a close approximation of the Energy RC line. You need four. 

So, then I would still use your current Energy surrounds for the sides and back wall surrounds in either bipole or monopole mode, but not dipole mode. I'm still mulling over how best to proceed with the front screen wall. If you can squeeze an acoustic screen in there... that would be best. 

We're still not sure _exactly_ where the top surrounds should optimally be located. Dolby is supposed to have more details in a big August event prior to the CEDIA convention. However, what we DO know is that they are not placed directly above the front mains or back surrounds like some DTS Neo:X layouts. It's as clear as mud.  

Just be patient like the rest of us.


----------



## cxr369

cxr369 said:


> I appreciate all the insight. I do want to keep my RC line, so I wanted to know which out of those speakers that you mentioned would best for the four in ceiling speakers that the atoms setup would require. What about the placement too. I saw a diagram where the fronts ceiling speakers were above the main fronts and another where they were above the wides. Then the rear ceilings were right above the listener and in another pic they were above the rear surrounds. What is your take on that, and which of those speakers that you mentioned would timbre match the best. Thanks again


Also I took a look at the triads, their specs have a minimum frequency of 70 doesn't it have to be at least 40 like you mentioned for an optimal Atmos setup?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cxr369 said:


> Also I took a look at the triads, their specs have a minimum frequency of 70 doesn't it have to be at least 40 like you mentioned for an optimal Atmos setup?


I should have clarified. Dolby recommends surrounds down to 40 Hz, but if your theater does not meet that specification some Atmos processors (manufacturer dependent) can compensate with surround speaker bass management and dedicated subwoofer outputs aside from the LFE output.


----------



## cxr369

That makes sense. So would you still take the Triads over the Def Techs for my setup or since the Def Techs are close to what I already have, then go with those? As far as the acoustic screen, what would be the benefit, if I can put the front's next to the screen and the front wides there too? I don't know if 18-20 inches would be enough space for a false wall, and what do I do with my front wides? if they are going to be outside of the false wall, what is the main benefit? I'm just asking because I really don't know. I really appreciate the help.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cxr369 said:


> That makes sense. So would you still take the Triads over the Def Techs for my setup or since the Def Techs are close to what I already have, then go with those? As far as the acoustic screen, what would be the benefit, if I can put the front's next to the screen and the front wides there too? I don't know if 18-20 inches would be enough space for a false wall, and what do I do with my front wides? if they are going to be outside of the false wall, what is the main benefit? I'm just asking because I really don't know. I really appreciate the help.


I'm off to an appointment. Not leaving you hanging. Will be back this evening.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cxr369 said:


> That makes sense. So would you still take the Triads over the Def Techs for my setup or since the Def Techs are close to what I already have, then go with those? As far as the acoustic screen, what would be the benefit, if I can put the front's next to the screen and the front wides there too? I don't know if 18-20 inches would be enough space for a false wall, and what do I do with my front wides? if they are going to be outside of the false wall, what is the main benefit? I'm just asking because I really don't know. I really appreciate the help.


For one thing, an acoustically transparent screen allows you to place the speakers directly behind the material, just like a commercial theater. This locks the picture with the sound rather than having the sound of the center come from below the action or the left and rights off to the sides of the screen. It's the best thing you can possibly do as it is the premium speaker setup in a theater.











Given that, using the RC-70's behind the screen... you may be pushing things a bit given their large size. If you sell your Energy's and go with Triad Silver LCR in-walls or in-room's behind an AT screen... you could _easily_ pull it off (someone made a 14" deep false wall -- total depth of 12" decking with stud framing and screen frame mounting standoffs -- and used larger Triad Gold LCR in-room's and two medium subs behind the screen with no problem - see image above). If the cost of the Triad's happen to fall outside your budget (I don't know the latest retail price-- check the Triad speaker thread or contact AVS's sales staff for a quote), you could go with the Def Techs I mentioned. 

The Triads would definitely be a big step up in sound quality. 

You would size your screen up to your seating distance... I doubt it would cover the entire width of your room. This is a handy calculator for 16x9 screens. http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

Then you would place front wide side surrounds on the side walls. They usually sit a little bit between the traditional side surrounds (perhaps slightly closer to the screen wall than the side surrounds) and your front screen wall speakers and are angled to fire towards your primary listening space. They fill in the sonic gap between those two speaker positions. 

Again, we should know more precise speaker locations for Atmos fairly soon.


----------



## thebland

*So, is there any links or diagrams for ideal set up for HOME ATMOS?*

Thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thebland said:


> *So, is there any links or diagrams for ideal set up for HOME ATMOS?*
> 
> Thanks!


Not yet. Whatever has been released doesn't really help. They're just general sketches, no specifics.


----------



## GIEGAR

thebland said:


> *So, is there any links or diagrams for ideal set up for HOME ATMOS?*
> 
> Thanks!


This Audioholics article (which I know Dan has some issues with) gives the general configurations:

Dolby Atmos For Home Theater Explained


A set up diagram is posted here and discussed by the DIY crew. It looks pretty specific to me. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...ling-speakers-dolby-atmos-4.html#post25372538


The diagram was originally posted by AVR guru jdsmoothie, so I presume it's lifted from the owner's manual of one of the upcoming (Denon?) Atmos enabled AVR's.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...model-owner-s-thread-faq-18.html#post25218578


----------



## Dan Hitchman

GIEGAR said:


> This Audioholics article (which I know Dan has some issues with) gives the general configurations:
> 
> Dolby Atmos For Home Theater Explained
> 
> 
> A set up diagram is posted here and discussed by the DIY crew. It looks pretty specific to me.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...ling-speakers-dolby-atmos-4.html#post25372538
> 
> 
> The diagram was originally posted by AVR guru jdsmoothie, so I presume it's lifted from the owner's manual of one of the upcoming (Denon?) Atmos enabled AVR's.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...model-owner-s-thread-faq-18.html#post25218578



I wouldn't call that diagram specific enough if you're designing a theater from scratch and maybe paying someone to create blueprints. A lot of people need more than that to go on. They haven't even laid out the speaker recommendations yet (just those compromised all-in-ones). Maybe in August... maybe at CEDIA... who knows for certain??


----------



## GIEGAR

Dan Hitchman said:


> I wouldn't call that diagram specific enough if you're designing a theater from scratch and maybe paying someone to create blueprints. A lot of people need more than that to go on.


Well it's 100% better than nothing and I *would* call it specific enough. In my line of work, if a tech agency sent me a trainee CAD operator that couldn't interpret that diagram, I'd send them back the next day.

Honestly, what more could one need to successfully lay out the speakers? The diagram shows the alignment of the speakers from the front to rear based on the position of the mains, and a range of acceptable angles of declination from the main listening position. Having a range of acceptable values is no different to the recommended 5.1 and 7.1 speaker layouts published by Dolby (and others) for years. Indeed, the fact that there are a range of acceptable values tells me that a level of precision beyond that is not required for proper height/top speaker positioning.



Dan Hitchman said:


> They haven't even laid out the speaker recommendations yet (just those compromised all-in-ones). Maybe in August... maybe at CEDIA... who knows for certain??


I'm aware of that thanks, but @thebland didn't ask about speaker recommendations.


----------



## thebland

GIEGAR said:


> I'm aware of that thanks, but @thebland didn't ask about speaker recommendations.


I have all Quested direct radiators. 7.5 bed and 6 speakers for heights. At this point, I think I am going to set up all for AUro and hope it will work with Atmos as the Datasat processor can use Auro to upmix.

I'll place front heights up at the front, above the screen, tipping down to the main listening area and side heights on either side of the main listening area and rear heights up and above the surround rears but angled down to the main listening area.

I suspect this should be pretty close for Atmos and, perhaps, DTS UHD when it arrives... if not, I can move them.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thebland said:


> I have all Quested direct radiators. 7.5 bed and 6 speakers for heights. At this point, I think I am going to set up all for AUro and hope it will work with Atmos as the Datasat processor can use Auro to upmix.
> 
> I'll place front heights up at the front, above the screen, tipping down to the main listening area and side heights on either side of the main listening area and rear heights up and above the surround rears but angled down to the main listening area.
> 
> I suspect this should be pretty close for Atmos and, perhaps, DTS UHD when it arrives... if not, I can move them.


There has been absolutely no movement on the Auro front. Unless there's some stealth announcement planned for CEDIA I would instead consider Atmos speaker positioning. Besides, Atmos can sound better since it has discrete information to work with. Much of Auro is based on matrixing. This seems to bear out with people's comparisons between the two formats.


----------



## Warner2Bruce

Dan Hitchman said:


> Timbre matching is very important for all object based formats for a seamless 3D sound scape. Here's what I would do: Get four short, positional ceiling mount brackets and use the RC-R's in *bipole* mode to use as the on ceiling surrounds. Position each with the side drivers firing towards the front and back of the room and angled so that the left array fires towards the farthest listener on the right and the right array fires towards the farthest listener on the left of the room.
> 
> We just have commercial Dolby Atmos specs. to go by right now.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos.html?utm_campaign=cin-atmos-pro
> 
> Are you planning on a front projection screen by any chance?


Whew!!!! Just read every page of this thread and have to say it's quite exhausting. One thing I'd like to know is if it generally still advisable to use surround speakers that utilize bipole/dipole (switchable) or are regular bookshelfs preferred with what is coming with Atmos? I"m looking to upgrade my system now (very modest budget): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1596217-help-upgrading-my-speakers.html
and thought this might pertinent to my decision making. Especially, since I have been considering adding switchable bipole/dipole speakers as surrounds that would not be timbre matched to whatever I end up using in the front.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Warner2Bruce said:


> Whew!!!! Just read every page of this thread and have to say it's quite exhausting. One thing I'd like to know is if it generally still advisable to use surround speakers that utilize bipole/dipole (switchable) or are regular bookshelfs preferred with what is coming with Atmos? I"m looking to upgrade my system now (very modest budget): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1596217-help-upgrading-my-speakers.html
> and thought this might pertinent to my decision making. Especially, since I have been considering adding switchable bipole/dipole speakers as surrounds that would not be timbre matched to whatever I end up using in the front.


The short answer is that we may know more concrete bits of information no later than CEDIA in September. Dolby has promised they will release a detailed installer white paper for recommended home Atmos systems shortly.


----------



## vipergfx

Hey Guys,
I have a 14'x16' HT room where the Couch is on the Back wall (14') and I have a 7.1 denon 1911 receiver. 
I currently have it set up as 5. with the surrounds in the ceiling.

What would be the best way to use the 7.1 set up? Front heights or rear sides?

Would it be possible to wire a total of 4 surrounds to the rear 2 channels for more sound or would that be weird?


----------



## fatbottom

Don't wire up four speakers to two amp terminals it'll put strain on your amp.


----------



## Bill Shenefelt

Question on Klipsch Reference II theater speakers

My front speakers are 6 cubic ft JBL L-200 studio monitors. (Room is 13 by 24 living room with 8 ft ceiling, carpeted and with cloth furniture. I have a 65 inch Sony 4k tv and an Epson front Projector.) I like the JBL compression driver horns for real vocal clarity and the 15" bass drivers go pretty strong and deep. Up to now I used a low cost (about $200) center channel Klipsch with tweeter and side by side 4 inch bass drivers. It was better than some I heard but still lacked the clarity I wanted. To compliment my big JBL's I just purchased Klipsch Reference II RS 62 II surrounds and RC 64 II center channel also incorporating horn loaded high frequency drivers. I went with the surrounds matching the center channel since that center channel is supposed to be super clear for dialogue. They have a bass and trebel driver pair facing at what appears to be 45 degrees to the front and the second pair 45 degrees tot he rear but in phase to preserver bass. The three Klipsch speakers are over 97 dB efficiency and have decent power handling ability so should have good dynamics even with the 93 dB efficient JBL's on my Yamaha 3010 receiver. I considered just skipping a center channel and just using my stereo JBL pair and buying only surrounds, but took the plunge anyway. Anyone have these Klipsch units? Mine are to arrive late this week. I heard some similar lower cost Klipsch at the dealer and really hope these will be a good match for my JBL's. Hate to spend $2500 and not get decent improvement.


----------



## Maestro J

Bill Shenefelt said:


> Question on Klipsch Reference II theater speakers
> 
> My front speakers are 6 cubic ft JBL L-200 studio monitors. (Room is 13 by 24 living room with 8 ft ceiling, carpeted and with cloth furniture. I have a 65 inch Sony 4k tv and an Epson front Projector.) I like the JBL compression driver horns for real vocal clarity and the 15" bass drivers go pretty strong and deep. Up to now I used a low cost (about $200) center channel Klipsch with tweeter and side by side 4 inch bass drivers. It was better than some I heard but still lacked the clarity I wanted. To compliment my big JBL's I just purchased Klipsch Reference II RS 62 II surrounds and RC 64 II center channel also incorporating horn loaded high frequency drivers. I went with the surrounds matching the center channel since that center channel is supposed to be super clear for dialogue. They have a bass and trebel driver pair facing at what appears to be 45 degrees to the front and the second pair 45 degrees tot he rear but in phase to preserver bass. The three Klipsch speakers are over 97 dB efficiency and have decent power handling ability so should have good dynamics even with the 93 dB efficient JBL's on my Yamaha 3010 receiver. I considered just skipping a center channel and just using my stereo JBL pair and buying only surrounds, but took the plunge anyway. Anyone have these Klipsch units? Mine are to arrive late this week. I heard some similar lower cost Klipsch at the dealer and really hope these will be a good match for my JBL's. Hate to spend $2500 and not get decent improvement.


Bill,
How do you like your new speakers and overall setup? 
I'm looking at buying 4 bipoles for surround use to match up as best I can with JTR T12s. 
Klipsch, DEf Tech and JBL are high on my list.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Maestro J said:


> Bill,
> How do you like your new speakers and overall setup?
> I'm looking at buying 4 bipoles for surround use to match up as best I can with JTR T12s.
> Klipsch, DEf Tech and JBL are high on my list.


Many seem to recommend the JBL 8320 or 8340A wide dispersal surrounds as inexpensive alternatives to JTR surrounds that match up quite well for wall and ceiling installations. If you're considering Atmos in your future at all, you don't want bipoles or dipoles and you want to timbre match as closely as possible to your fronts.


----------



## Maestro J

Dan Hitchman said:


> Many seem to recommend the JBL 8320 or 8340A wide dispersal surrounds as inexpensive alternatives to JTR surrounds that match up quite well for wall and ceiling installations. If you're considering Atmos in your future at all, you don't want bipoles or dipoles and you want to timbre match as closely as possible to your fronts.


I AM considering Atmos in the very near future. Why do you say you won't want bipoles in an Atmos setup?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Maestro J said:


> I AM considering Atmos in the very near future. Why do you say you won't want bipoles in an Atmos setup?


The severe dispersal pattern of bipole and especially dipole radiating drivers seems to wreck some havoc on the 3D effect created by Atmos audio objects when positioned by the renderer. Dolby is releasing a white paper soon that should spell out some of their recommendations for placement and other important items. 

I don't know of any bipole speakers that are close sonic fits for JTR's. That's why those JBL's are usually recommended. With those Triple 12HT, I would probably move towards the 8340A's for all the surrounds. Be sure to put them on adjustable brackets for proper positioning. 

I don't know how many speakers your room can handle or your budget, but it looks like the full home Atmos layout (given the right processor) is:

Five behind the screen speakers (for larger screens)
Five left wall surround array
Five right wall surround array
Five back wall surround array
10 overheads 

Plus subs


----------



## Maestro J

Dan Hitchman said:


> The severe dispersal pattern of bipole and especially dipole radiating drivers seems to wreck some havoc on the 3D effect created by Atmos audio objects when positioned by the renderer. Dolby is releasing a white paper soon that should spell out some of their recommendations for placement and other important items.
> 
> I don't know of any bipole speakers that are close sonic fits for JTR's. That's why those JBL's are usually recommended. With those Triple 12HT, I would probably move towards the 8340A's for all the surrounds. Be sure to put them on adjustable brackets for proper positioning.
> 
> I don't know how many speakers your room can handle or your budget, but it looks like the full home Atmos layout (given the right processor) is:
> 
> Five behind the screen speakers (for larger screens)
> Five left wall surround array
> Five right wall surround array
> Five back wall surround array
> 10 overheads
> 
> Plus subs


I am planning on a 7.2.4 setup. I currently have a 5.2 setup with plans in motion to add the 2 rear channels and 4 ceiling Atmos channels. I hadn't heard that bipoles weren't recommended in Atmos but I guess most of the info hasn't been released for home theater implementation. Good to know.
Anything else you'd recommend other than the 8340's? I was hoping to stay between $1k and $1500 for the 4 surrounds knowing that I'm also going to be ponying up for 4 ceiling speakers in near future. It looks like the JBL's would be over $2k for four of them.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Maestro J said:


> I am planning on a 7.2.4 setup. I currently have a 5.2 setup with plans in motion to add the 2 rear channels and 4 ceiling Atmos channels. I hadn't heard that bipoles weren't recommended in Atmos but I guess most of the info hasn't been released for home theater implementation. Good to know.
> Anything else you'd recommend other than the 8340's? I was hoping to stay between $1k and $1500 for the 4 surrounds knowing that I'm also going to be ponying up for 4 ceiling speakers in near future. It looks like the JBL's would be over $2k for four of them.


The only other thing I can think of off the top of my head would be to down scale to the 8320's. Under $500 a pair. Given B&H Photo's price, it would be $1,482 for three pairs. What are you using for surrounds right now? So you don't mismatch your surrounds, I would probably bump up your budget and get four pairs and then they're all the same. If the current surrounds aren't JTR's then perhaps sell them to help cover some costs.


----------



## Maestro J

Dan Hitchman said:


> The only other thing I can think of off the top of my head would be to down scale to the 8320's. Under $500 a pair. Given B&H Photo's price, it would be $1,482 for three pairs. What are you using for surrounds right now? So you don't mismatch your surrounds, I would probably bump up your budget and get four pairs and then they're all the same. If the current surrounds aren't JTR's then perhaps sell them to help cover some costs.


I'm using Emotiva ERD-1's. They just aren't cutting it and since I'm making these changes and adding 2 rear speakers, I might as well replace my side surrounds as well.
I assume I'll hear a difference switching to 8320's?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Maestro J said:


> I'm using Emotiva ERD-1's. They just aren't cutting it and since I'm making these changes and adding 2 rear speakers, I might as well replace my side surrounds as well.
> I assume I'll hear a difference switching to 8320's?


Hit the wrong button. Okay... here we go...

The 8320's are designed and built for small commercial cinema auditoriums and THX Certified, with attachments for various wall and ceiling mounting brackets. They're the real McCoys, unlike the ERD-1's.


----------



## Bill Shenefelt

*Klipsch with jbl*



Maestro J said:


> Bill,
> How do you like your new speakers and overall setup?
> I'm looking at buying 4 bipoles for surround use to match up as best I can with JTR T12s.
> Klipsch, DEf Tech and JBL are high on my list.


I'm not sure what JTR's sound like. The front Klipsch RF 64 has a fuller warmer midrange than my JBL "L-300" front speakers and thus with dialogue they are not as good to my ears as the front JBL monitors. I was really disappointed by this. I was hoping the RC 64 would take over, not degrade, dialogue. It seems to depend a lot on the source so I am not yet convinced they cannot be adjusted to push up the treble in the dialogue range and lower the "honky muffled tone in some but not all dialogue. I find myself switching my yamaha to "2 channel stereo" and not surround, to help clarity of dialogue in these cases. Again it is only necessary for some TV dialogue that sounds muffled like they are speaking thru a thick blanket. I picked the Klipsch because at least they used horn loaded HF and thought they might match the big JBL horns in sound character. They do not! My JBL 15 inch drivers cross over to the mid-range horns at 800 cps. The Klipsch a few hundred cps higher so I thought they might match the JBL character. They do not. The 15 inch guys are good down to the low 30's and even into the mid 20 cps realm. They seem to blend with the horns at 800 cps providing great punch. The Klipsch cut off sooner at 60 cps but are a sealed box so they do have great bass extension. The JBL are ported with a faster cutoff down in the 25 cps area. 

The two RS 62's are far from "dipoles" and I suppose are classed as bipoles. As best I can hear, the two rear facing drivers on each channel are in phase with the front facing drivers. Dipoles are 180 degrees out of phase to keep from creating a single point sounding source. The RS 62's just point in two directions at about a 90 degree angle . They sound more like decent, powerful bookshelf units reasonable in bass content and power. If you are looking for added volume spread in a big room, the Klipsch RS 62s may fit the bill. Your speakers seem to match a love for powerful sound. Would you be happier with electrostatics in the front? If not, as I suspect, maybe the klipsch will work for you. With the YAPO Yamaha setup they are, for me, way too loud and act not like speakers that increase the surround sound stage but provide separate speakers to the sides to really fill up the room. Instead of sounding like rear sound bleeding into the film stage, they sound like separate microphones were used in the rear to gather detail on what was going on there,independent of the front and thus have equal importance. My old ones sounded better "surround effect wise". They were just cheap JBL 3 inch with tweeter surround speakers and I angled them up to the ceiling to get an spread effect, not a point second source. I sure do not see $2300 in improvement over what I had. Now this was just using TV stuff, not any movies yet. Possibly with movies they surround will be less made up than it is with TV shows. Maybe my 13x27' room is too small for this setup and just does not need these. The JBL front speakers and sub give me more volume than anyone could possibly want in the room. These seem to give a second source of sound not an extension of the front sound-stage adding some side and rear effects. If you are after dipoles with 180 degree phase front to back, the DEF techs are not described to be dipoles either. Maybe a pr of some lower cost speakers wired out of phase on each side of the room and pointed at the ceiling could give you such a non localized effect? For $600 each, the Klipsch RS 62's do not do that. In addition, I struggled to hold them up and mount them at my age without help. If I get in the mood, maybe I will try to open them and put in a switch to change phase of the second pr of drivers in the enclosure but that might not work as they are in the same box I would guess, not divided. Try calling Crutchfield and asking about some of their polk surrounds. They seem to have several surround units and carry a lot of speaker types so maybe they could provide some insight. Some surrounds can be wired either way and may fit your needs. I do not know what your speaker sound character is but maybe they could give some insight. Go to a local place that has some Polks to see what they sound like. I only went to the Klipsch 62's for the bass extension. Not sure it is needed though. To me $600 each was a lot for each speaker of a pr of surround speakers. 

My JBL's are about 8 dB less efficient than I see for the JTR T12 specs but can handle a ton of power. I hit the 18 incher once with a slap of over a kilowatt (250 watt per channel Heathkit amp with 3 db headroom, then bridged). It lit the overload lights and I assume that meant in excess of 1000 watts. and really shook some cobwebs loose. The horns can take 30 watts and output 112dB with 1 watt input. 

I am eying up some room acoustic traps and am considering adding some "RealTraps" Mondos to get better control of low frequency room effects etc. I have yet to hear a speaker that gives better clearer dialogue than my JBL 300 mockups (all JBL components except their cabinets). Even my 4343 JBL monitor mockups are not as crisp as these L-300's for dialogue and vocals. Are you looking for vocal clarity or for increased fullness? I liked what I heard once, clarity and sound-stage wise on a pr of Apogee speakers on a fortune in electronics but other than those and some B&W monitors, I am sticking to my JBL's for what I like to hear. JBL generally has a strong upper midrange which works well with vocals. Sounds like they are made for movies if you care about dialogue. If I record my daughter (light lyric soprano in opera work) in my living room and play it back on the JBL's, it sounds like she is standing there. The JBL front and side surround units just did not fit my placement issues and the front center unit was way too tall. I was considering putting it over my pull down screen it was going to be a major challenge. The Klipsch was also too much a challenge so I had to stick it on a stand shelf and increase the legs by about 8 inches to bring the center up to a reasonable height. If I had room for a bass driver in the center, I would have gone with a JBL horn compression driver and a bass driver. Have you heard any bipole versus dipole systems?


----------



## [email protected]

*Bipole, Dipole, Quadpole, Omnipole...*What about tripoles like the M&K MPS-2525 or MPS-2575? I've used bipoles and dipoles, but like the tripole much more.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

[email protected] said:


> *Bipole, Dipole, Quadpole, Omnipole...*What about tripoles like the M&K MPS-2525 or MPS-2575? I've used bipoles and dipoles, but like the tripole much more.


Do you want to use these speakers with Atmos? If so, I would stick to wide dispersion monopoles. Tripoles tend to have some element that has a dipolar pattern, which is not a good match with object based surround.


----------



## fatbottom

Dan Hitchman said:


> Do you want to use these speakers with Atmos? If so, I would stick to wide dispersion monopoles. Tripoles tend to have some element that has a dipolar pattern, which is not a good match
> with object based surround.


Some people prefer diffused or spread sound. Depends on the room too.

If the sofa was right up against the back wall, no way I'd use monopoles, even if they're the coaxial type which generally have a wider dispersion and central sound point source.

I have heard M&K tripoles, forget the model maybe K and S series. Like the S series but too expensive for me.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

fatbottom said:


> Some people prefer diffused or spread sound. Depends on the room too.
> 
> If the sofa was right up against the back wall, no way I'd use monopoles, even if they're the coaxial type which generally have a wider dispersion and central sound point source.
> 
> I have heard M&K tripoles, forget the model maybe K and S series. Like the S series but too expensive for me.


It's not about preference per se with Dolby Atmos or any other object based format, it's how the content is recorded and also delivered to theaters and to the home. Monopoles work best, dipoles "confuse" and "blur" the 3D imaging set up by the Atmos rendering processor. The only speakers that could be a bit more diffuse are the ceiling surrounds, but they still call for something more akin to bipoles or monopoles with at least a 90 degree by 90 degree dispersion pattern.


----------



## smurraybhm

Not trying to start an long hypothetical discussion but until Atmos is in the wild I am not convinced that dipoles or bipoles may not have a place depending on the room and set-up. I have a sofa near wall and plan to use my bipoles with Atmos when I get a new receiver.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

smurraybhm said:


> Not trying to start an long hypothetical discussion but until Atmos is in the wild I am not convinced that dipoles or bipoles may not have a place depending on the room and set-up. I have a sofa near wall and plan to use my bipoles with Atmos when I get a new receiver.


I think bipoles may be more acceptable than dipoles, especially for ceiling surrounds. Dipoles create an artificial diffusion due to the two sets of drivers being wired out of phase, creating a null between the two sets of drivers. From what I'm reading and hearing about Atmos and DTS MDA (aka DTS-UHD), that is _not_ what you want to have happen. 

Any diffusion or reverb is in the mix itself, but you also want a more directionalized effect as well, especially since dialog is now often panned into the surrounds aggressively. That also calls for strict timbre matching of all the speakers in a system.


----------



## fatbottom

> That also calls for strict timbre matching of all the speakers in a system.


Not possible.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

fatbottom said:


> Not possible.


Sure it is, especially if you're building anew or expanding a system with more speakers (there are always caveats due to the age of the speakers or the manufacturer's product line being too limited, etc.). It will hopefully get easier to do so as companies embrace object based surround, which is starting a paradigm shift in the industry. Things, they are a-changin'.


----------



## fatbottom

No it isn't. For many reasons I've already given. I have no desire to change speakers to new ones. And they don't make matching surround speakers.


----------



## caloyzki

@Dan Hitchman

hey thanks for youre advise. i already sold my dipole/bipole speakers, to replace it with center speaker RC LCR for my surrounds and also get timbre match with my fronts. question, i know the RC LCR is a center channel, if im placing them for my surrounds, which is better position do i need to place them horizontal or vertical? thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

caloyzki said:


> @Dan Hitchman
> 
> hey thanks for youre advise. i already sold my dipole/bipole speakers, to replace it with center speaker RC LCR for my surrounds and also get timbre match with my fronts. question, i know the RC LCR is a center channel, if im placing them for my surrounds, which is better position do i need to place them horizontal or vertical? thanks.


Fantastic!

The Energy RC LCR, in actuality, is designed as a _vertically aligned_ monitor that can be used for the left, center, or right channel positions (as well as surrounds). Definitely place them vertically.


----------



## caloyzki

Dan Hitchman said:


> Fantastic!
> 
> The Energy RC LCR, in actuality, is designed as a _vertically aligned_ monitor that can be used for the left, center, or right channel positions (as well as surrounds). Definitely place them vertically.


Gotcha! Thanks. I'm getting ready for atmos 5.1.2.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

caloyzki said:


> Gotcha! Thanks. I'm getting ready for atmos 5.1.2.


Do you have a line on any particular Atmos capable receiver?


----------



## caloyzki

Dan Hitchman said:


> Do you have a line on any particular Atmos capable receiver?


not at the moment. any receiver that you can recommend? im looking from one of the denon new avr with atmos. but its a little bit pricey. maybe wait for a couple of years to get one.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

caloyzki said:


> not at the moment. any receiver that you can recommend? im looking from one of the denon new avr with atmos. but its a little bit pricey. maybe wait for a couple of years to get one.


I would wait until next year's models and hopefully they will then have HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 encryption.


----------



## Teremei

I'm about to get some bipoles so I will add my opinion to the discussion soon.

I don't know, is RB-41 II even a bipole?  It's kind of a weird mix. With a front firing woofer and angled tweeters. It might be perfect for me and my room arrangement though.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Teremei said:


> I'm about to get some bipoles so I will add my opinion to the discussion soon.
> 
> I don't know, is *RS*-41 II even a bipole? It's kind of a weird mix. With a front firing woofer and angled tweeters. It might be perfect for me and my room arrangement though.


It's still mostly a dipole. If you're thinking of doing Atmos as some point... not recommended.


----------



## Teremei

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's still mostly a dipole. If you're thinking of doing Atmos as some point... not recommended.


Probably not for a long while. Now if it doesn't sound great then I'll replace it with a RB. Curious though, I thought dipoles were speakers that fired in 2 directions completely opposite of each other? I thought a bipole is what the Klipsch surrounds are. Angled outward but not completely polar opposite firing.

Plus klipsch claims they are both good at directionality and ambiance. They use some PR lingo for it. I'll find out soon enough.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Teremei said:


> Probably not for a long while. Now if it doesn't sound great then I'll replace it with a RB. Curious though, I thought dipoles were speakers that fired in 2 directions completely opposite of each other? I thought a bipole is what the Klipsch surrounds are. Angled outward but not completely polar opposite firing.
> 
> Plus klipsch claims they are both good at directionality and ambiance. They use some PR lingo for it. I'll find out soon enough.


The horns of the Klipsch's are wired out of phase... a dipole speaker trait. Bipole speakers fire in two directions, but are wired in-phase like a normal speaker. Dipoles, in particular, are not recommended for Atmos and DTS-UHD because they cause phasing problems with these types of object based formats where the ambient presence is embedded in the mix already.


----------



## Teremei

I see, well I'm still demoing my RS-41. Not sure if I like stepping down from a 5.25" woofer to a 4" one. Even if it was an entry level. I don't want to derail the thread. But so far it doesn't seem to provide much more ambience, just more clarity. But that's a biproduct of the horn. I might try the RB-51 since that's the closest match to what I had before.


----------



## sage11x

Question for some of the experts out there. I have a legacy speaker system I bought years ago: the cambridge soundworks movieworks 5.1 system. The package consists of LCR satellites/bookshelfs, an acoustic suspension sub and (where my question is concerned) *bipole/dipole switchable rears*. These speakers served me well for years as an apartment dweller but I've recently moved into a condo where I have more room. While I would love to upgrade my audio system the budget's been a little tight lately and with Panasonic exiting the plasma business-- which forced me into an 11th hour TV purchase last year when I really didn't _need _a new display-- I'm going to have to make do with my Cambridge Soundworks for a little while longer in my media room/theater.

My media 'room' is really the end of my walk-out basement (basement is an 'L' shape). I sit about 8 feet from the front wall which is about 7 feet from butt-to-screen. I picked this spot as the 'room' is 19 feet long and this is roughly 40% of the way into the room (ahead of the room's midpoint bass null) and a great distance to maximize the relatively small 55" VT60. The room is carpeted and is finished with dry wall. Initially I am getting a lot of slap back so I want to add some acoustic panels to the walls. I have two 2'x4' panels each 4" thick that I will be mounting on adjacent walls left and right of the soundstage (with a third I plan to mount in the rear corner in the back of the room). My rears are mounted_ just_ above ear level left and right of the seating position

Here's my question. By my measurements the rears will only be about 2 feet (possibly a few inches less once things are finalized) from the back of the acoustic panels. Is this going to affect their performance or blunt their impact? I'm specifically trying to limit first reflections of the front sound stage but I didn't stop to think that the rears largly depend on refections to operate. Thanks in advance for any advice.


----------



## sage11x

sage11x said:


> Question for some of the experts out there. I have a legacy speaker system I bought years ago: the cambridge soundworks movieworks 5.1 system. The package consists of LCR satellites/bookshelfs, an acoustic suspension sub and (where my question is concerned) *bipole/dipole switchable rears*. These speakers served me well for years as an apartment dweller but I've recently moved into a condo where I have more room. While I would love to upgrade my audio system the budget's been a little tight lately and with Panasonic exiting the plasma business-- which forced me into an 11th hour TV purchase last year when I really didn't _need _a new display-- I'm going to have to make do with my Cambridge Soundworks for a little while longer in my media room/theater.
> 
> My media 'room' is really the end of my walk-out basement (basement is an 'L' shape). I sit about 8 feet from the front wall which is about 7 feet from butt-to-screen. I picked this spot as the 'room' is 19 feet long and this is roughly 40% of the way into the room (ahead of the room's midpoint bass null) and a great distance to maximize the relatively small 55" VT60. The room is carpeted and is finished with dry wall. Initially I am getting a lot of slap back so I want to add some acoustic panels to the walls. I have two 2'x4' panels each 4" thick that I will be mounting on adjacent walls left and right of the soundstage (with a third I plan to mount in the rear corner in the back of the room). My rears are mounted_ just_ above ear level left and right of the seating position
> 
> Here's my question. By my measurements the rears will only be about 2 feet (possibly a few inches less once things are finalized) from the back of the acoustic panels. Is this going to affect their performance or blunt their impact? I'm specifically trying to limit first reflections of the front sound stage but I didn't stop to think that the rears largly depend on refections to operate. Thanks in advance for any advice.


Anybody?


----------



## Alec88

sage11x said:


> Anybody?


So the dipoles will be mounted at your side position with panels right behind them on the wall, and the other panels are directly against the rear corners? Well, if the dipole drivers are angled outwards like a lot of other dipoles, the direction that they're pointing will be enough to keep the reflective effect since they can still reflect off the exposed back wall (assuming there's enough back wall). Dipoles can still work optimally when there are panels as long as the enitre room isn't covered.


----------



## dpdpdp

I have had monopoles and currently dipoles (swan R3), placement is a big factor overall. Monopoles give a direct sound and a more in your face effect like bullets flying across the room. The dipoles are more diffuse and enveloping like it sounds like it is raining in the room good for ambient noises. I say go for a 7.1, 9.1, 11.1 system with monopoles and you will get the best of both worlds.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dpdpdp said:


> I have had monopoles and currently dipoles (swan R3), placement is a big factor overall. Monopoles give a direct sound and a more in your face effect like bullets flying across the room. The dipoles are more diffuse and enveloping like it sounds like it is raining in the room good for ambient noises. I say go for a 7.1, 9.1, 11.1 system with monopoles and you will get the best of both worlds.


Atmos works better with wide dispersal monopoles. Timbre matching is important. EQ cannot magically make every speaker model sound the same.


----------



## sage11x

Alec88 said:


> So the dipoles will be mounted at your side position with panels right behind them on the wall, and the other panels are directly against the rear corners? Well, if the dipole drivers are angled outwards like a lot of other dipoles, the direction that they're pointing will be enough to keep the reflective effect since they can still reflect off the exposed back wall (assuming there's enough back wall). Dipoles can still work optimally when there are panels as long as the enitre room isn't covered.


Yes the speakers fire directly fore and aft. The panels are actually in front of the rears with the edge of the panel exactly 20" from the front firing driver (I measured).

I actually hung the panels over this weekend and tested my system. Sounds good! Like I said this is a very modest surround system but as it's my personal media room and I just upgraded my TV I'll have to stick with this audio system for awhile. Maybe next year I can start looking at upgrading. I've had my eye on the Andrew Jones set from Pioneer as I've had some experience with them and they left me mightily impressed considering the ridiculously low price. Problem is if I upgrade my speakers I'll need a new receiver as well as the Onkyo I'm using now is very modest in power output. My old Yamaha was actually more powerful but lacked DTS decoding which I needed for Bluray (it's a long story but my old Samsung 2500 bluray player with onboard decoding for DTS wasn't 3d compatible and it was actually cheaper to upgrade to an inexpensive Panasonic 3d bluray player and the Onkyo receiver with the sales last Chrstmas than it was to buy the Oppo 3d bluray player with the analog outs I needed).


----------



## iamroc

Jbl p520ws


----------



## Alec88

sage11x said:


> Yes the speakers fire directly fore and aft. The panels are actually in front of the rears with the edge of the panel exactly 20" from the front firing driver (I measured).
> 
> I actually hung the panels over this weekend and tested my system. Sounds good! Like I said this is a very modest surround system but as it's my personal media room and I just upgraded my TV I'll have to stick with this audio system for awhile. Maybe next year I can start looking at upgrading. I've had my eye on the Andrew Jones set from Pioneer as I've had some experience with them and they left me mightily impressed considering the ridiculously low price. Problem is if I upgrade my speakers I'll need a new receiver as well as the Onkyo I'm using now is very modest in power output. My old Yamaha was actually more powerful but lacked DTS decoding which I needed for Bluray (it's a long story but my old Samsung 2500 bluray player with onboard decoding for DTS wasn't 3d compatible and it was actually cheaper to upgrade to an inexpensive Panasonic 3d bluray player and the Onkyo receiver with the sales last Chrstmas than it was to buy the Oppo 3d bluray player with the analog outs I needed).


That's cool that it worked out for you. If you liked the Pioneers than yeah it makes sense to consider something that you're familiar with. If you want a set that comes with a dipole check out the Phase Tech v52s with the V Surrounds. This one has front-firing drivers with the tweeters out of phase. It's reasonably priced with excellent sound quality. S&V has a review of these. I had this set for awhile but I had to give it up only because it was black and the speakers _had_ to match an old but nice cherry cabinet.


----------



## teddyc23

I just purchased a pair of Infinity Reference RS152 surround speakers. http://www.infinityspeakers.com/estore/inf/us/products/Reference-RS152/REFERENCE%20RS152_INF_US?skuId=RS152BK_INF_US




I think these are Bipolar speakers. (Please correct me if I am wrong). I would like to mount them to my back wall, but I am unsure how high they should be. Any advice would be helpful.


Thanks


Teddy


----------



## fatbottom

Generally ear height or one or two feet above ear height.

I can't see what type it is. But why do some speaker makers put so much effort in fronts and so little in rears? I don't like Infinity Reference RS152 driver arrangement, prefer one with a midange that is front firing. I borrowed a few surround speakers, one just had treble driver, another with one woofer but two treble (uneven effect) prefer mirrored treble/midrange. Lower woofer isn't essential but if it has it..


----------



## Fabricator

hello everyone.

i have an issue. my sides are not cutting it any more. they just are not large enough = will not handle the volume i want to play them at.
ENERGY RVSS

so i want to get something that can handle it. but since i have not been on the HT forums in a while , idk what the current thinking is = bi's di's mono's. my room is 14' wide and about 40' long. the theater is at one end. and the seats are about 12'ish from the 119" screen. with the sides about 7' up on the wall, right even with the seats. 9' ceiling. right now i am only running 5.2, as i do not have the time to run new wires/mounts for 7.2. but i am ok with that, as long as what i have is working properly. 

So, what type of sides are recommended ?

thanx a ton.

oh. what is ATMOS ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Fabricator said:


> hello everyone.
> 
> i have an issue. my sides are not cutting it any more. they just are not large enough = will not handle the volume i want to play them at.
> ENERGY RVSS
> 
> so i want to get something that can handle it. but since i have not been on the HT forums in a while , idk what the current thinking is = bi's di's mono's. my room is 14' wide and about 40' long. the theater is at one end. and the seats are about 12'ish from the 119" screen. with the sides about 7' up on the wall, right even with the seats. 9' ceiling. right now i am only running 5.2, as i do not have the time to run new wires/mounts for 7.2. but i am ok with that, as long as what i have is working properly.
> 
> So, what type of sides are recommended ?
> 
> thanx a ton.
> 
> oh. what is ATMOS ?


This is at-home Dolby Atmos (I heard it at CEDIA and it is fantastic - in historical perspective, it's like going from black & white to color TV!!):

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos.html#2 






You will want to lower your surrounds to no more than just above your listeners' heads, if you possibly can, especially if installing the proper on or in-ceiling overhead speakers. There should be a good distance between the main layer of speakers and the overheads for the best 3D envelopment. You can do a 5.2.4 layout with the room you have.

You will want wide dispersion monopoles, hopefully from the same model family as your main front speakers. Dipoles, at least, are out. People are still wondering about the role of bipoles with these new 3D audio formats. The surrounds and overheads should be capable of dishing out some powerful sound as the surround effects are far more aggressive and can be full range. Dialog placement can also come from anywhere in the room, which really emphasizes the need for similarly voiced speakers. 

Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Pioneer, and Yamaha have mainstream Atmos receivers and pre-amps out or being released this year and early next.


----------



## Fabricator

thanx.

you know, i had actually predicted this atmos thing YEARS ago, nearly 10 years ago. and here is another prediction. we are going to see speakers in/on the floor. and we are going to see at least 4 seperate channels of subs. in the future, it will be "SOP" to have 30+ channels of audio. 3 channel fronts ? lol. first it will go to 5 channels, and then up from there. for a decent setup, look for $20,000 in audio. 

now, on to my question. i have tried lowering the sides to head level. didn't like it. and it actually causes problems. 

and i am not concerned about the new 3D formats. as i am not going to upgrade any time soon. i just want some good and proper sides.


----------



## Alec88

Fabricator said:


> oh. what is ATMOS ?


It's a fad. Myself, I'm waiting for true 100.10 surround as none of this 7.1 - 11 channel stuff is realistic enough. Until then it's just plain 5.1 for me. Even though I completely feel surrounded by a 5 speaker setup I can't help but wonder if something is missing.


----------



## sage11x

Alec88 said:


> It's a fad. Myself, I'm waiting for true 100.10 surround as none of this 7.1 - 11 channel stuff is realistic enough. Until then it's just plain 5.1 for me. Even though I completely feel surrounded by a 5 speaker setup I can't help but wonder if something is missing.


Did you watch/listen to the last podcast for CEDIA 2014? The opinion of atmos was largely: hearing is believing. Not trying to make an argument for or against but I'm interested to hear it before I write it off.

In either case I've decided to 'upgrade' my nearly $1500 original price Cambridge Soundworks system to the less than $500 Pioneer Andrew Jones set. I know to most of you this is probably what you spend on one speaker but I think it will work for me after spending some time auditioning them. I'm very curious about the rear speakers as this is the first time I'll ever be installing monopoles.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Fabricator said:


> thanx.
> 
> you know, i had actually predicted this atmos thing YEARS ago, nearly 10 years ago. and here is another prediction. we are going to see speakers in/on the floor. and we are going to see at least 4 seperate channels of subs. in the future, it will be "SOP" to have 30+ channels of audio. 3 channel fronts ? lol. first it will go to 5 channels, and then up from there. for a decent setup, look for $20,000 in audio.
> 
> now, on to my question. i have tried lowering the sides to head level. didn't like it. and it actually causes problems.
> 
> and i am not concerned about the new 3D formats. as i am not going to upgrade any time soon. i just want some good and proper sides.


Actually, Dolby Atmos can do up to 34 discrete outputs, plus the LFE channel. You just need a more sophisticated, and pricier (of course), pre-amp. 

At CEDIA they were talking about having the surrounds no more than _one foot above_ the seated listener's head if you don't have super tall ceilings (you don't). You don't have to place the main level surrounds (sides, rears) right at ear level. In fact, that can block sounds from a row of people. On some processors, there is a separate front and separate surround/overhead sub output. The mono LFE channel is blended with both. It all has to do with the type of digital bass management included by a particular company. 

A basic 5.1.4 system does not have to cost an arm and a leg and can be quite effective if planned out with a little thought.

What front speakers are you using right now?


----------



## fatbottom

100.10 can be done

Just install 100 of these around your room

http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/CEB-20D64/102-1126-ND/412385


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Alec88 said:


> It's a fad. Myself, I'm waiting for true 100.10 surround as none of this 7.1 - 11 channel stuff is realistic enough. Until then it's just plain 5.1 for me. Even though I completely feel surrounded by a 5 speaker setup I can't help but wonder if something is missing.


You obviously haven't heard Atmos.


----------



## Fabricator

Alec88 said:


> It's a fad. Myself, I'm waiting for true 100.10 surround as none of this 7.1 - 11 channel stuff is realistic enough.


lol



Dan Hitchman said:


> Actually, Dolby Atmos can do up to 34 discrete outputs, plus the LFE channel. You just need a more sophisticated, and pricier (of course), pre-amp.


well there ya go. see, i can see into the future. and it happened faster than expected .



Dan Hitchman said:


> At CEDIA they were talking about having the surrounds no more than _one foot above_ the seated listener's head if you don't have super tall ceilings (you don't). You don't have to place the main level surrounds (sides, rears) right at ear level. In fact, that can block sounds from a row of people.


there, you just said it that it is wrong. thats the problem with having them that low = heads and seats will negatively effect the sound. especially if you have high back seats. been there, done that. now, if your the only one in the room, and sitting on a bucket, yeah, that would work out awesome.



Dan Hitchman said:


> A basic 5.1.4 system does not have to cost an arm and a leg and can be quite effective if planned out with a little thought.


yeah, i suppose not. but when they start going 12.1-2. 6-?. well things are going to start getting way up there. at least for the average guy. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> What front speakers are you using right now?


i have SWANS 6.1, C3 center, ENERGY RVSS sides(these ain't cutting it any more.), 2 DIY CSS SD12's in ported box's, 2 x ep2500(only using one right now. i want to do 2 18" subs and use both amps), dcx2496, pioneer elite, XPA-3, VIEWSONIC PRO8100, and a 119" dalite hp 2.8. 





Dan Hitchman said:


> You obviously haven't heard Atmos.


he is being sarcastic


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Fabricator said:


> i have SWANS 6.1, C3 center, ENERGY RVSS sides(these ain't cutting it any more.), 2 DIY CSS SD12's in ported box's, 2 x ep2500(only using one right now. i want to do 2 18" subs and use both amps), dcx2496, pioneer elite, XPA-3, VIEWSONIC PRO8100, and a 119" dalite hp 2.8.


Since the Swans seem to have, in effect, flown away, are you considering switching to a different brand, so your speakers more closely match together?


----------



## Fabricator

Dan Hitchman said:


> Since the Swans seem to have, in effect, flown away,
> 
> are you considering switching to a different brand, so your speakers more closely match together?


idk what you mean by that 

no, not at all. these are pretty nice speakers. i'm just replacing the sides. SWANS sides are pretty expensive. i have been looking for a used set, but no luck. i will see if there is a set of mono bookshelfs i can get.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Fabricator said:


> idk what you mean by that
> 
> no, not at all. these are pretty nice speakers. i'm just replacing the sides. SWANS sides are pretty expensive. i have been looking for a used set, but no luck. i will see if there is a set of mono bookshelfs i can get.


Swan was bought out by a Chinese company and now hard to come by.


----------



## Fabricator

Dan Hitchman said:


> Swan was bought out by a Chinese company and now hard to come by.


yeah, that happened years ago. they are easy to get, just gotta know where to look. but they really are an obscure brand. you should see the rosewood finish on mine = WOW !

this place has sucky smilies


----------



## AC2011

*Rear speakers - floor, bookshelf or bipole?*

I am currently running a 7-channel system - traditional 5 + front presence; floorstanders for L/R, full-size bookshelves hung for front presence and bipole surrounds on the side, about 6-ft off the floor.

I just upgraded to a Yamaha RX-A3040 AVR and I'm thinking of going to 9-channel in my main room. Wondering what the best choice for rear speakers would be:

1) floorstanders - matching the front floorstanders

2) wall-mounted bookshelves - matching the bookshelves used for front presence, mounted at the same height as the side surrounds

3) bipole speakers, matching the bipoles on the sides, mounted at the same height

Use of system is 90% TV and movies, not much music currently, but expanding.

Kind of leaning towards the matching bipoles, but wondering if they would end up cancelling out with the side bipoles.

I'm kind of intrigued by floorstanding rears, but given they would be set to small anyway, is there really any point? And the backs of the chairs/couch would be blocking the soundpath, unless I raise them up somehow.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

AC2011 said:


> I am currently running a 7-channel system - traditional 5 + front presence; floorstanders for L/R, full-size bookshelves hung for front presence and bipole surrounds on the side, about 6-ft off the floor.
> 
> I just upgraded to a Yamaha RX-A3040 AVR and I'm thinking of going to 9-channel in my main room. Wondering what the best choice for rear speakers would be:
> 
> 1) floorstanders - matching the front floorstanders
> 
> 2) wall-mounted bookshelves - matching the bookshelves used for front presence, mounted at the same height as the side surrounds
> 
> 3) bipole speakers, matching the bipoles on the sides, mounted at the same height
> 
> Use of system is 90% TV and movies, not much music currently, but expanding.
> 
> Kind of leaning towards the matching bipoles, but wondering if they would end up cancelling out with the side bipoles.
> 
> I'm kind of intrigued by floorstanding rears, but given they would be set to small anyway, is there really any point? And the backs of the chairs/couch would be blocking the soundpath, unless I raise them up somehow.


You do realize this receiver has Dolby Atmos rendering and Dolby Surround upmixing on board? Would you consider designing your system around a 3D immersive format? That would change your proposed layout and speaker choices quite a bit.


----------



## AC2011

Dan Hitchman said:


> You do realize this receiver has Dolby Atmos rendering and Dolby Surround upmixing on board? Would you consider designing your system around a 3D immersive format? That would change your proposed layout and speaker choices quite a bit.


I was aware that this AVR is/will be Atmos-capable. Don't really see me adding ceiling speakers to the mix, nor moving the current placement of the front presence or side surrounds.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

AC2011 said:


> I was aware that this AVR is/will be Atmos-capable. Don't really see me adding ceiling speakers to the mix, nor moving the current placement of the front presence or side surrounds.



Too bad because Atmos and even Dolby Surround upmixing is fantastic. Well worth the extra effort in speaker placement.


----------



## AC2011

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad because Atmos and even Dolby Surround upmixing is fantastic. Well worth the extra effort in speaker placement.


I should say that it is not that I'm not interested in/curious about Atmos, but I haven't really done much looking into it at this point, as I tend not to be an early-adopter type. Let others work the kinks out first. 

WAF is probably the biggest barrier here, as SWMBO would be less than thrilled if I were to start moving existing speakers, even if I did fill and paint the holes.


----------



## WestCoastD

I'm in the final stages of constructing a dedicated theater-room. It will start-out as a 5.1 configuration, with hopes of upgrading to (possibly) a 9.2.4 configuration in the future. My room is on the small-ish/medium-ish side (11.5ft X 14.5ft). 

Right now using Marantz AV8801 processor, Parasound A51 amp, JL Audio F110 sub, Oppo BDP-105 multi-media player, Sony SCD-XA5400ES dedicated CD/SACD player, Epson Home Enema 3020 projector.

Employing Monitor Audio Gold GS Series speakers. Using GS-FX as rear-surrounds. Currently have them set for Mono-pole operation. Have'nt had the opportunity to perform any sound-test yet, so have no idea which would be optimal (mono-pole or di-pole)? 

As you may notice from the images the GS-FX rears are mounted near top-of-ceiling. I'm sort of stuck with this situation- room permitting. Also have a ceiling fan to deal with (barely blocking projection view).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

WestCoastD said:


> I'm in the final stages of constructing a dedicated theater-room. It will start-out as a 5.1 configuration, with hopes of upgrading to (possibly) a 9.2.4 configuration in the future. My room is on the small-ish/medium-ish side (11.5ft X 14.5ft).
> 
> Right now using Marantz AV8801 processor, Parasound A51 amp, JL Audio F110 sub, Oppo BDP-105 multi-media player, Sony SCD-XA5400ES dedicated CD/SACD player, Epson Home Enema 3020 projector.
> 
> Employing Monitor Audio Gold GS Series speakers. Using GS-FX as rear-surrounds. Currently have them set for Mono-pole operation. Have'nt had the opportunity to perform any sound-test yet, so have no idea which would be optimal (mono-pole or di-pole)?
> 
> As you may notice from the images the GS-FX rears are mounted near top-of-ceiling. I'm sort of stuck with this situation- room permitting. Also have a ceiling fan to deal with (barely blocking projection view).


Monopole. 

The problem is that they're sitting in the rear surround positions (considering a 5.1 system right now) and (due to the window - as you mentioned) up too high for you to get a very good layering effect with any of the 3D audio formats (except, maybe Auro3D). They need to be down closer to ear level, or just above ear level for greater separation between the main level and overhead level speakers. You could have, perhaps, put the GS-FX on tall speaker stands at ground level if you moved some of the clutter out of the way.


----------



## WestCoastD

Dan Hitchman said:


> Monopole.
> 
> The problem is that they're sitting in the rear surround positions (considering a 5.1 system right now) and (due to the window - as you mentioned) up too high for you to get a very good layering effect with any of the 3D audio formats (except, maybe Auro3D). They need to be down closer to ear level, or just above ear level for greater separation between the main level and overhead level speakers. You could have, perhaps, put the GS-FX on tall speaker stands at ground level if you moved some of the clutter out of the way.


thanks for your input. I see what you're saying.

My theater/media room also serves as office, so I'm stuck with two PC desk's and equipment ("clutter") positioned against the rear wall. Definitely no room for speaker stands.

My 5.1 living-room system has (Energy RC-R) rear-surrounds mounted in the same fashion as well (ceiling height) due to similiar room constraints. However they perform very well handling surround effects. The room really comes alive during extensive surround effects when playing DVD/BluRay sources.

I'm curious if it's even worth switching back-and-forth from mono-pole to di-pole when operating GS-FX's (playing DVD/BluRay sources in 5.1)?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

WestCoastD said:


> thanks for your input. I see what you're saying.
> 
> My theater/media room also serves as office, so I'm stuck with two PC desk's and equipment ("clutter") positioned against the rear wall. Definitely no room for speaker stands.
> 
> My 5.1 living-room system has (Energy RC-R) rear-surrounds mounted in the same fashion as well (ceiling height) due to similiar room constraints. However they perform very well handling surround effects. The room really comes alive during extensive surround effects when playing DVD/BluRay sources.
> 
> I'm curious if it's even worth switching back-and-forth from mono-pole to di-pole when operating GS-FX's (playing DVD/BluRay sources in 5.1)?


Dipoles tend to be too diffuse. A lot of sound companies (like Dolby and Auro and DTS) are trying steer people away from them.


----------



## sage11x

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dipoles tend to be too diffuse. A lot of sound companies (like Dolby and Auro and DTS) are trying steer people away from them.


Having just moved to monopole rears I'm actually struggling to find good placement for them. Using the standard 90-110 degrees from viewing angle rule they and trying to keep them near ear height they are _way_ too direct. Maybe I'm just used to the diffuse nature of my old bipole/dipoles but right now I'm actually finding them fairly distracting. My next step is I'm going to try raising them up above the listening area a bit to see if that helps.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sage11x said:


> Having just moved to monopole rears I'm actually struggling to find good placement for them. Using the standard 90-110 degrees from viewing angle rule they and trying to keep them near ear height they are _way_ too direct. Maybe I'm just used to the diffuse nature of my old bipole/dipoles but right now I'm actually finding them fairly distracting. My next step is I'm going to try raising them up above the listening area a bit to see if that helps.












The rear speakers in a 7.1 layout should be at the 150 degree location and just high enough to clear the viewers' heads (in a single row theater, the sides should be at the same height as the rears). Once you switch to 3D audio formats, you'll be glad you have monopole surrounds.


----------



## sage11x

Dan Hitchman said:


> The rear speakers in a 7.1 layout should be at the 150 degree location and just high enough to clear the viewers' heads (in a single row theater, the sides should be at the same height as the rears). Once you switch to 3D audio formats, you'll be glad you have monopole surrounds.


In the diagram you posted I'm referring to the rears along the sides of the listening area. I haven't added the back channels for 7.1 yet because... Well I guess I've just been happy with 5.1.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sage11x said:


> In the diagram you posted I'm referring to the rears along the sides of the listening area. I haven't added the back channels for 7.1 yet because... Well I guess I've just been happy with 5.1.


Ah, gotcha!

I was confused because you said rears. The speakers you are talking about are actually the side surrounds.


----------



## AC2011

Dan Hitchman said:


> You do realize this receiver has Dolby Atmos rendering and Dolby Surround upmixing on board? Would you consider designing your system around a 3D immersive format? That would change your proposed layout and speaker choices quite a bit.



Okay, I was intrigued, so did a bit of research on this.

If I was to go Atmos, then I guess I would take the bookshelves currently used as the front heights and place them either on the side or in back. Then add 2 or 4 ceiling speakers.

Dan, from various posts I've seen you make on the subject, looks like you would recommend that I remove the bipoles from the side, and put the bookshelves there instead, but also lowered closer to ear level. Does that sound about right?

I know it's new tech, so nobody really has all the answers yet, but could I just leave the bipoles on the side and put the bookshelves in the rear? (thinking 7.1.2 or 7.1.4)

My wife would probably be just as happy not seeing the bookshelves on the screen wall - that is until I tell her I'm poking some new holes in the ceiling!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

AC2011 said:


> Okay, I was intrigued, so did a bit of research on this.
> 
> If I was to go Atmos, then I guess I would take the bookshelves currently used as the front heights and place them either on the side or in back. Then add 2 or 4 ceiling speakers.
> 
> Dan, from various posts I've seen you make on the subject, looks like you would recommend that I remove the bipoles from the side, and put the bookshelves there instead, but also lowered closer to ear level. Does that sound about right?
> 
> I know it's new tech, so nobody really has all the answers yet, but could I just leave the bipoles on the side and put the bookshelves in the rear? (thinking 7.1.2 or 7.1.4)
> 
> My wife would probably be just as happy not seeing the bookshelves on the screen wall - that is until I tell her I'm poking some new holes in the ceiling!


If you only have bipoles and bookshelves currently for surrounds... it's probably going to be okay, _for now_, to lower the bipole sides closer to ear level, though probably just high enough to clear seated viewers' heads (no sound blockage). Also lower the bookshelves in the rear to the same plain as the sides. Monopoles still work best.


----------



## darthray

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you only have bipoles and bookshelves currently for surrounds... it's probably going to be okay, _for now_, to lower the bipole sides closer to ear level, though probably just high enough to clear seated viewers' heads (no sound blockage). Also lower the bookshelves in the rear to the same plain as the sides. Monopoles still work best.


Even if is all about preference, I did try the Di/Bi pole and also prefer Monopoles in my 7.2 set-up. But is just my personal preference

Ray


----------



## Dan Hitchman

darthray said:


> Even if is all about preference, I did try the Di/Bi pole and also prefer Monopoles in my 7.2 set-up. But is just my personal preference
> 
> Ray


That would be mine too, but the OP I was replying to didn't have that option right at the moment.


----------



## darthray

Dan Hitchman said:


> That would be mine too, but the OP I was replying to didn't have that option right at the moment.


I did miss the part of the OP did not have that option
But since it is a tread of what type of speakers you prefer for surronds, I wanted to point out that I also prefer Monopoles like you

They all work good, just preference and sometime you have to work with what you got.

It's all good.


Ray


----------



## richmagnus

Tripoles work fantastically in an Atmos system.


----------



## ack_bk

I am excited for Atmos. I figure in 2-3 years it will become more affordable along with 4K projectors and I will look at doing it all at once. I have bipole surrounds now, and I suspect I would have to sell those for monopole as Dolby recommends monopole all around based on everything I read.


----------



## ack_bk

Trying to wrap my brain around Atmos. For a 7.1.4 setup (for instance) does it matter if the surround speakers in the 7 speaker configuration contain some bipole surrounds? Or should all surround speakers be monopole and match the additional 4 Atmos speakers? Can I keep my current setup and just add the additional Atmos surrounds (in my situation in-ceiling)?


----------



## 7channelfreak

ack_bk said:


> Trying to wrap my brain around Atmos. For a 7.1.4 setup (for instance) does it matter if the surround speakers in the 7 speaker configuration contain some bipole surrounds? Or should all surround speakers be monopole and match the additional 4 Atmos speakers? Can I keep my current setup and just add the additional Atmos surrounds (in my situation in-ceiling)?


At the a Dolby training class at Cedia, they weren't saying NOT to use bipolar/dipolar speakers but the recommended spec is monopolar.


----------



## ack_bk

7channelfreak said:


> At the a Dolby training class at Cedia, they weren't saying NOT to use bipolar/dipolar speakers but the recommended spec is monopolar.


Monopolar for just the Atmos overhead speakers or would I also have to replace the rear and side surround speakers in the original 7.1 setup with monopolar?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ack_bk said:


> Monopolar for just the Atmos overhead speakers or would I also have to replace the rear and side surround speakers in the original 7.1 setup with monopolar?


All of them. Wide dispersion monopoles work best.


----------



## ack_bk

Dan Hitchman said:


> All of them. Wide dispersion monopoles work best.


That's what I was afraid to hear.. Well I have a few years...


----------



## mtbdudex

Had THX certification come out and endorse monopole over their prior Di-pole recommendation?
I've not seen anything on that.


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mtbdudex said:


> Had THX certification come out and endorse monopole over their prior Di-pole recommendation?
> I've not seen anything on that.
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


THX is irrelevant to this discussion. They did not come up with these immersive sound formats. Dolby, Auro, and DTS do recommend switching to timbre matched monopole surrounds (wide dispersion characteristics are even better) for 3D audio since you can actually now have a surround array just like at the cinemas, especially with Dolby and DTS's object based formats. Dipoles, especially, smear the 3D effect the mixers are trying to create.


----------



## richmagnus

Dolby state that if the speakers image well then they are fine to use. Tripole speakers work as well in n Atmos system as they do in present 5.1/7.1 systems. 

This is also using tripoles for ceiling speakers. Do not dismiss it until you have heard it. This is from direct comparisons in non dedicated and dedicated cinema rooms running a full MK300 suite and and a full MK150 mk2 system in separate rooms.


----------



## mtbdudex

Dan Hitchman said:


> THX is irrelevant to this discussion. They did not come up with these immersive sound formats. Dolby, Auro, and DTS do recommend switching to timbre matched monopole surrounds (wide dispersion characteristics are even better) for 3D audio since you can actually now have a surround array just like at the cinemas, especially with Dolby and DTS's object based formats. Dipoles, especially, smear the 3D effect the mixers are trying to create.


Dan,
You and I know that, I was asking has THX changed their stance, being a post-object sound world now they have to play in the same sandbox as others.



Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mtbdudex said:


> Dan,
> You and I know that, I was asking has THX changed their stance, being a post-object sound world now they have to play in the same sandbox as others.


THX has pretty much dropped off the radar as far as the electronics companies are concerned. They don't want to pay for certification that amounts to (in this day and age in consumer land): THX... what the hell is that?


----------



## Skylinestar

To those who have arrays of surround speakers (example 2x LeftSurround, 2x RightSurround) for multi-row seating, how do you time-align these surround speakers?


----------



## Techcafiend

Is it possible to mix surround sound speakers and bookshelves? Considering a 7.1 Setup, something simple as i live in an apartment complex. Purchased a v577 yamaha receiver and klipsch 12hg sub on sale. Considering getting some Floorstanding for the front and am trying to decide whether to get four bookshelf speakers for the side and rear or a combination of two bookshelf for the back and two surround sound speakers for the side. 

Should you combine the two or simple stick to the bookshelves?

Thanks!


----------



## Techcafiend

15 x 18 Living Room By the way.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Techcafiend said:


> Is it possible to mix surround sound speakers and bookshelves? Considering a 7.1 Setup, something simple as i live in an apartment complex. Purchased a v577 yamaha receiver and klipsch 12hg sub on sale. Considering getting some Floorstanding for the front and am trying to decide whether to get four bookshelf speakers for the side and rear or a combination of two bookshelf for the back and two surround sound speakers for the side.
> 
> Should you combine the two or simple stick to the bookshelves?
> 
> Thanks!


If you're going to upgrade to Dolby Atmos in the future... four matching bookshelves (that are from the same "family" as your front three) would probably work better. At the very least scratch dipole surrounds off your list. They're fast becoming passe with these new 3D audio formats.


----------



## cloudbuster

Hi guys continuing with the Atmos talk

I was thinking of buying Axiom QS8 for rear surrounds so would a 2 front atmos setup work good or is better to drop the QS8 and get 2 monopoles for a 4 speaker atmos setup

5.2.2 just two atmos front plus the QS8 
or
5.2.4 four atmos plus back monopoles

I like that the QS8 could be setup on the wall as is a small room just under 11'x11'
as there are not many front ported monopoles.

also another question do the atmos AVR scale all the movies for atmos or the DVDs have to be recorded that way for it to work.

Thanks!


----------



## healthnut

cloudbuster said:


> Hi guys continuing with the Atmos talk
> 
> I was thinking of buying Axiom QS8 for rear surrounds so would a 2 front atmos setup work good or is better to drop the QS8 and get 2 monopoles for a 4 speaker atmos setup
> 
> 5.2.2 just two atmos front plus the QS8
> or
> 5.2.4 four atmos plus back monopoles
> 
> I like that the QS8 could be setup on the wall as is a small room just under 11'x11'
> as there are not many front ported monopoles.
> 
> also another question do the atmos AVR scale all the movies for atmos or the DVDs have to be recorded that way for it to work.
> 
> Thanks!



For Atmos, 4 would definitely be more noticeable than the 2'rear surrounds. I own q8's (both sides and rear), but the rears don't seem to do much. I do like the Q8's though: it seems to me that real sounds are omnidirectional and the Q8's simulate this better than monopoles or dipoles. They also seem to expand the size of the room. BUT I've heard the Dolby guys recommend direct radiators as surrounds, and I don't claim to know more than they do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## richmagnus

Bipole and Tripole work perfectly well in an Atmos system.


----------



## epiCenter

richmagnus said:


> Bipole and Tripole work perfectly well in an Atmos system.


I just checked my speakercraft cinema dipole threes (4 x speakers as both my side and rear surrounds). They have all been on the QFX setting since my 7.2.4 Atmos system has been up and running (did not check before since I am happy with what I am hearing). QFX means HF signal radiates in Dipole Mode while M/L frequencies radiate in Bipole Mode. The other two options for these speakers are Dipole only and Bipole only. 

As I stated before, I have been really happy with my set up as I have been able to localize sounds in 3D space (not attributed to a specific speaker). Over the next few nights I will test the other modes on these speakers in order to optimize the Atmos effect. I may find out that the way I was listening is optimum. However, although conflicting guidance exists, the preponderance of the recommendations have been for monopole in favor over Bipole, and Bipole in favor over Dipole. 

If QFX settings have been giving me HF signals in Dipole, I would assume this was not giving me optimal results. But again, I have been blown away by how awesome both DSU and ATMOS have enveloped me in a sea of sounds. 

Has anyone else tested these different settings on their speakers? If so, what sounded best to you?

I'll report my results here this weekend. I'll post on the official Atmos thread too.


----------



## greylight44

I think the monopole recommendation has the Atmos circle/canopy in mind, with multiple screen, side, rear and ceiling speakers. This is what will sound best with the full array. If you are mainly listening to 5.1 or 7.1 soundtracks with that amount of speakers, then keeping any dipoles in your system for the time being wouldn't be bad. As has been mentioned, when we all go full object eventually, the multiple wide dispersion monopoles will be the recommendation.


----------



## Krzysztofradio

also depend on the configuration of 5.1 or 7.1


----------



## Livin

I'm starting to plan a build (remodel exhisting room my Dedicated Multi-Purpose Theater Room ... yes, I did say that  

It is for Movies (40%), TV (40%), and Games/Music (20%).

Attached is the first draft of the room.

I currently have Paradigm Monitor 7 v5 R/L, v6 Center, 4x Atom v4 Surrounds ... If I want to "hide" the surrounds I'm not sure I can use the Atoms... they are deep and back ported. 

Questions...
1. What Surrounds and Ceiling speakers would you guys suggest if I want to build an Atmos-ready theater? (I'm thinking 6 ceiling speakers)
2. Suggestions on placement?

thanks for the help!


----------



## richmagnus

greylight44 said:


> I think the monopole recommendation has the Atmos circle/canopy in mind, with multiple screen, side, rear and ceiling speakers. This is what will sound best with the full array. If you are mainly listening to 5.1 or 7.1 soundtracks with that amount of speakers, then keeping any dipoles in your system for the time being wouldn't be bad. As has been mentioned, when we all go full object eventually, the multiple wide dispersion monopoles will be the recommendation.



Bipole and Tripole will be here to stay with object based systems. I do agree re dipoles though.


----------



## manfrog

Working on planning my build....

Wiring for 7.2.2 Atmos but due to budget will start with 5.2. Have the LCR and subs but need to get my 2 surround speakers to get to the 5.2. Recommendation for the Monitor Audio ct265fx (http://www.monitoraudio.ca/products/ci-series/trimless-200/ct265-fx/).

Have Paradigm Studio 60's v4 and cc-590v4 for LCR
SVS sb-2000 duals

As I am going to get to Atmos I think these are decent for the growth of the system to Atmos as these have a surround mode selection of dipole (diffuse sound) or bipole (direct sound) operation and have read the direct is better for Atmos.

Agreement? Thanks...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

manfrog said:


> Working on planning my build....
> 
> Wiring for 7.2.2 Atmos but due to budget will start with 5.2. Have the LCR and subs but need to get my 2 surround speakers to get to the 5.2. Recommendation for the Monitor Audio ct265fx (http://www.monitoraudio.ca/products/ci-series/trimless-200/ct265-fx/).
> 
> Have Paradigm Studio 60's v4 and cc-590v4 for LCR
> SVS sb-2000 duals
> 
> As I am going to get to Atmos I think these are decent for the growth of the system to Atmos as these have a surround mode selection of dipole (diffuse sound) or bipole (direct sound) operation and have read the direct is better for Atmos.
> 
> Agreement? Thanks...


Unless you specifically cannot use matching bookshelves like the Studio 20's (the v.5 models sound the same, but have improved looks) for the side and rear surrounds in your theater design, I wouldn't go with those Monitor in-ceiling models. 

Since Paradigm isn't going to be adding any timbre matched, Atmos friendly ceiling speakers to the Studio line as they may be phasing that design out, I would probably turn to something like the Tannoy Di 5DC or Di 6DC with wide-dispersal monopole dual concentric speakers with articulating mounting brackets for the ceiling. If you have a tall ceiling, go with the 6DC's... if it's under 8 feet, perhaps go with the smaller 5DC. They've been given the "seal of approval" for use as Atmos overhead speakers and they're relatively inexpensive.

I'm in the same boat as you, but I have the Studio 100's with CC-690 v.4's.


----------



## manfrog

Dan Hitchman said:


> Unless you specifically cannot use matching bookshelves like the Studio 20's (the v.5 models sound the same, but have improved looks) for the side and rear surrounds in your theater design, I wouldn't go with those Monitor in-ceiling models.
> 
> Since Paradigm isn't going to be adding any timbre matched, Atmos friendly ceiling speakers to the Studio line as they may be phasing that design out, I would probably turn to something like the Tannoy Di 5DC or Di 6DC with wide-dispersal monopole dual concentric speakers with articulating mounting brackets for the ceiling. If you have a tall ceiling, go with the 6DC's... if it's under 8 feet, perhaps go with the smaller 5DC. They've been given the "seal of approval" for use as Atmos overhead speakers and they're relatively inexpensive.
> 
> I'm in the same boat as you, but I have the Studio 100's with CC-690 v.4's.



Thanks Dan...


I wanted to do the in-ceiling/in-wall for esthetics (aka WAF) but know this creates an issue for the soundproofing that I will be employing...so I may have a chance to go mounted 
That being said is there a in-wall/ceiling speaker that you would recommend to round out the 5 channel initial build...that I wouldn't have to replace for Atmos if/when I go there?


again many thanks!!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

manfrog said:


> Thanks Dan...
> 
> 
> I wanted to do the in-ceiling/in-wall for esthetics (aka WAF) but know this creates an issue for the soundproofing that I will be employing...so I may have a chance to go mounted
> That being said is there a in-wall/ceiling speaker that you would recommend to round out the 5 channel initial build...that I wouldn't have to replace for Atmos if/when I go there?
> 
> 
> again many thanks!!


If you can upgrade the front LCR speakers at a later date, I would switch over to Triad speakers as they have multiple model choices and designs to choose from and are reasonably priced compared to their quality (Triad is a rare breed - their in-wall's and in-ceiling's are every bit as good as the matching in-room versions). Not knowing your room dimensions, I couldn't easily recommend a specific line (Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum), but I've always loved their laid back/smooth yet dynamic sound for years (movies and music sound equally good). Dolby uses Triad's in their Atmos demos. They sounded fantastic at CEDIA. Made in the U.S., which is a plus.

Do not use their "Surround" models for a Dolby Atmos theater, use their monopole in-walls, in-ceilings instead. This comes from Triad directly.


----------



## manfrog

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you can upgrade the front LCR speakers at a later date, I would switch over to Triad speakers as they have multiple model choices and designs to choose from and are reasonably priced compared to their quality (Triad is a rare breed - their in-wall's and in-ceiling's are every bit as good as the matching in-room versions). Not knowing your room dimensions, I couldn't easily recommend a specific line (Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum), but I've always loved their laid back/smooth yet dynamic sound for years (movies and music sound equally good). Dolby uses Triad's in their Atmos demos. They sounded fantastic at CEDIA. Made in the U.S., which is a plus.
> 
> Do not use their "Surround" models for a Dolby Atmos theater, use their monopole in-walls, in-ceilings instead. This comes from Triad directly.




Wife says I won't be upgrading my Paradigm's haha...besides I really do like them 


I am looking for something that would "work" with them...I understand the timbre matching issue, but as I say this are my fronts. Bad to do a Triad with them?
Room dimensions will be 22'Lx15'Wx9'H. One sectional for seating and will be using LED mounted on wall and motorized screen (120").


I know I am trying to fight multiple battles in trying to get the "best setup possible". Soundproofing...adding speakers...existing equipment...reno's haha


If there is a decent option for me to "add" speakers that would be the way I need to go...and it would be more budget friendly than replacing the fronts.


Again thanks for the time and thoughts!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

manfrog said:


> Wife says I won't be upgrading my Paradigm's haha...besides I really do like them
> 
> 
> I am looking for something that would "work" with them...I understand the timbre matching issue, but as I say this are my fronts. Bad to do a Triad with them?
> Room dimensions will be 22'Lx15'Wx9'H. One sectional for seating and will be using LED mounted on wall and motorized screen (120").
> 
> 
> I know I am trying to fight multiple battles in trying to get the "best setup possible". Soundproofing...adding speakers...existing equipment...reno's haha
> 
> 
> If there is a decent option for me to "add" speakers that would be the way I need to go...and it would be more budget friendly than replacing the fronts.
> 
> 
> Again thanks for the time and thoughts!


If the wife demands in-wall's/in-ceiling's and you don't want to switch out your fronts later, I'd still go with Triad's since they build excellent speakers for such a job (many manufacturers skimp on their architectural speaker lines or make models that are _only_ for background music duties and wimp out for everything else - not Triad). What kind of budget can you swing? Are you the kind of movie watcher who likes to push the envelope with the volume knob? 

She might like the Triad's enough to let you upgrade everything else later. 

Paradigm does make matching in-wall's but their price vs. quality ratio is atrocious compared to their in-room varieties (sad to say)... and they have no backer boxes.


----------



## manfrog

Dan Hitchman said:


> If the wife demands in-wall's/in-ceiling's and you don't want to switch out your fronts later, I'd still go with Triad's since they build excellent speakers for such a job (many manufacturers skimp on their architectural speaker lines or make models that are _only_ for background music duties and wimp out for everything else - not Triad). What kind of budget can you swing? Are you the kind of movie watcher who likes to push the envelope with the volume knob?
> 
> She might like the Triad's enough to let you upgrade everything else later.
> 
> Paradigm does make matching in-wall's but their price vs. quality ratio is atrocious compared to their in-room varieties (sad to say)... and they have no backer boxes.



I am not one to push the volume in my estimation haha...never had a "dedicated room" before so who knows but I don't watch hard with the current setup. 


Yeah I could upgrade down the road...heard good things about the triad's and was look at the silver as that would probably be max in terms of budget ($$$ based on a sheet that I pulled from the triad owners thread). I am just looking for the two speakers to complete the 5.2 for now, but want the ability to expand and hope the Triad model stick around a bit and then can possibly incorporate Atmos. Triad dealers seem limited right now so just hope the upgrade down the road though isn't even more limited 


Never heard them either...but again reviews seem good. Which ones would you recommend? Budget is a concern as its a reno and there are other parts of the house that need to be done haha. That being said I do want decent speakers so I am happy down the road and don't mind paying a little more now for that. Again I am not a total audiophile (no disrespect to anyone meant), but at some point in the speaker food chain you can get a lot of speaker for X$, and then you can spend a lot more for the finer sound increases (these are things I might not notice). 


Thanks!


----------



## mtbdudex

Listen to Dan, for in ceiling you want backer boxes to control sound leakage to other areas, plus the design is tuned better when a known back box size is there. I have Paradigm in ceiling in my rec room and wife's craft room. They work fine but not containing the sound leaks to the main floor. 


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## manfrog

mtbdudex said:


> Listen to Dan, for in ceiling you want backer boxes to control sound leakage to other areas, plus the design is tuned better when a known back box size is there. I have Paradigm in ceiling in my rec room and wife's craft room. They work fine but not containing the sound leaks to the main floor.
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP



Yes I have read Dan's posts before and tons of good info , so glad we have a chat going. 


Correct me if wrong but the Triad's have boxes or are enclosed already? I am just concerned about the DIY box approach for a speaker that wasn't built with one from the manufacturer.

Again trying to accomplish a lot I know but a good balance of everything is probably where I need to land. Trying to do the research obviously


----------



## Dan Hitchman

manfrog said:


> I am not one to push the volume in my estimation haha...never had a "dedicated room" before so who knows but I don't watch hard with the current setup.
> 
> 
> Yeah I could upgrade down the road...heard good things about the triad's and was look at the silver as that would probably be max in terms of budget ($$$ based on a sheet that I pulled from the triad owners thread). I am just looking for the two speakers to complete the 5.2 for now, but want the ability to expand and hope the Triad model stick around a bit and then can possibly incorporate Atmos. Triad dealers seem limited right now so just hope the upgrade down the road though isn't even more limited
> 
> 
> Never heard them either...but again reviews seem good. Which ones would you recommend? Budget is a concern as its a reno and there are other parts of the house that need to be done haha. That being said I do want decent speakers so I am happy down the road and don't mind paying a little more now for that. Again I am not a total audiophile (no disrespect to anyone meant), but at some point in the speaker food chain you can get a lot of speaker for X$, and then you can spend a lot more for the finer sound increases (these are things I might not notice).
> 
> 
> Thanks!


The Silver LCR in-wall's (used as main level surrounds and even as the front three screen speakers) come in two varieties depending on the depth of your stud wall: 4 and 6. The MSRP, as you may have the same sheet I have, is $900 each. Really great speakers with a wide sound stage that even a non-audiophile could appreciate. Object based surround formats and Auro3D can use the surrounds far more aggressively than in previous channel-based tracks, so an investment in a more robust speaker is a sound one.

On the Triad thread, you could talk to Dawn and AV Science also caries them (at competitive prices), especially if you are hard up for dealers in your area. The In-ceiling Silver/6 Satellite would be used for the height speakers. 

As you may be aware, side and rear surrounds should just be high enough to clear the tops of viewers' heads, so no sound is blocked, in order to have enough separation between the main layer and overhead layer for Dolby Atmos.

You may also want to pre-wire for the upcoming 9.1.4 layout with the addition of the front wide positions (I heard it at CEDIA and it really knocked my socks off... glad to see it's going to trickle down to the more mainstream manufacturers) as seen in the newest Dolby Atmos home installation guide on their website. It's one thing I really love about scalable object based audio... you can upgrade your surround processor and not have to buy all new Atmos discs to take advantage of the improvement. They handle up to 24.1.10. 

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Dan Hitchman

manfrog said:


> Yes I have read Dan's posts before and tons of good info , so glad we have a chat going.
> 
> 
> Correct me if wrong but the Triad's have boxes or are enclosed already? I am just concerned about the DIY box approach for a speaker that wasn't built with one from the manufacturer.
> 
> Again trying to accomplish a lot I know but a good balance of everything is probably where I need to land. Trying to do the research obviously


Triad in-wall's and in-ceiling's have full speaker cabinets designed to fit within a stud wall (or columns or baffle walls in a dedicated theater) and have built-in clamping mechanisms. The reason why they're taller and/or deeper than most architectural speakers is so that they have a fairly equivalent internal cabinet volume compared to the in-room versions. It's basically like putting a regular speaker in a more inconspicuous location.


----------



## manfrog

Dan Hitchman said:


> The Silver LCR in-wall's (used as main level surrounds and even as the front three screen speakers) come in two varieties depending on the depth of your stud wall: 4 and 6. The MSRP, as you may have the same sheet I have, is $900 each. Really great speakers with a wide sound stage that even a non-audiophile could appreciate. Object based surround formats and Auro3D can use the surrounds far more aggressively than in previous channel-based tracks, so an investment in a more robust speaker is a sound one.
> 
> On the Triad thread, you could talk to Dawn and AV Science also caries them (at competitive prices), especially if you are hard up for dealers in your area. The In-ceiling Silver/6 Satellite would be used for the height speakers.
> 
> As you may be aware, side and rear surrounds should just be high enough to clear the tops of viewers' heads, so no sound is blocked, in order to have enough separation between the main layer and overhead layer for Dolby Atmos.
> 
> You may also want to pre-wire for the upcoming 9.1.4 layout with the addition of the front wide positions (I heard it at CEDIA and it really knocked my socks off... glad to see it's going to trickle down to the more mainstream manufacturers) as seen in the newest Dolby Atmos home installation guide on their website. It's one thing I really love about scalable object based audio... you can upgrade your surround processor and not have to buy all new Atmos discs to take advantage of the improvement. They handle up to 24.1.10.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Yeah I think we must have the same price sheet from Dawn.

Read the Atmos link...I am more educated now on that format. Thank you!

Listener level and speaker placement...I am a little limited on the left side speaker placement as I will be maintaining the current French doors and window. I do have about 2 ft of wall space above that I can place a speaker on/in but I guess I would need a speaker that I can angle to the main listening position. My theatre guy was originally suggesting ceiling mounted for the surrounds of the "7" setup. But with looking to do a 7.2.2 (or 4) that is going to be one busy ceiling.

So many things to contemplate and think about haha


----------



## Dan Hitchman

manfrog said:


> Yeah I think we must have the same price sheet from Dawn.
> 
> Read the Atmos link...I am more educated now on that format. Thank you!
> 
> Listener level and speaker placement...I am a little limited on the left side speaker placement as I will be maintaining the current French doors and window. I do have about 2 ft of wall space above that I can place a speaker on/in but I guess I would need a speaker that I can angle to the main listening position. My theatre guy was originally suggesting ceiling mounted for the surrounds of the "7" setup. But with looking to do a 7.2.2 (or 4) that is going to be one busy ceiling.
> 
> So many things to contemplate and think about haha


Wow! You do have a challenge there. I take it this is a multi-purpose room and not a dedicated viewing space. I'm beginning to wonder if In-room Bronze LCR's on pivoting wall brackets might work better in your situation (Triad can add them for you). They're not huge speakers and can still handle the room size you have (I wouldn't use them in any larger room as that would be pushing it). Aesthetics shouldn't be a problem (except for the one side surround that would be higher than the other main surrounds) because you can get them in custom finishes and Triad will even paint-match if given a sample of your decor. Then use in-ceiling Bronze/8's for Atmos overheads. It would look even more weird if all your surrounds were in-wall's except for one. This would also work for the wide surround positions because you could then properly angle the speakers towards the Main Listening Position, which is very hard to do with an in-wall. 

This also saves you a few hundred bucks. 

I'm just shooting out ideas here if the door has to stay in its current location.


----------



## htpcforever

Where is the "None Of The Above" choice?


----------



## manfrog

Dan Hitchman said:


> Wow! You do have a challenge there. I take it this is a multi-purpose room and not a dedicated viewing space. I'm beginning to wonder if In-room Bronze LCR's on pivoting wall brackets might work better in your situation (Triad can add them for you). They're not huge speakers and can still handle the room size you have (I wouldn't use them in any larger room as that would be pushing it). Aesthetics shouldn't be a problem (except for the one side surround that would be higher than the other main surrounds) because you can get them in custom finishes and Triad will even paint-match if given a sample of your decor. Then use in-ceiling Bronze/8's for Atmos overheads. It would look even more weird if all your surrounds were in-wall's except for one. This would also work for the wide surround positions because you could then properly angle the speakers towards the Main Listening Position, which is very hard to do with an in-wall.
> 
> This also saves you a few hundred bucks.
> 
> I'm just shooting out ideas here if the door has to stay in its current location.



I have attached a few "rough" drawings of the room...a couple above the room to give you an idea of what I am working with. It will be a "dedicated room for TV/Theatre but its a reno and I am tearing down a wall between two room to make this one room.


In the first pic the green circles were my Atmos wiring, black circles are were side surround speakers will be placed (as mentioned the theater guy said ceiling ones from Monitor Audio), red boxes are the wiring for 7 channel back surrounds.


Second pic is the speaker layout out up at screen.


3rd pic is looking at the front wall


ignore the colors for now haha


----------



## manfrog

htpcforever said:


> Where is the "None Of The Above" choice?



Sorry I am not understanding...is there another option I should be looking at?


----------



## Livin

Dan,
What would you do for my room below?

I'm starting to plan to remodel my existing basement for a Multi-Purpose Theater Room 

It is for Movies (40%), TV (40%), and Games/Music (20%).

Attached is the first draft of the room.

I currently have...
Paradigm Monitor 7 v5 R/L
CC-390 v6 Center
Atom v4 (qty 4)

... If I want to "hide" the surrounds I'm not sure I can use the Atoms... they are deep and back ported. 

Questions...
1. What Surrounds and Ceiling speakers would you guys suggest if I want to build an Atmos-ready theater? I'm thinking 4 or even 6 ceiling speakers
2. Suggestions on placement?
3. I'm considering the "invisible speaker" concept for the ceiling and/or surrounds... using transducers attached directly to the drywall. I wonder if this will provide the wide dispersion needed for the ceiling? 

Really appreciate your input!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

manfrog said:


> Sorry I am not understanding...is there another option I should be looking at?


I think he means the user poll at the beginning of the thread.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

manfrog said:


> I have attached a few "rough" drawings of the room...a couple above the room to give you an idea of what I am working with. It will be a "dedicated room for TV/Theatre but its a reno and I am tearing down a wall between two room to make this one room.
> 
> 
> In the first pic the green circles were my Atmos wiring, black circles are were side surround speakers will be placed (as mentioned the theater guy said ceiling ones from Monitor Audio), red boxes are the wiring for 7 channel back surrounds.
> 
> 
> Second pic is the speaker layout out up at screen.
> 
> 
> 3rd pic is looking at the front wall
> 
> 
> ignore the colors for now haha


How far back are you planning on sitting from your 120" diagonal screen?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Livin said:


> Dan,
> What would you do for my room below?
> 
> I'm starting to plan to remodel my existing basement for a Multi-Purpose Theater Room
> 
> It is for Movies (40%), TV (40%), and Games/Music (20%).
> 
> Attached is the first draft of the room.
> 
> I currently have...
> Paradigm Monitor 7 v5 R/L
> CC-390 v6 Center
> Atom v4 (qty 4)
> 
> ... If I want to "hide" the surrounds I'm not sure I can use the Atoms... they are deep and back ported.
> 
> Questions...
> 1. What Surrounds and Ceiling speakers would you guys suggest if I want to build an Atmos-ready theater? I'm thinking 4 or even 6 ceiling speakers
> 2. Suggestions on placement?
> 3. I'm considering the "invisible speaker" concept for the ceiling and/or surrounds... using transducers attached directly to the drywall. I wonder if this will provide the wide dispersion needed for the ceiling?
> 
> Really appreciate your input!


I don't believe the transducer type invisible speakers (like the kind Triad now distributes) have enough of a dispersal pattern to work with Atmos or other 3D audio formats. They're better for background/ambient usage for light music and that sort of thing. I would scratch that idea. 

Are you at all open to replacing the Paradigms you have now? 

If you do use in-ceiling's for your overheads, they must be precisely located and should already have a built-in angle to fire toward the MLP. That's why quite a few Atmos theaters are using speakers like the Tannoy dual concentric mountable outdoor speakers, so they can more easily locate and aim them using the included brackets. You mess up an in-ceiling speaker installation and you have a nasty patch work job ahead of you.


----------



## Livin

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't believe the transducer type invisible speakers (like the kind Triad now distributes) have enough of a dispersal pattern to work with Atmos or other 3D audio formats. They're better for background/ambient usage for light music and that sort of thing. I would scratch that idea.
> 
> Are you at all open to replacing the Paradigms you have now? If you do use in-ceiling's for your overheads, they must be precisely located and should already have a built-in angle to fire toward the MLP. That's why quite a few Atmos theaters are using speakers like the Tannoy dual concentric mountable outdoor speakers, so they can more easily locate and aim them using the included brackets. You mess up an in-ceiling speaker installation and you have a nasty patch work job ahead of you.


Yes, I'm open to replacing the Paradigms. Triads would be nice but they might be cost prohibitive. Do you see any issue using the Di6 or Di8 with the Paradigm LCRs I have? 

For my space where would you place the speakers, and which ones in those locations?

thanks for the help!


----------



## manfrog

Dan Hitchman said:


> How far back are you planning on sitting from your 120" diagonal screen?


 
Lets say 14' to 16' - will have a 120" screen and the Sony HW40ES projector.

I have attached a pic of the French doors (on the south side wall with backyard on the other side of the glass) and space above that I am working with. Note - wall in pic on right side is the one coming down.

I have been looking at wall speakers that could go above the doors and have angle capabilities...any thoughts? Am I looking at this all wrong haha?

HTD - W80 http://www.htd.com/Products/high-definition/HD-W80-in-wall-speakers#more 
Speakercraft - http://www.speakercraft.com/product...e=flypage_sc.tpl&product_id=95&category_id=52
Monitor Audio - http://www.monitoraudio.ca/products/ci-series/controlled-performance/cp-wt380idc/ (seems to have tilting and the box enclosure already)
ML - https://www.martinlogan.com/architectural/electromotion/em-iw.php

Could I install above door (same height on opposite side and angle down to the listening position?


I am not trying to deviate from Triad as I think they are good speakers  I am just figuring out what is best for my setup and constraits

Thanks


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Livin said:


> Yes, I'm open to replacing the Paradigms. Triads would be nice but they might be cost prohibitive. Do you see any issue using the Di6 or Di8 with the Paradigm LCRs I have?
> 
> For my space where would you place the speakers, and which ones in those locations?
> 
> thanks for the help!


You could use the Tannoy's with the speakers you have now... if you choose to keep the Paradigm's. Timbre matching is ideal, but Paradigm really limits your choices since they didn't jump on the Atmos bandwagon from the beginning and seem to be slow on the up take from what I gathered at CEDIA. The Tannoy Di 6DC's are being used by Roger Dressler (who used to work for Dolby) for his overheads and Keith Barnes is using the smaller Di 5DC's since his room is "hobbit sized." 

It really comes down to whether room aesthetics or pure audio performance is more important to you. With the latter, you have a lot more choices to look at and probably would have an easier installation, and it would end up sounding better too. Also, much depends on how flexible your budget is. Regular Triad Bronze and Silver speakers (not their upper-scale Monitor line in each model tier, not to be confused with Paradigm Monitors) are around the same price as the higher end of the scale Paradigm Monitor and Studios, if you shop around you can get a lot better deal, and they are of better overall quality IMHO. And that's coming from a Paradigm Studio owner.

Great speakers are a sound investment and will last you years. Triad also has great after-sale customer service. Their reputation is impeccable.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

manfrog said:


> Lets say 14' to 16' - will have a 120" screen and the Sony HW40ES projector.
> 
> I have attached a pic of the French doors (on the south side wall with backyard on the other side of the glass) and space above that I am working with. Note - wall in pic on right side is the one coming down.
> 
> I have been looking at wall speakers that could go above the doors and have angle capabilities...any thoughts? Am I looking at this all wrong haha?
> 
> HTD - W80 http://www.htd.com/Products/high-definition/HD-W80-in-wall-speakers#more
> Speakercraft - http://www.speakercraft.com/product...e=flypage_sc.tpl&product_id=95&category_id=52
> Monitor Audio - http://www.monitoraudio.ca/products/ci-series/controlled-performance/cp-wt380idc/ (seems to have tilting and the box enclosure already)
> ML - https://www.martinlogan.com/architectural/electromotion/em-iw.php
> 
> Could I install above door (same height on opposite side and angle down to the listening position?
> 
> 
> I am not trying to deviate from Triad as I think they are good speakers  I am just figuring out what is best for my setup and constraits
> 
> Thanks



I'm not going to state categorically that you should rule out Atmos, however it's starting to look like you won't have enough angular separation between the main layer speakers (that should be around ear level) and the overhead layer. That's if you have to place the side surrounds that high up on the wall to clear your French door. You may end up not being able to really differentiate sound emanations from both locations... they'll all sound like they're coming from above you. If you had really tall ceilings, it wouldn't be as much of an issue. This is from reading other Atmos user stories. 

Perhaps it might be best to stick with 7.1 or 9.1 (with front wides) for now. It's still best if you can aim the entire speaker toward the listening space. That would rule out most in-wall's unless the entire frame can be angled at the correct trajectory. I would still consider smaller in-room's that can be attached to adjustable brackets. The Bronze LCR's would still be good here, or possibly the Tannoy Di 6DC (http://www.fullcompass.com/product/345151.html) since they are dual concentric designs with a wider dispersion pattern and can be turned on their side... the woofer and tweeter are one unit. The Triad can be, as I mentioned previously, custom color matched and so can the grill... the Tannoy is metal and can be painted as well.

If that won't cut it, the Monitor Audio CP-WT380IDC might be the best bet of the in-wall's you listed since it has a) a backer box, and b) a pivoting tweeter and midrange, not just the tweeter - that would help focus the sound a bit better than a traditional in-wall.


----------



## manfrog

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm not going to state categorically that you should rule out Atmos, however it's starting to look like you won't have enough angular separation between the main layer speakers (that should be around ear level) and the overhead layer. That's if you have to place the side surrounds that high up on the wall to clear your French door. You may end up not being able to really differentiate sound emanations from both locations... they'll all sound like they're coming from above you. If you had really tall ceilings, it wouldn't be as much of an issue. This is from reading other Atmos user stories.
> 
> Perhaps it might be best to stick with 7.1 or 9.1 (with front wides) for now. It's still best if you can aim the entire speaker toward the listening space. That would rule out most in-wall's unless the entire frame can be angled at the correct trajectory. I would still consider smaller in-room's that can be attached to adjustable brackets. The Bronze LCR's would still be good here, or possibly the Tannoy Di 6DC (http://www.fullcompass.com/product/345151.html) since they are dual concentric designs with a wider dispersion pattern and can be turned on their side... the woofer and tweeter are one unit. The Triad can be, as I mentioned previously, custom color matched and so can the grill... the Tannoy is metal and can be painted as well.
> 
> If that won't cut it, the Monitor Audio CP-WT380IDC might be the best bet of the in-wall's you listed since it has a) a backer box, and b) a pivoting tweeter and midrange, not just the tweeter.


 
I see what you mean about the layers having some separation and if I place the sides to high then I have an issue...thought I could get away with the angling of the full baffle if I could point it "down" from above. In looking at the Speakercraft model it look like it can move full baffle left or right, but is not clear about down. Thought the issue here is that the listening postion changes a bit so setting for one sit is not same for the others.


Maybe the 9.2 is a better setup as I get some height speakers off of the front wall. My current receiver (denon x4000) can handle it as well...and wouldn't have to upgrade to Atmos if I went for the ceiling speakers - which was the original plan. I will look at the bronze Triad then for some. It may be the best option for the sides to wall mount on a angling bracket.


Many thanks for your patience and explanations...its really helped me out


----------



## Livin

Dan Hitchman said:


> You could use the Tannoy's with the speakers you have now... if you choose to keep the Paradigm's. Timbre matching is ideal, but Paradigm really limits your choices since they didn't jump on the Atmos bandwagon from the beginning and seem to be slow on the up take from what I gathered at CEDIA. The Tannoy Di 6DC's are being used by Roger Dressler (who used to work for Dolby) for his overheads and Keith Barnes is using the smaller Di 5DC's since his room is "hobbit sized."
> 
> It really comes down to whether room aesthetics or pure audio performance is more important to you. With the latter, you have a lot more choices to look at and probably would have an easier installation, and it would end up sounding better too. Also, much depends on how flexible your budget is. Regular Triad Bronze and Silver speakers (not their upper-scale Monitor line in each model tier, not to be confused with Paradigm Monitors) are around the same price as the higher end of the scale Paradigm Monitor and Studios, if you shop around you can get a lot better deal, and they are of better overall quality IMHO. And that's coming from a Paradigm Studio owner.
> 
> Great speakers are a sound investment and will last you years. Triad also has great after-sale customer service. Their reputation is impeccable.


I always try to balance bang for the buck with how they are being used. I want to make it sounds excellent with Movies but I watch just as much TV as I do movies. And, that room needs to look nice but not like a "fancy" home theater - though I do plan to have theater seating and a riser... the seats will be on casters so I can move them around the room for parties, etc.

I could see spending 200 per speaker at the most for ceiling and surrounds - more on the fronts and center.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

manfrog said:


> I see what you mean about the layers having some separation and if I place the sides to high then I have an issue...thought I could get away with the angling of the full baffle if I could point it "down" from above. In looking at the Speakercraft model it look like it can move full baffle left or right, but is not clear about down. Thought the issue here is that the listening postion changes a bit so setting for one sit is not same for the others.
> 
> 
> Maybe the 9.2 is a better setup as I get some height speakers off of the front wall. My current receiver (denon x4000) can handle it as well...and wouldn't have to upgrade to Atmos if I went for the ceiling speakers - which was the original plan. I will look at the bronze Triad then for some. It may be the best option for the sides to wall mount on a angling bracket.
> 
> 
> Many thanks for your patience and explanations...its really helped me out


You would definitely like the Bronze speakers. You can talk to Triad customer service and they can give you an idea of what kind of brackets would be most useful to your situation and they'll install them, so one less thing to worry about. Don't want to end up screwing through the crossover circuit board if you do it yourself. 

One thing to consider is that with DTS Neo:X post processing the wides seem to expand the sound stage more noticeably than the heights due to it being a matrixed steering logic rather than discrete audio like Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Livin said:


> I always try to balance bang for the buck with how they are being used. I want to make it sounds excellent with Movies but I watch just as much TV as I do movies. And, that room needs to look nice but not like a "fancy" home theater - though I do plan to have theater seating and a riser... the seats will be on casters so I can move them around the room for parties, etc.
> 
> I could see spending 200 per speaker at the most for ceiling and surrounds - more on the fronts and center.


Your surround speaker budget is modest, so I don't exactly see where in-wall's of suitable quality would work in this situation. 

Try these for mountable surrounds and overheads... they're compact, non-ported monopoles, and get great reviews as bang vs. buck champs (under $300/pair - you get a small discount with quantity orders):

http://ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/htm200/htm200.html 

Use your Paradigm Monitor fronts and center. These Ascend Acoustic models should be a fairly good match (not perfect, but better than some). Use the savings on not upgrading your screen speakers and get a couple high quality subs.

Peruse the Atmos installation guide and compile any questions you might have. 

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## manfrog

Dan Hitchman said:


> You would definitely like the Bronze speakers. You can talk to Triad customer service and they can give you an idea of what kind of brackets would be most useful to your situation *and they'll install them*, so one less thing to worry about. Don't want to end up screwing through the crossover circuit board if you do it yourself.
> 
> One thing to consider is that with *DTS Neo:X post processing the wides seem to expand the sound stage more noticeably than the heights due to it being a matrixed steering logic rather than discrete audio like Atmos*.




Triad will install? Not sure they can make where I am, but maybe they have a local distributor.


Could you explain the DTS Neo comment...not sure I Understand what you mean.


Will look at the bronze for sure. Back to the original question now (if I am not using Atmos)...would I look to use a Triad "surround" speaker for the back while using the bronze for the side and front heights? Correct me if I have this wrong...still looking at the "9" setup haha


----------



## Dan Hitchman

manfrog said:


> Triad will install? Not sure they can make where I am, but maybe they have a local distributor.
> 
> 
> Could you explain the DTS Neo comment...not sure I Understand what you mean.
> 
> 
> Will look at the bronze for sure. Back to the original question now (if I am not using Atmos)...would I look to use a Triad "surround" speaker for the back while using the bronze for the side and front heights? Correct me if I have this wrong...still looking at the "9" setup haha


Where are you located? Triad makes the speakers to order - they don't have much pre-made stock sitting around in their warehouse. If you want custom wall brackets for in-room's or on-wall's, they'll put them on the back of the speaker for you when you order them. The same as if you request an order with a custom finish or paint color. They then ship to your dealer or directly to your home... whichever arrangement you settled on with the dealer.

It would be Bronze In-Room LCR's for the rears and wides or heights and Bronze On-Wall Surrounds for the sides, if you want dipole surrounds. I, personally, am not keen on dipoles. Too diffuse IMHO, and if you ever get into multi-channel music, monopoles would be the better choice... just like as if you had been able to do Atmos.

If you stay with the Denon x4000 receiver, you can either process heights *or* wides with DTS Neo:X post-processed upmixing (it doesn't allow you to do both at the same time due to its limited chip horsepower). These post-processed formats (that are not Dolby Surround - designed for Atmos speaker upmixing) tend to do a better and more accurate and noticeable job widening the front sound field out into the wide speakers rather than placing audio into the height speakers. Bang vs. buck in a non-3D audio theater would be using wide speakers instead of heights if you have to choose one location.


----------



## Livin

Dan,
I see you are in CO. I'm in Erie, I'm looking for help doing a design and the install. Do you have anyone in this area you can recommend - who won't cost me an arm and a leg? I want a nice room, not extravagant, but something I'll not want to change in a few years.

thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Livin said:


> Dan,
> I see you are in CO. I'm in Erie, I'm looking for help doing a design and the install. Do you have anyone in this area you can recommend - who won't cost me an arm and a leg? I want a nice room, not extravagant, but something I'll not want to change in a few years.
> 
> thanks!


There was one I could have suggested in Fort Collins that no longer exists. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the Erskine Group. They do different levels of design from basic to the most extravagant. Perhaps they can tailor something to your budget since you're an AVS Forum member, or at least get you on the right track. However, even the most inexpensive A/V designer is probably going to charge around $1,000 for basic DIY building plans and schematics. What I do know is that Dennis and his team are absolutely well worth the money, especially if this is for a home that you plan to stay in for a while. He used to frequent this forum quite a bit in the past giving sage, professional advice on his own time, and quite a few members have used his company for at least the planning stages. Obviously, only the most well off have had his award winning team flown in to actually build their theater. 

http://erskine-group.com/contact-us/

Perhaps if you check out the dedicated theater build thread and ask your questions, you might get some great free advice. You may end up having to learn as you go because labor, especially labor that knows something about home theater, is not cheap.


----------



## manfrog

Dan Hitchman said:


> Where are you located? Triad makes the speakers to order - they don't have much pre-made stock sitting around in their warehouse. If you want custom wall brackets for in-room's or on-wall's, they'll put them on the back of the speaker for you when you order them. The same as if you request an order with a custom finish or paint color. They then ship to your dealer or directly to your home... whichever arrangement you settled on with the dealer.
> 
> It would be Bronze In-Room LCR's for the rears and wides or heights and Bronze On-Wall Surrounds for the sides, if you want dipole surrounds. I, personally, am not keen on dipoles. Too diffuse IMHO, and if you ever get into multi-channel music, monopoles would be the better choice... just like as if you had been able to do Atmos.
> 
> If you stay with the Denon x4000 receiver, you can either process heights *or* wides with DTS Neo:X post-processed upmixing (it doesn't allow you to do both at the same time due to its limited chip horsepower). These post-processed formats (that are not Dolby Surround - designed for Atmos speaker upmixing) tend to do a better and more accurate and noticeable job widening the front sound field out into the wide speakers rather than placing audio into the height speakers. Bang vs. buck in a non-3D audio theater would be using wide speakers instead of heights if you have to choose one location.


 
I am above the border in Vancouver, Canada, but have access to the US for all orders easily...all my shipments go there. I see there is a "local" dealer listed of the Triad site that I might call tomorrow and see, but have to check the USA prices and see what works best. Maybe there are some used ones out there as well..?


Room will mainly be for movies and TV viewing ...so not sure that makes a difference when deciding between heights or wides? I just thought the heights would add more to the experience vs the wides (but that is uneducated at best haha).

Would it be a "bad" decision to do heights then? Or just not the best considering the equipment...maybe I will stick with a 7.2 haha

What to wire for...was 7.2 Atmos, now I don't know haha. Room is "dedicated" to the purpose of viewing a screen (maybe 10% music down the road). Walls should be opened up in a few weeks and I need to figure this out ASAP.


Thanks again for the help...and I know I will get there haha


----------



## Dan Hitchman

manfrog said:


> I am above the border in Vancouver, Canada, but have access to the US for all orders easily...all my shipments go there. I see there is a "local" dealer listed of the Triad site that I might call tomorrow and see, but have to check the USA prices and see what works best. Maybe there are some used ones out there as well..?
> 
> 
> Room will mainly be for movies and TV viewing ...so not sure that makes a difference when deciding between heights or wides? I just thought the heights would add more to the experience vs the wides (but that is uneducated at best haha).
> 
> Would it be a "bad" decision to do heights then? Or just not the best considering the equipment...maybe I will stick with a 7.2 haha
> 
> What to wire for...was 7.2 Atmos, now I don't know haha. Room is "dedicated" to the purpose of viewing a screen (maybe 10% music down the road). Walls should be opened up in a few weeks and I need to figure this out ASAP.
> 
> 
> Thanks again for the help...and I know I will get there haha


Heights are better used when there is discrete information in the soundtrack like from Auro3D, Dolby Atmos, or DTS MDA. It's not as easy to synthesize overhead audio with these older upmixing formats like Dolby Prologic IIz and DTS Neo:X as it is frontal derived info from the side surrounds and screen speakers (Dolby Surround was a re-invention of the upmixer "secret sauce"). That doesn't mean you couldn't wire for front wall height speakers that fall within Dolby Atmos recommended angle specs for front heights, not ceiling heights (that also work for these other upmixing formats and Auro3D) and add them later. 

You are losing a lot by not adding music into the mix. Multi-channel high res. is a real treat. Quite a few concert Blu-ray's include it too.

I'm sure there are some used Triad's out in the wild, though they can be harder to come by. Owners usually don't like to part with them, which says a lot. 

Are you using an acoustically transparent screen?


----------



## manfrog

Dan Hitchman said:


> Heights are better used when there is discrete information in the soundtrack like from Auro3D, Dolby Atmos, or DTS MDA. It's not as easy to synthesize overhead audio with these older upmixing formats like Dolby Prologic IIz and DTS Neo:X as it is frontal derived info from the side surrounds and screen speakers (Dolby Surround was a re-invention of the upmixer "secret sauce"). That doesn't mean you couldn't wire for front wall height speakers that fall within Dolby Atmos recommended angle specs for front heights (that also work for these other upmixing formats) and add them later.
> 
> You are losing a lot by not adding music into the mix. Multi-channel high res. is a real treat. Quite a few concert Blu-ray's include it too.
> 
> I'm sure there are some used Triad's out in the wild, though they can be harder to come by. Owners usually don't like to part with them, which says a lot.
> 
> Are you using an acoustically transparent screen?


 
Yeah I may get more into the music/concert on Blu-ray once I have the setup to do it...just moved into this house from a townhouse where there were no options to upgrade to "toys" like this 


Yeah wiring for all this should be fun...I really want to try and get it right at this point and at least enjoy for a few years (if not more) without worrying/wanting/needing to upgrade. This hobby is demanding and I really just want to enjoy it.


no my screen is not transparent...not to say I wouldn't get one down the road, but budget and all I did not go for it this time. Besides, I like the look of speakers and want them out at the front of the room. Looks daunting have big towers and dual subs just waiting to go...


----------



## manfrog

Dawn Gordon said:


> If you don't have a relationship with a local Triad dealer I can sell you Triads. I can also arrange for an installer to install them for you.
> 
> Call or email me if you need assistance.
> 
> Dawn Gordon Luks
> Egret Electronics
> 561-745-6186
> [email protected]




Hey Dawn...thanks! Email sent.


----------



## Livin

If I buy some used Triad's (to save some $) - what specific things should I look for, check, etc - to ensure they will match new ones that I'd need to buy?

Also (in case Triad are not within my budget - they may not be) what other speakers should I be looking at? I don't need in-wall but it would make hiding them much easier and the room look nicer. Thus, please suggest on-wall or speakers that woul be easily hidden behind panels/pillars/etc.

thanks!


----------



## cdp1276

I recently purchased the new Sony STR-ZA3000ES AVR for my new home. I've been using the Sony SA-VE835ED speaker system for awhile now. However to complete the 5.1 I really don't have a way to easily run speaker wires to the back speakers. There is no basement and I have really nice birch wood floors I don't want to drill into.

Can anyone recommend a way I can get 2 rear speakers introduced to this setup to complete the 5.1 surround again?

Would you also recommend a complete new speaker setup? Right now as a 3.1 setup, I'm disappointed in watching most Dolby TV shows that the talking is washed out by the other sounds. It used to be so much clearer in my previous setup, now I need to really turn up to have the voices above the rest. Any thoughts would be much appreciated.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cdp1276 said:


> I recently purchased the new Sony STR-ZA3000ES AVR for my new home. I've been using the Sony SA-VE835ED speaker system for awhile now. However to complete the 5.1 I really don't have a way to easily run speaker wires to the back speakers. There is no basement and I have really nice birch wood floors I don't want to drill into.
> 
> Can anyone recommend a way I can get 2 rear speakers introduced to this setup to complete the 5.1 surround again?
> 
> Would you also recommend a complete new speaker setup? Right now as a 3.1 setup, I'm disappointed in watching most Dolby TV shows that the talking is washed out by the other sounds. It used to be so much clearer in my previous setup, now I need to really turn up to have the voices above the rest. Any thoughts would be much appreciated.


My first recommendation would be to return the Sony AVR and replace it with at least a Denon AVR-X4100W (if you cannot wait for the 2015 models - AV Science has competitive prices FYI). Even if you never do Dolby Atmos or Auro3D (or DTS: X coming this year) "immersive" 3D audio formats, Audyssey calibration is well worth the upgrade and brand switch... besides I (and other people I know) have never had anything but heartache dealing with Sony receivers. Never had an issue with Denon (knock on wood).

Since you have hardwood floors I would buy flat under-carpet grade speaker wire (16 gauge), and then run it underneath an area rug and your couch up to surround speaker stands (with built-in wire channels) that elevate your surrounds high enough to clear your couch back. Place them anywhere between the 100 to 110 degree side surround locations of the main listening position. 

Here's an example of the wire I'm talking about:

http://www.amazon.com/SIIG-16-Gauge-CL2-rated-Baseboard-CB-AU1612-S1/dp/B005FM5WY2/ref=pd_cp_e_0

And I would most definitely consider upgrading your speaker system. Any idea of a budget you'd be comfortable with?


----------



## mnc

Hello, thought I would go here for some advice. I want to upgrade my current surround speakers, NHT HDP-1's. This is in a living room and the main sofa is only 3' from the back wall. Currently my surrounds are on the back wall about 12' apart. I know that's not the correct placement for these speakers but it sounds ok. 
I mostly use surround for tv and movies, not music. My front speakers are NHT VT-2 and VS-2 but I will probably upgrade to PSA MT-110's in the future. I like the diffuse sound better so I was thinking of some bipolars, maybe from Def Tech or Martin Logan. 
Also am I too close to the back wall for monopoles?

Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mnc said:


> Hello, thought I would go here for some advice. I want to upgrade my current surround speakers, NHT HDP-1's. This is in a living room and the main sofa is only 3' from the back wall. Currently my surrounds are on the back wall about 14' apart. I know that's not the correct placement for these speakers but it sounds ok.
> I mostly use surround for tv and movies, not music. My front speakers are NHT VT-2 and VS-2 but I will probably upgrade to PSA MT-110's in the future. I like the diffuse sound better so I was thinking of some bipolars, maybe from Def Tech or Martin Logan.
> Also am I too close to the back wall for monopoles?
> 
> Thanks.


The first questions would have to be A) Do you know about the move to 3D immersive surround with Dolby Atmos, DTS-X, and Auro 3D, and B) Is that something you might be interested in upgrading to in the future?


----------



## mnc

No I have zero interest in "height" speakers or anything like that. I still just use 5.1 and don't see that changing since this is my living room. WAF.


----------



## fatbottom

mnc said:


> Hello, thought I would go here for some advice. I want to upgrade my current surround speakers, NHT HDP-1's. This is in a living room and the main sofa is only 3' from the back wall. Currently my surrounds are on the back wall about 12' apart. I know that's not the correct placement for these speakers but it sounds ok.
> I mostly use surround for tv and movies, not music. My front speakers are NHT VT-2 and VS-2 but I will probably upgrade to PSA MT-110's in the future. I like the diffuse sound better so I was thinking of some bipolars, maybe from Def Tech or Martin Logan.
> Also am I too close to the back wall for monopoles?
> 
> Thanks.


You could just convert the NHT HDP-1 to bipoles. Find the out of phase side remove the treble and reverse the wires. Instant bipoles.


----------



## mnc

I actually do have one speaker wired "reverse phase" so they should be acting more like bipoles. I get a very good sound field. Very even and convincing. The only reason I want to upgrade them is for a wider frequency response, dynamics and output. These were made way back in the Pro Logic days so they are VERY limited in their response and output.

Right now I'm leaning towards the Martin Logan FX.


----------



## fatbottom

mnc said:


> I actually do have one speaker wired "reverse phase" so they should be acting more like bipoles. I get a very good sound field. Very even and convincing. The only reason I want to upgrade them is for a wider frequency response, dynamics and output. These were made way back in the Pro Logic days so they are VERY limited in their response and output.
> 
> Right now I'm leaning towards the Martin Logan FX.



Do you mean one speaker as in actual one speaker, or have you opened up the out of phase side reversed polarity between PCB crossover to the out of phase driver(s) or just you reversed the phase on one actual speaker, ie right side?

The problem with getting a wider fr speaker is size, dedicated surround speakers don't intrude in the room that much. Getting floorstanders for side & surrounds is too much, even for me (single) lol


----------



## mnc

fatbottom said:


> Do you mean one speaker as in actual one speaker, or have you opened up the out of phase side reversed polarity between PCB crossover to the out of phase driver(s) or just you reversed the phase on one actual speaker, ie right side?
> 
> The problem with getting a wider fr speaker is size, dedicated surround speakers don't intrude in the room that much. Getting floorstanders for side & surrounds is too much, even for me (single) lol


No I didn't open up the speaker. Just reversed the speaker wire to one speaker. Haven't tried opening the speaker yet.

Not sure what you meant about floor stander for surround. Maybe you misunderstood me. The Martin Logan FX surround is an on wall bipolar surround speaker.


----------



## fatbottom

"No I didn't open up the speaker. Just reversed the speaker wire to one speaker. Haven't tried opening the speaker yet."

LOL that wouldn't do it. It just means one speaker is out of phase. If you wanted to convert bipole to dipole, or vice versa, you'd want to invert the phase between the crossover board and the actual drivers.


----------



## mnc

Yeah that's what I figured I just haven't got up the nerve to take apart the speaker.


----------



## isover

My living room is 20x10, seating is like this,

Wall/Surround------Couch------------LCR/Wall

One side is wall/window, the other side is open area links to kitchen/dining. Is bookshelf or bipole/dipole a better choice for the surrounds?


----------



## drarunkpgi

*DIPOLE D500 SUR for front height- will it work?*

I am loving my jamo* D500 7.1 system ( 3 D500 LCR plus 4 D500 surrounds )*I am getting a d500 Surround pair for front heights.
I read in forums that dipole speakers are not good for front height.

Some HT enthusiasts have tried dipole surrounds for front height placement.
They have placed them on their front end sidewalls like surround speakers.
My question is for positioning them as front heights
What would be the ideal placement angle and position ( front wall
or side wall in the front) for my new d500 Sur .


I will be using NEO X
in my NR818.

Will placing them on sidewalls direct the sound waves to listening
position (10 ft from screen)


Or is it totally unacceptable for DIPOLE speakers to be used as FRONT HEIGHTS

Thank you again
Hope to get a helpful suggestion
Arun


----------



## blastermaster

> You are losing a lot by not adding music into the mix. Multi-channel high res. is a real treat. Quite a few concert Blu-ray's include it too.


I just started watching concert Blu Rays and, damn, they are exceptional! I only have a few, but wow what an experience.


----------



## the_abbot

blastermaster said:


> I just started watching concert Blu Rays and, damn, they are exceptional! I only have a few, but wow what an experience.


I have recently stumbled onto this area as well. Amazing! I would HIGHLY recommend the Eagles Farewell Tour bluray. An audio/visual feast!


----------



## LowTech1

mnc said:


> No I have zero interest in "height" speakers or anything like that. I still just use 5.1 and don't see that changing since this is my living room. WAF.


You mean your wife has no interest in height speakers. Height speakers adds so much to sound. I put them as rears for a day and wondered why I'm missing so much sound. Put them back and ahhh. bliss! They are absolutely worth it. Most guys don't want to do it,because #1 they haven't heard it before, or #2 their wife would never let them do it. Ignorance is bliss I guess.


----------



## LowTech1

drarunkpgi said:


> I am loving my jamo* D500 7.1 system ( 3 D500 LCR plus 4 D500 surrounds )*I am getting a d500 Surround pair for front heights.
> I read in forums that dipole speakers are not good for front height.
> 
> Some HT enthusiasts have tried dipole surrounds for front height placement.
> They have placed them on their front end sidewalls like surround speakers.
> My question is for positioning them as front heights
> What would be the ideal placement angle and position ( front wall
> or side wall in the front) for my new d500 Sur .
> 
> 
> I will be using NEO X
> in my NR818.
> 
> Will placing them on sidewalls direct the sound waves to listening
> position (10 ft from screen)
> 
> 
> Or is it totally unacceptable for DIPOLE speakers to be used as FRONT HEIGHTS
> 
> Thank you again
> Hope to get a helpful suggestion
> Arun


I have the 818 also. Use monopole for height speakers. Use the same brand as your front 3 if possible. I have my receiver set to Audyssey DSX,that sound the best to me. They work great for dialog also. Once you go height speakers,you won't go back. I use dipole for the surrounds to the side of me. They sound awesome!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LowTech1 said:


> I have the 818 also. Use monopole for height speakers. Use the same brand as your front 3 if possible. I have my receiver set to Audyssey DSX,that sound the best to me. They work great for dialog also. Once you go height speakers,you won't go back. *I use dipole for the surrounds to the side of me*. *They sound awesome!*


Until you upgrade to Dolby Atmos and DTS-X, that is.


----------



## LowTech1

Dan Hitchman said:


> Until you upgrade to Dolby Atmos and DTS-X, that is.


That's true,but I won't even consider it until receivers with DTS-X comes out. And doing Dolby Atmos in my basement might be too much work. I'd have to run speaker wire over the ceiling and I have no idea how I would attempt to do that without butchering the ceiling..


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LowTech1 said:


> That's true,but I won't even consider it until receivers with DTS-X comes out. And doing Dolby Atmos in my basement might be too much work. I'd have to run speaker wire over the ceiling and I have no idea how I would attempt to do that without butchering the ceiling..


You may need to create either a grid channel to run wire and hang speakers rather than cutting into your drywall or create some sort of coffered ceiling effect that does the same thing.


----------



## LowTech1

That could be done with white channel,but it just seems like a major job and I don't want it to look like a hack job.


----------



## drarunkpgi

LowTech1 said:


> I have the 818 also. Use monopole for height speakers. Use the same brand as your front 3 if possible. I have my receiver set to Audyssey DSX,that sound the best to me. They work great for dialog also. Once you go height speakers,you won't go back. I use dipole for the surrounds to the side of me. They sound awesome!


Thank you for the inputs


----------



## Eyleron

Anyone using DIY Sound Group Volt coaxial speakers? Wide even response, so obviously good for ceiling, but what surround backs and sides?


----------



## mnc

LowTech1 said:


> You mean your wife has no interest in height speakers. Height speakers adds so much to sound. I put them as rears for a day and wondered why I'm missing so much sound. Put them back and ahhh. bliss! They are absolutely worth it. Most guys don't want to do it,because #1 they haven't heard it before, or #2 their wife would never let them do it. Ignorance is bliss I guess.


I have vaulted ceilings. Don't think atmos works well in here.


----------



## Eyleron

Lowtech1 is talking about front height speakers.
mnc is talking about Atmos ceiling speakers.

With some compromises you could probably get Atmos ceiling to work. Maybe facing them straight down, but using painted grill to make the ceiling flush, even though the speaker would be angled and recessed on one side. If the ceilings are high, a more narrow dispersion speaker might work to clear the ceiling hole and reach enough audience below.

But at some point, a normal living space becomes compromised for a cinema space, which has some architectural requirements.


----------



## relic1882

For what it's worth +1 for front height speakers. I'm using front heights on my setup for 7.1 instead of the extra 2 rears. I love it. It actually was really convenient too because they are rather small (still nice 100 watts each Polk satellites) and they were already mounted right next to each side of my TV on the wall, so all I had to do it plug them into the 7.1 option on my receiver and set it to PLIIz. They truly do give an amazing addition to the entire room.


----------



## Rich0449

Hi guys...I'd like to upgrade to 7.1, and I already have 2 rear ceiling speakers that I am using for my 5.1 (they are on the ceiling about two feet behind the couch). I know I should install 2 side surround speakers and then use the existing 2 rear ceiling speakers for the back surround speakers, but the wife says no, and also one side of the room where a side speaker should be is wide open (the kitchen connects there). I was considering direct aimable speakers, and called Speakercraft and they said that instead of regular ceiling speakers, they recommend using 4 of their AIM wide ceiling speakers instead (2 for the surrounds and 2 for the back surrounds). Is this a good idea? Reading threads it seems preferable to use the wide speakers for the ones that would be a little in front of the couch and regular directing speakers for the rear ones a couple of feet behind me? I would greatly appreciate input, suggestions, etc., as I don't want to make the wrong holes in the ceiling! Thanks!


----------



## Eyleron

This is probably the wrong thread for your question.
For that matter, it's an outdated thread topic, as it doesn't include coaxial wide dispersion or monopole types as discussion possibilities.

Are these Speakercraft in-ceilings?
In-walls and ceiling speakers are a good choice in mixed-use living spaces. Your wife understandably doesn't want black boxes all over the floors and walls.

It is hard to find great in-wall and in-ceiling speakers, and the good ones cost more than on-wall and freestanding.

I have tested and looked at one of the cheaper SpeakerCraft in-walls and it was pretty poor.

The higher-ends might be fine, and Triad, DefTech, Paradigm make such speakers too.

Looker for those with an integrated or optional backer box.


----------



## Rich0449

Eyleron said:


> This is probably the wrong thread for your question.
> For that matter, it's an outdated thread topic, as it doesn't include coaxial wide dispersion or monopole types as discussion possibilities.
> 
> Are these Speakercraft in-ceilings?
> In-walls and ceiling speakers are a good choice in mixed-use living spaces. Your wife understandably doesn't want black boxes all over the floors and walls.
> 
> It is hard to find great in-wall and in-ceiling speakers, and the good ones cost more than on-wall and freestanding.
> 
> I have tested and looked at one of the cheaper SpeakerCraft in-walls and it was pretty poor.
> 
> The higher-ends might be fine, and Triad, DefTech, Paradigm make such speakers too.
> 
> Looker for those with an integrated or optional backer box.


Got it..thanks. I only know of Definitive RSS III for integrated surrounds. Are these any good and are there any others I should look? Is it okay to use 4 of these in the ceilings for pseudo side surrounds and rears in my setup? thanks


----------



## fatbottom

Rich0449 said:


> Hi guys...I'd like to upgrade to 7.1, and I already have 2 rear ceiling speakers that I am using for my 5.1 (they are on the ceiling about two feet behind the couch). I know I should install 2 side surround speakers and then use the existing 2 rear ceiling speakers for the back surround speakers, but the wife says no, and also one side of the room where a side speaker should be is wide open (the kitchen connects there). I was considering direct aimable speakers, and called Speakercraft and they said that instead of regular ceiling speakers, they recommend using 4 of their AIM wide ceiling speakers instead (2 for the surrounds and 2 for the back surrounds). Is this a good idea? Reading threads it seems preferable to use the wide speakers for the ones that would be a little in front of the couch and regular directing speakers for the rear ones a couple of feet behind me? I would greatly appreciate input, suggestions, etc., as I don't want to make the wrong holes in the ceiling! Thanks!


Strange inwalls cost more, there's no cabinet! so not paying for cabinet design, wood, labour, veneer, large boxes etc


----------



## Eyleron

I guess I recant. Paradigm, at least, has in walls about the same price, or a little cheaper, than the equivalent freestanding.

Still, they do seem expensive given those points of what they don't include. 

Maybe it's the lower sales volume.


----------



## skads_187

just a small question, im upgrading speakers to the psb imagine series. will have t2 in the front 
I have a 7.1 setup and want to keep it that way, however, in the bundle that I will be buying, I have the option of also getting the imagine S surround.
then I will use one of my other speakers for the rest of the surround duty.

for the imagine S:
would it be better to use this as a surround back? or surrounds L-R?
and which mode?

for bipole it states to use the top 2 connectors.
If I place them in the back, I believe I connect the bottom connectors and the side surrounds, the top connectors.

this is the first time I will be using such a speaker, any feedback would be great.


----------



## jh20001

I have considered getting some dipole Paradigms to cover my sides with. I have 4 in the back, 4 in the front + center and sub. The sides are barron. I listened to a demo at a local retailer and they sounded like they would make a great addition to the setup.


----------



## fatbottom

I think it's probably better to go bipole from now. I have owned dipole and bipoles.


----------



## kkeary

jh20001 said:


> I have considered getting some dipole Paradigms to cover my sides with. I have 4 in the back, 4 in the front + center and sub. The sides are barron. I listened to a demo at a local retailer and they sounded like they would make a great addition to the setup.


I'm about to setup a new home theater; do you currently have the ADPs in your system?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jh20001 said:


> I have considered getting some dipole Paradigms to cover my sides with. I have 4 in the back, 4 in the front + center and sub. The sides are barron. I listened to a demo at a local retailer and they sounded like they would make a great addition to the setup.


If you upgrade to Dolby Atmos and the upcoming DTS:X object formats I would highly recommend NOT going with dipole surrounds. Monopoles or maybe bipoles instead.


----------



## jh20001

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you upgrade to Dolby Atmos and the upcoming DTS:X object formats I would highly recommend NOT going with dipole surrounds. Monopoles or maybe bipoles instead.


Hmmm, I have never thought of that :/


----------



## jh20001

kkeary said:


> I'm about to setup a new home theater; do you currently have the ADPs in your system?


No. My setup is a mixture between Monitors and Titans which created a great balance. My sides have a noticeable gap though due to the size of the room. That was why I was considering them on my sides. However, he made a good point about DTS:X. I could care less about Atmos at this point, but eventually I'll probably put "something" in my ceiling since DTS:X will support those speakers as well. 

Back to the drawing board in my head.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jh20001 said:


> No. My setup is a mixture between Monitors and Titans which created a great balance. My sides have a noticeable gap though due to the size of the room. That was why I was considering them on my sides. However, he made a good point about DTS:X. I could care less about Atmos at this point, but eventually I'll probably put "something" in my ceiling since DTS:X will support those speakers as well.
> 
> Back to the drawing board in my head.


You should care about Atmos because some studios may not support DTS:X, where they will Atmos... and vice versa. DTS:X has more flexibility than Atmos at the moment. So, it will render to Atmos speaker positions. Set up for Atmos and you're ready for DTS:X as well.


----------



## LowTech1

He should also wait to get a receiver til summer/fall,when the new receivers have DTS:X on them also. I have dipoles on the sides,the only problem is my side walls are pretty close,like 3 ft from the listening position on either side. Which makes monopole speakers a little close. The speakers switch from dipole to bipole,so if I do decide to go Atmos/DTS:X I'd probably switch it to bipole and put 2 speakers in the rear too for 7.1.4.


----------



## budda109

I have a nice audio system. AVR-X4000, Samsung PN60E8000. Front speakers are Bose 301's. Sub-woofer is an Engery S10.3. Center channel Bose VCS-10. Have one of those in the front by TV and one in the rear by directly across back wall.Fluance XLBP Wide Dispersion Bipolar...Are my rear upper. What I am looking for are surround speakers for mid room as part of the 7.1. Have some now but they are really cheap. I want small but real sound mid surround speakers. Room is around 18 X 24?Any suggestions? I have tried to up grade little by little. AVR seems to always get the most attention. Everything sounds nice but always tring to improve. Thanks


----------



## Dan Hitchman

budda109 said:


> I have a nice audio system. AVR-X4000, Samsung PN60E8000. Front speakers are Bose 301's. Sub-woofer is an Engery S10.3. Center channel Bose VCS-10. Have one of those in the front by TV and one in the rear by directly across back wall.Fluance XLBP Wide Dispersion Bipolar...Are my rear upper. What I am looking for are surround speakers for mid room as part of the 7.1. Have some now but they are really cheap. I want small but real sound mid surround speakers. Room is around 18 X 24?Any suggestions? I have tried to up grade little by little. AVR seems to always get the most attention. Everything sounds nice but always tring to improve. Thanks


I would *highly* suggest that you put your energy and money into first upgrading from the Bose speakers you have. There are a number of relatively reasonable speaker brands and models that would be of far greater sonic quality and give you a significantly bigger performance boost for the money.


----------



## budda109

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would *highly* suggest that you put your energy and money into first upgrading from the Bose speakers you have. There are a number of relatively reasonable speaker brands and models that would be of far greater sonic quality and give you a significantly bigger performance boost for the money.


Well I am looking at speakers. I always look for a deal. Klipsch seems to be a speaker of many here at AVS. I am a service tech and travel a bit ran into a guy who won a 5.1 system. Yamaha AVR, subwoofer. center two front two rear speakers. Brand is Klipsch. He said how about 450.00. I asked him to take a few pics so I can check the model but after looking around seems like I should just take the deal. He told me everything is still in the box. I would think no matter what they are an upgrade from what I have now. Correct?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

budda109 said:


> Well I am looking at speakers. I always look for a deal. Klipsch seems to be a speaker of many here at AVS. I am a service tech and travel a bit ran into a guy who won a 5.1 system. Yamaha AVR, subwoofer. center two front two rear speakers. Brand is Klipsch. He said how about 450.00. I asked him to take a few pics so I can check the model but after looking around seems like I should just take the deal. He told me everything is still in the box. I would think no matter what they are an upgrade from what I have now. Correct?


Klipsch horn speakers can be an acquired taste. Some, like me, would say that their high frequency response is a bit on the hot side, leading to a more fatiguing sound. Their cheaper stuff can sound less appealing IMHO. 

Sometimes it is best to buy a little at a time and build up to a really great sound system. 

For instance, these have been considered a great bang vs. buck budget monitor for quite some time:

http://ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/cmt340m/cmt340m.html


----------



## mnc

fatbottom said:


> You could just convert the NHT HDP-1 to bipoles. Find the out of phase side remove the treble and reverse the wires. Instant bipoles.


Hey I need some help! I finally got around to trying this, but got some weird results. With the original wiring, Audyssey would say they are out of phase and set the crossover to 150Hz.

I reversed the phase on ONE side of BOTH speakers. Re-ran Audyssey and while I no longer have a phase issue, but now it sets the crossover to 200Hz!

What should I do?


----------



## mnc

OK I just finished rewiring them again! I must have rewired the IN phase instead of the OUT of phase.
Anyway, back to having Audyssey set them at 150Hz crossover (they are small speakers!).
Just watched the "Pod Race" scene from Phantom Menace. WOW! I can't believe what a difference switching them from Dipole to Bipole made! Instead of the sound "surrounding" the outer walls of my room, I am now "swimming" in the sound! Don't know how else to put it, but definitely an improvement.
Now I'm sitting back and enjoying DSOTM on SACD.


----------



## 2pacalypsenow

I have a pair of klipsch R14 and R15 the bookshelfs are behind me and the R14 are on my sides should i switch them?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

2pacalypsenow said:


> I have a pair of klipsch R14 and R15 the bookshelfs are behind me and the R14 are on my sides should i switch them?


Nope. However, if you decide to upgrade to 3D surround via Dolby Atmos and DTS:X, I would suggest using side surrounds that are not dipole in design... at the very least bipoles, but direct radiating are best.


----------



## 2pacalypsenow

Dan Hitchman said:


> Nope. However, if you decide to upgrade to 3D surround via Dolby Atmos and DTS:X, I would suggest using side surrounds that are not dipole in design... at the very least bipoles, but direct radiating are best.


so use bookshelfs at my sides?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

2pacalypsenow said:


> so use bookshelfs at my sides?


Matching bookshelves, yes, if you plan to stick with the Klipsch's you have currently going forward.


----------



## 2pacalypsenow

Dan Hitchman said:


> Matching bookshelves, yes, if you plan to stick with the Klipsch's you have currently going forward.


ok good to know thank you


----------



## mekump

Great thread. Interesting how it has evolved over the years to try and stay current.

I am just trying to get the best 5.1 setup in a multipurpose room. My current setup in a 15' x 19' family room:


B&W CM9 - Front left & right
B&W CMC2 - center
B&W DS3's - surrounds
NAD T775
The DS3 surrounds are about an inch below the 8' ceiling. Left back half of the room is open, except for a 10" soffit which is where the left surrounds hangs. There is a wall on the right side where the right surround hangs, between a window and the back wall. The sofa is up against the back wall, which makes the surrounds about 8" off the rear wall. Because of how high these speakers are from the MLP is the main reason I would like to replace the DS3's. Second reason is aesthetics. These things look too big and awkward where they are. Before reading this thread, I though in-ceiling speakers were my only option. I see now that I could mount surround speakers on the back wall behind the sectional. I am not interested in Atmos or any of the other new 3D formats.

So, which position would be the ideal? ceiling or in-wall behind sectional? bi-pole or monopole?

My original question was posted here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1908657-ceiling-surround-recommendation.html


----------



## Soulburner

If you haven't seen it already, this post is pretty good:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=170720


----------



## dan1210

can anyone chime in here with direct experience with atmos? specifically using direct radiating speakers at the sides, i want to be ready for atmos but i always find direct radiating speakers as side surrounds distracting, i was considering the klipsch ultra 2 ks525 wide dispersion model for this task but everyone seems to suggest monopoles. Some direct experience with both using atmos would be a great help, thanks.

ps. side surrounds are approx 3-4ft to the closest pair of ears.

I guess a better way to sum things up would be....if surround speakers are close to the listener as in 1mtr or less do you still use a monopole for atmos or would a bipole give a localised sound but less distracting than monopole...without having heard an atmos mix im not in a position to say whether the atmos mix draws less attention to itself when creating the surround sounds.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dan1210 said:


> can anyone chime in here with direct experience with atmos? specifically using direct radiating speakers at the sides, i want to be ready for atmos but i always find direct radiating speakers as side surrounds distracting, i was considering the klipsch ultra 2 ks525 wide dispersion model for this task but everyone seems to suggest monopoles. Some direct experience with both using atmos would be a great help, thanks.
> 
> ps. side surrounds are approx 3-4ft to the closest pair of ears.
> 
> I guess a better way to sum things up would be....if surround speakers are close to the listener as in 1mtr or less do you still use a monopole for atmos or would a bipole give a localised sound but less distracting than monopole...without having heard an atmos mix im not in a position to say whether the atmos mix draws less attention to itself when creating the surround sounds.


Dipoles have nulls at the speaker midpoints, which is the exact opposite of what you want with 3D audio. All demos at the last CEDIA I attended, where Atmos had its major debut, used matching monopoles of one type or another and most demos were jaw dropping. Bipoles _may_ work in your situation since there is no null. All speakers, fronts, sides, rears, and ceiling, work in concert on the better object based mixes (Atmos or DTS:X) to create more of a bubble of sound. The "diffusion" is baked into the mix, so you don't want speakers that mess up the positional attributes of a particular object surround mix. 

Timbre matching, as closely as possible, is crucial.


----------



## asarose247

I use Klipsch RC3's as side surrounds, they are MTM's. they are at 90 wrt to MLP, and I sit at about 40-2" tall, they are about 62" high and are aimed to provide "energy exchange" , right one aimed at past my left shoulder, etc. (as advised in a visit from sdurani). My 4 Klispch SLX speakers are my Atmos TF and TR at about 90-91 inches from the floor in a 7 foot square laid out centered on the MLP in the Dolby Atmos suggested angle range (courtesy of a prior visit for sdurani) . my rear surrounds are some Icon 36's.The whole thing is arranged to provide at much separation between tops, fronts, rears, and sides and the X5200 pulls it together. DSU is wonderful for legacy material and my few ATMOS BD's are just fine (given the mixed bag so far . . .) 


aim those surrounds , angled slightly over the MLP at the seat next to the mlp
hope that helps


----------



## musicjunkie

*surround back?*

Question,I currently have a energy micro-rc sub/sat set up 5.1(until I can upgrade to a REAL speaker set up)
I don't have side walls for L/R surround and I'm using my back soffit wall for surround back and have it hooked up on my RX-V571 as surround L/R.
Should I have them on surround back?(on the receiver) Would the effects be better/worse the same?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

musicjunkie said:


> Question,I currently have a energy micro-rc sub/sat set up 5.1(until I can upgrade to a REAL speaker set up)
> I don't have side walls for L/R surround and I'm using my back soffit wall for surround back and have it hooked up on my RX-V571 as surround L/R.
> Should I have them on surround back?(on the receiver) Would the effects be better/worse the same?


They should be set and wired as side surrounds and the surround processor should be told you don't have any back surrounds. Any Dolby TrueHD, DTS Master Audio, or PCM encoded 7.1 surround mixes will then get the rear surround channel information properly folded into the side surrounds. Otherwise, you'll end up with very little surround activity.


----------



## musicjunkie

Dan Hitchman said:


> They should be set and wired as side surrounds and the surround processor should be told you don't have any back surrounds. Any Dolby TrueHD, DTS Master Audio, or PCM encoded 7.1 surround mixes will then get the rear surround channel information properly folded into the side surrounds. Otherwise, you'll end up with very little surround activity.


Cool,thanks.My surround sounds fine,just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.


----------



## Eric the Ricer

Hey guys, speaker newbie here and am racking my brain with all this info. I've got Pioneer SF52 towers L/R, and a C22 center. Currently have an energy 10" powered sub but I'll be upgrading that down the road, it's good enough for now. What I need is rear surrounds. I'd snag the BS22's but they're too big for what I'm planning. My rears are going to be ceiling mounted, angled down at my seating position due to the way my room is setup. I've got a bar behind my couch in the theatre area, and find myself sitting at the bar watching movies just as much as lounging on the couch. I'd like to have some surround at both seating positions. So from the bar seating I'm thinking 3-4' behind at maybe a 30 degree angle. The room is used mostly for movies, sports, and gaming. 

Receiver is a Denon x2100w. Any help is appreciated!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Eric the Ricer said:


> Hey guys, speaker newbie here and am racking my brain with all this info. I've got Pioneer SF52 towers L/R, and a C22 center. Currently have an energy 10" powered sub but I'll be upgrading that down the road, it's good enough for now. What I need is rear surrounds. I'd snag the BS22's but they're too big for what I'm planning. My rears are going to be ceiling mounted, angled down at my seating position due to the way my room is setup. I've got a bar behind my couch in the theatre area, and find myself sitting at the bar watching movies just as much as lounging on the couch. I'd like to have some surround at both seating positions. So from the bar seating I'm thinking 3-4' behind at maybe a 30 degree angle. The room is used mostly for movies, sports, and gaming.
> 
> Receiver is a Denon x2100w. Any help is appreciated!
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Here is my best suggestion: put a right side surround where you have the Parking sign and more towards the back of the green wall board, to create a little more breathing room between the leather seats and the side surrounds. with a similar left side surround speaker on the opposite wall. They would be just behind your main seating area, which is absolutely fine for a 5.1 layout. Otherwise, you end up with rear surrounds up near the ceiling and no real provision for upgrading to the newer, superior sound formats like Dolby Atmos and DTS:X. With immersive 3D audio you want your main level surrounds just above your listeners' heads, so you have some separation between those and the overhead surrounds. 

In this tight situation I might recommend a wall mountable bipolar speaker for the side surrounds. For instance, the Def Tech SR-8040BP surrounds are quite good for the price. Sometimes you can find them new on Ebay at a steep discount. You do not want to use dipole speakers.

This is the future of audio:


----------



## mekump

Soulburner said:


> If you haven't seen it already, this post is pretty good:
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=170720


Thank you for the link.

Think I will try the surround speakers on the back wall, maybe starting at 6' high from the floor.

I am looking at using either the DefTech SR8040BP or the Klipsch RP-240S.


----------



## pongaselo

Electric_Haggis said:


> 
> I think it's time to start a thread discussing & promoting the use of DIPOLE surround speakers in 5.1 and 7.1 systems.
> 
> 
> I've used many different types of speakers as surrounds. But until recently, I always thought that regular front-firing speakers were better for the surrounds, as they were a closer match to the fronts.
> 
> 
> Damn... was I wrong!
> 
> 
> After trying out a few types of dipoles and bipoles, I wonder why everyone doesn't have dipoles in their system. I'm also amazed that more hi-fi shops don't sell or push them... or even KNOW about them, as is all too often the case here in Australia !
> 
> 
> Quick Definitions....
> 
> 
> BIPOLE :
> 
> A good bi-pole speaker will have two sets of drivers facing away from each other, firing sound out into the room. This sound will then cover a wider area, and bounce off the side and back walls, helping to create a bigger sound that allows more people in the room to "get surrounded".
> 
> 
> DIPOLE :
> 
> The same as bi-pole , but the drivers on either side of the speaker will run out-of-phase with each other. THX recommend this. The advantage is that it's harder to tell exactly where the speaker is as it sounds more diffuse. It's also harder for you to get ear-bashed by one of the surround speakers if you're stuck sitting off to one side. So opens up the "sweet spot".
> 
> 
> So here are some advantages...
> 
> 
> 1. A wider, bigger sound - much closer to the result you get from multiple surround speakers in a movie theatre.
> 
> 2. A much wider listening sweet spot for everyone in the room.
> 
> 3. They're easy to wall-mount.
> 
> 4. They're often more compact than a regular bookshelf speaker, and a lot more wall-friendly.
> 
> 
> Here's an interesting shoot-out between dipoles and front-firing speakers. There are six pages with pictures. This will link to the summary...
> http://www.hometheatermag.com/bootcamp/25/index5.html
> 
> 
> Here's some more blurb: "The Case for Dipole surrounds":
> http://www.paradigm.com/en/pdf/dipolar_confusion.pdf
> 
> 
> One issue dipoles can have compared to bipole or front-firing speakers, is reduced bass. This is because the bass drivers are running out-of-phase with each other. Be aware though, that several manufacturers make dipoles that avoid this problem....
> 
> 
> PARADIGM really know how to make great surround speakers. Their ADP190 would have to be my favourite all-round surround speaker for the majority of people. Paradigm design all their surround speakers so that the deeper bass is kept in phase....
> http://www.paradigm.com/en/paradigm/...ounds.paradigm
> 
> 
> MONITOR AUDIO also make nice surround speakers. The less expensive models have only one bass driver, but they can be switched between dipole and bipole, like this one...
> http://www.monitoraudiousa.com/produ...e=3&product=21
> 
> 
> JBL make some THX-approved models...
> http://www.jbl.com/home/products/cat...=US&Region=USA
> 
> 
> INFINITY make a unique speaker called the ES250. I own a pair of these. They can be switched between dipole, bipole and dual-monopole, where they operate as two separate speaker channels in one wall-mounted unit. Handy for 7.1 where you can't mount rear-wall speakers....
> http://www.infinitysystems.com/home/...USA&Country=US
> 
> 
> JBL now make one just like the Infinity...
> http://www.jbl.com/home/products/pro...at=SSS&ser=PER
> 
> 
> 
> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR SUGGESTIONS?


I only use dipoles when speaker location for the rears is limited. In small or narrow rooms they give a depth to the rear audio information. When I am not dealing with acoustic issues due to location, geometry of the room etc. I always use a conventional rear and my favorite will surprise you. I absolutely love the Paradigm Stylus 370s but not the newest ones. The highs are hard with them. They are versatile to mount, efficient, can be run as a "large" speaker and have a nicely balanced voicing with respectable midbass. They also, and this you only get from a monopole speaker, give a beautiful sense of location for rear action or well engineered surround music. Probably my favorite speaker from Paradigm. I am not a fan of how they voice speakers in general. Too Klipschy on the top end.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Dan Hitchman said:


> From what I've read on the newer, upcoming object-oriented audio formats (like Dolby Atmos and DTS Multi-dimensional Audio... it really looks like exact timbre matching monopoles are the surround speakers of choice due to the type of mixing done.
> FYI
> The highly directionalized height/depth/width metadata rendering "cues" are embedded in the track and these codecs work with more speakers (true overhead height quadrants included), so it appears dipole surrounds would improperly introduce an added smearing effect to these types of advanced soundtracks.
> FYI


True with Dipoles. In that respect, their day is over.

But not Bipoles.

The question you always have to ask is this... *How many surround speakers does a commercial cinema or mixing theatre have, and how many surround speakers are you using at home?*

This is the single question that too many people forget when sorting out their surrounds.

*I also want to reiterate that having 2 pairs of surrounds (side & rear), then using Prologic IIx to convert all 5.1 material to 7.1 is the single biggest improvement most people can make to their surround soundstaging. Period.*






By the way, very fond of these Paradigm's when it comes to sheer quality, design, build, driver arrangement, looks, and sheer bang for buck.
These are surround speakers that I'd recommend to many folks....

Paradigm Surround 1

Paradigm Surround 3


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Electric_Haggis said:


> True with Dipoles. In that respect, their day is over.
> 
> But not Bipoles.
> 
> The question you always have to ask is this... *How many surround speakers does a commercial cinema or mixing theatre have, and how many surround speakers are you using at home?*
> 
> This is the single question that too many people forget when sorting out their surrounds.
> 
> *I also want to reiterate that having 2 pairs of surrounds (side & rear), then using Prologic IIx to convert all 5.1 material to 7.1 is the single biggest improvement most people can make to their surround soundstaging. Period.*
> 
> By the way, VERY font of these Paradigm's when it comes to sheer quality, design, build, driver arrangement, looks, and sheer bang for buck.
> These are surround speakers that I'd recommend to many folks....
> 
> Paradigm Surround 1
> 
> Paradigm Surround 3


However, you can (over time) have more speakers than 7.1 or even 9.1 with the scalability of Dolby Atmos and DTS:X (they can have arrays just like in a commercial theater). Bipoles may not be too bad if you're sitting extremely close to the surrounds, but monopoles are still recommended for the 3D object based formats if possible.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Dan Hitchman said:


> However, you can (over time) have more speakers than 7.1 or even 9.1 with the scalability of Dolby Atmos and DTS:X (they can have arrays just like in a commercial theater). Bipoles may not be too bad if you're sitting extremely close to the surrounds, but monopoles are still recommended for the 3D object based formats if possible.


Again, the thing is that you're supplanting entire speaker arrays with just 1,2 or 3 pairs.

I've spoken to a couple of pro film soundies, who agree that Bipoles (NOT Dipoles) are a good solution even with Atmos at the domestic level


Also worth noting that the _vast, vast, vast minority _ of material available to us all is actually Atmos-encoded.
(and a mere fraction of that is actually worth watching, even if it is good demo material: )


*But, be it an A-List mega-blockbuster or a foreign indie rom-com.... ALL 5.1 material will benefit from doing what I describe above.*


----------



## blazar

This thread needs to be un-stickied and replaced with a single informative post...

Surround monopole speakers should be used with all modern codecs and should be placed an adequate distance from your head. The exact positioning would benefit from conforming as closely as possible to rules laid out Dolby Atmos and DTS X.

In the long run, speaker placement for surrounds will be about putting in as many speakers as possible while covering the surface area of hemispheric area as evenly as possibly around the main listening position.

Anyone building today should wire for around 24 speaker locations or more. Wire is cheap.

A plan for pointing the speakers toward the main listening position is reasonable although not 100% necessary if the speaker has reasonable off axis response.

I would recommend 3 layers of speakers: one set at ear level, another set high on the wall, and another set on the ceiling. You could also compromise by choosing the height+vog OR ceiling layer. Honestly, if you are wealthy enough or care enough to do this right, do 3 layers and be done with it. You will have a lifetime of enjoyment out of this setup. No need to get stingy at this point.

If you love surround sound, object oriented audio is well worth the effort. "7.1" will sound obviously inferior once you are used to 15+ channels.

Past object oriented surround, doing "more" within our lifetimes doesn't seem particularly very likely. Speakers are commodity objects with a fixed cost and the laws of physics would suggest that we are unlikely to change their general design too much more... Object oriented audio is what we have all been silently been waiting for... go for it!


----------



## BlackLace

blazar said:


> This thread needs to be un-stickied and replaced with a single informative post...
> 
> Surround monopole speakers should be used with all modern codecs and should be placed an adequate distance from your head. The exact positioning would benefit from conforming as closely as possible to rules laid out Dolby Atmos and DTS X.
> 
> In the long run, speaker placement for surrounds will be about putting in as many speakers as possible while covering the surface area of hemispheric area as evenly as possibly around the main listening position.
> 
> Anyone building today should wire for around 24 speaker locations or more. Wire is cheap.
> 
> A plan for pointing the speakers toward the main listening position is reasonable although not 100% necessary if the speaker has reasonable off axis response.
> 
> I would recommend 3 layers of speakers: one set at ear level, another set high on the wall, and another set on the ceiling. You could also compromise by choosing the height+vog OR ceiling layer. Honestly, if you are wealthy enough or care enough to do this right, do 3 layers and be done with it. You will have a lifetime of enjoyment out of this setup. No need to get stingy at this point.
> 
> If you love surround sound, object oriented audio is well worth the effort. "7.1" will sound obviously inferior once you are used to 15+ channels.
> 
> Past object oriented surround, doing "more" within our lifetimes doesn't seem particularly very likely. Speakers are commodity objects with a fixed cost and the laws of physics would suggest that we are unlikely to change their general design too much more... Object oriented audio is what we have all been silently been waiting for... go for it!


Hi,

I've ordered two Focal Electra SR 1000 BE surround speakers. They will go on the back wall, about 2 feet above ear height and placed about 1 1/2 feet behind my sofa. let's say the perfect spot when placed behind.
They can be used as Bipole or dual monopole.
Which would bring me the best result? setting them in Bipole and create a 5.1 system or setting them in dual monopole and creating a 7.1 system.
Placement on de side walls is not an option.
The surround on the left of me will be close to the side wall.
The surround on the right of me is about 7 feet away from the side wall.
The "back wall " is not really a wall. It's a low wall of about 3 feet high, above is open to the ceiling.
Wide open space behind the surrounds and the low wall.
Any thoughts?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

BlackLace said:


> Hi,
> 
> I've ordered two Focal Electra SR 1000 BE surround speakers. They will go on the back wall, about 2 feet above ear height and placed about 1 1/2 feet behind my sofa. let's say the perfect spot when placed behind.
> They can be used as Bipole or dual monopole.
> Which would bring me the best result? setting them in Bipole and create a 5.1 system or setting them in dual monopole and creating a 7.1 system.
> Placement on the side walls is not an option.
> The surround on the left of me will be close to the side wall.
> The surround on the right of me is about 7 feet away from the side wall.
> The "back wall " is not really a wall. It's a low wall of about 3 feet high, above is open to the ceiling.
> Wide open space behind the surrounds and the low wall.
> Any thoughts?


Bipole. 5.1


----------



## blazar

I have never been that impressed with the dipole ambience phenomenon even though that is what THX recommended long ago for rear surround speakers. Now, in the 21st century, I can safely say monopole or maybe bipole for a slightly more diffusive sound should be considered.


----------



## BlackLace

ok guys, thanks for the advice


----------



## richmagnus

blazar said:


> I have never been that impressed with the dipole ambience phenomenon even though that is what THX recommended long ago for rear surround speakers. Now, in the 21st century, I can safely say monopole or maybe bipole for a slightly more diffusive sound should be considered.



Try tripole


----------



## DanHouck

Soulburner said:


> If you haven't seen it already, this post isTha pretty good:
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=170720


That is excellent! I'm trying to decide if your bipoles you are selling will work in my situation. There is no "back of the room" as shown in the drawings, rather they would sit on or above a bookcase unit, above which is an opening to the great room below. I hadn't considered the possibility of facing them forward as shown in some of the schematics. If I did so, they would not be any higher than the listener.

I'm wondering if bipole option 1 or 2 would work here.


----------



## KitKatHT

I know you are going to think I am just a silly heart! I kid you not, although Tru-Audio is mostly junk, and btw that junk, the CT 55A is not so bad at $15-$25 when shipping is local, they are really not so bad as surround speakers on a small system/

Now here is the deal. The PHT SUR is really a great di-pole, bi-pole, switchable speaker. The build quality is quite good, fiber cones, not metal like the CTs, they have an 8" front firing woofer, on each side, a 4" cone and a quality 1" dome. They are marked left and right, so when you switch, you have the correct one, facing close to the rear wall switching phase. The build quality is very high and I swear these will best Axiom QS8 speakers!

Now the deal here is they have a retail at $1500, but as I read here, they have no effective market strategist system, given this, I picked up a pair for $350 shipped! 

I had a better pair of di-pole speakers, do not recall the name, but high-end and these did not outperform the SUR! I sold them off for over a grand and now am happy with these.

Mainly I prefer B&W speakers, also Martin Logan; yes, I know they are different sounding and have a different appeal, then I like ML speakers for music and the midrange quality B&W for HT. I use the B&W CDM 7NT, and the CDM NT center with these seemingly odd matched Tru-Audio; I find the mating of the two brands to be near theater quality!

Ok, the gear has much to do with this and that is high-end; the SUR speakers are powered by an Anthem MCA 20 and this does well with the Bryston amplifier I use for the other speakers.


----------



## DeePDiSHeD

I've always used bookshelf's for side surrounds. I think I'm finally going to try some bipoles to see if I like them.


----------



## fatbottom

DeePDiSHeD said:


> I've always used bookshelf's for side surrounds. I think I'm finally going to try some bipoles to see if I like them.


I recommend bipoles if you are close to the side/surround speakers. When I used monopoles for side/surrounds I just didn't like them.


----------



## jsb75

I'm thinking of changing my 16 x 11 room around.right now mlp is with couch on the long wall,but I want to change it so mlp will be 6' from the rear short wall. I'm doing 5.1 and my rear speakers will have to be about 5'or so away because the room is so narrow. Would bi-poles be advised in this situation? And if so,would they work best directly to left and right of mlp,elevated about 2' from sitting position? Or back a foot or so but still on the long walls,also if I move them back they would have to be mounted near the 8'ceiling because of a window. Thanks for any opinions


----------



## EmulousTrigger

*Moved*

Moved


----------



## aviaction

I have a post in the KEF thread, I now believe firmly in the Bipole solutions in smaller rooms. 
I have just converted my KEF Q2ds from Dipole to Bipole as I now think with current information Monopole or Bipole is better with newer sound sources eg Atmos.
It was over 10 years ago I was faced with the Dipole/Bipole/Monopole issue and went Dipole due to THX influence at that time (and a typically english smallish room)
So far seems better sound placement (without being too direct as from a monopole)
And the Yammi 3040 YPAO doesn't pick up the out of phase units.

Next am gonna try a 130mm full range KEF Uni-Q in place of the downward firing woofer - seperately wired to the amp for rear presence/atmos.


----------



## ToppDogg

I have been running the Energy RVSS's since aound 99 and still dont see a reason to upgrade them. Bipole that old still sounds good.


----------



## Cyberathlete

Sooooo if I currently have matching bookshelves for the surround and surround rear (7.2 setup currently). All being definitive technology SM 45. And I want to upgrade for Atmos/DTS:X. Which configuration would you suggest.
Fronts are definitive technology SM65
Center: SM65 (but just ordered the CS-8040HD to see if there is a difference)

Please quote reply with an underline for the suggested speaker:

*Room dimensions:*
Front row seating: 9-10 feet from screen (8-9 feet from front/center speakers)
Second Row: Seated area is 4-5 feet behind the front row
Room width: 13 feet
Room length (distance from speakers to seating has been averaged above but there is no back wall)
Height (drop ceiling): 7.5 feet
Backwall: non existent as it's the basement and that's just open space.

*My two schools of thought:*
If the Bipolar speaker is an option as a surround (not rear surround) speaker then I should and could place it between the two rows so neither row is in a dead zone. But there will be no back wall to bounce sound off of for the immersive effect.

If the Bipolar speaker is an option as a rear surround speaker, then the drivers can utilize the left and right walls to bounce sound off of it and use monopoles for surround.

Which options to go with:
*Surround: *SR-8080BP or SM 45
*Rear surround:* SR-8080bp or SM 45
*Front height *(above the Front left and right): SM 45 or SM 65
*Ceiling speaker* (just two of them since I have no space for 4, and thus going with Front Highs instead): DT6.5R or DT6.5STR

Thanks!


----------



## Marc McWilliams

This is interesting. I wonder what will be next.


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

Electric_Haggis said:


> True with Dipoles. In that respect, their day is over.
> 
> But not Bipoles.
> 
> The question you always have to ask is this... *How many surround speakers does a commercial cinema or mixing theatre have, and how many surround speakers are you using at home?*
> 
> This is the single question that too many people forget when sorting out their surrounds.
> 
> *I also want to reiterate that having 2 pairs of surrounds (side & rear), then using Prologic IIx to convert all 5.1 material to 7.1 is the single biggest improvement most people can make to their surround soundstaging. Period.*


Some would argue that 5.1.2 Atmos is a much bigger upgrade than 7.1 is, when coming from 5.1.


----------



## na_rsx

So can I use the Fluance XLBP speakers for front highs if my receiver allows it, I have the Sony 850DN and its in one of the configurations below. I don't have a sealed living room, its pretty open and connects to the back dining room and kitchen. Do't want to mount them in the rear, so think I'd get good sound in a 7.1?

See here it says you can use as rear surrounds or front high:










So it will look like this in the end


----------



## DCMlover

Do the fluance speakers sound good?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DCMlover said:


> Do the fluance speakers sound good?


What is your budget? I'd go with SVS's Prime Series or the EMP Tek Impression Series before I went with Fluance.


----------



## CherylJosie

Electric_Haggis said:


> *I also want to reiterate that having 2 pairs of surrounds (side & rear), then using Prologic IIx to convert all 5.1 material to 7.1 is the single biggest improvement most people can make to their surround soundstaging. Period.*


*
*
Comparing pliix/z 7.1 synthesis with neo:x 11.1 synthesis on my system (the receiver supports both) I can state with authority that nothing works as well as even more speakers to create the immersion effect, even if their content is all synthesized. Compared to neo:x, pliix/z also sounds boxy and bassy on my system and it seems more prone to compression artifacts from low bitrate streaming along with distortion from old damaged LPs, causing odd sounds from it too. Neo:x synthesis can be downright spooky in how accurately it decodes ambiance and steers it with a good recording.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Bipoles may not be too bad if you're sitting extremely close to the surrounds, but monopoles are still recommended for the 3D object based formats if possible.


My experience with neo:x has been that the more channels you have, the worse dipoles and bipoles will sound. I had six of them at one time (high/side/rear) and got rid of all of them because they just muddied up the sound stage. I sit no farther than 8' from any speaker and the rears are all 5' away and I still prefer the sound of side and rear towers over dipoles. So my experience runs counter to the usual and customary.

Dipoles come from an era when movie theaters had rows of speakers along the side and rear walls to create a diffuse surround stage from far fewer channels than they have today, and everyone was trying to emulate same in a small home theater or living room with bipoles and dipoles. Those days are over. More channels are where it is at today and you must use monopoles to preserve the original intent of the recording. Object oriented sound is designed to be discrete and concisely imaged from many monopole channels, not derived off room reflections from fewer channels.



blazar said:


> Surround monopole speakers should be used with all modern codecs and should be placed an adequate distance from your head.


I think, respectfully, that this distance-to-head thingy is a myth, based on my own experience. What matters far more is that the listener is properly centered between all the speakers and that the room acoustics are conducive to a good listening experience. The smaller the space, the fewer good seats there will be, but there is always at least one. Yes you lose some of that ambient feel but the imaging is actually superior when the speakers are closer, much like headphone stereo.



DanHouck said:


> That is excellent! I'm trying to decide if your bipoles you are selling will work in my situation. There is no "back of the room" as shown in the drawings, rather they would sit on or above a bookcase unit, above which is an opening to the great room below. I hadn't considered the possibility of facing them forward as shown in some of the schematics. If I did so, they would not be any higher than the listener.
> 
> I'm wondering if bipole option 1 or 2 would work here.


You need to decide if you are trying to fill in the ambient field or if you are trying to cover more seats. If you are just setting them on top of a bookcase you have the option of moving them around until you like what you hear, so just do that.



Cyberathlete said:


> Please quote reply with an underline for the suggested speaker:
> 
> *Room dimensions:*
> Front row seating: 9-10 feet from screen (8-9 feet from front/center speakers)
> Second Row: Seated area is 4-5 feet behind the front row
> Room width: 13 feet
> Room length (distance from speakers to seating has been averaged above but there is no back wall)
> Height (drop ceiling): 7.5 feet
> Backwall: non existent as it's the basement and that's just open space.


You might want to consider moving your rear speakers farther away if they are very close to the rear seats. Nothing you do with the sound processing or monopole/bipole/dipole can undo the fact that they are going to be firing right into the ears of the rear listeners but far from the front listeners, except to move them farther away so the proportional distance and thus relative loudness is more similar. Doing so will also allow the sound to disperse more and then you don't need the bipole/dipole at all back there.

*



My two schools of thought:

Click to expand...

*


> If the Bipolar speaker is an option as a surround (not rear surround) speaker then I should and could place it between the two rows so neither row is in a dead zone. But there will be no back wall to bounce sound off of for the immersive effect.


They will be bouncing off every wall as well as floor and ceiling, but that ambiance will be delayed. Later reflections can muddy the surround image if they are not quite late enough and come from many randomized directions. You did not mention room treatments but you should be considering them if you are going through this much effort and your choice of speaker plus placement and room treatment should be considered a package deal.



> If the Bipolar speaker is an option as a rear surround speaker, then the drivers can utilize the left and right walls to bounce sound off of it and use monopoles for surround.


I have found that dipoles on the rear wall of my apartment seemed to not be audible, or too loud. They were very close and above my head, but no matter how I repositioned, they just sort of vanished into mud or blasted through. On the sides they seemed to have better sound.

It just seems that the poor localization capacity of human hearing to the rear, combined with dipoles, made for an 'all inside the head' headphone-like sound with rear dipoles that made them unintelligible and blanketed the surround image with that 'all inside the head' sound. Audyssey Dynamic EQ surround boost did not help any with that since it overboosts the surrounds and swamps the dialog.

Indirect radiating speakers seem to fight with the synthesis algorithms IMO that are supposed to be filling in the ambiance with synthetic ambiance not room reflections. Basically, unless you have a huge room needing wide dispersion all around and crave that auditorium sound, I would not use bipole or dipole in the rear. Typical room has longer front-rear dimension requiring more dispersion from the side speakers especially with two rows of seating so I would be much more inclined to go with bipoles on the side walls and use monopoles to the rear but if you can, try it both ways. Get a pair of each and swap them around. Then if you need to, buy a second pair of one or the other.



BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Some would argue that 5.1.2 Atmos is a much bigger upgrade than 7.1 is, when coming from 5.1.


Given the much more available 7.1 titles and the vast improvemement of filling in a larger portion of the space (assuming the front-rear dimension is along the longer sidewall vs. a short front-rear room) the original comment is probably more accurate. My impression of height vx rear speakers is that rear speakers are much more immersive. Overhead speakers maybe more immersive, but your 7.1 titles are not going to decode well for that.



na_rsx said:


> So can I use the Fluance XLBP speakers for front highs if my receiver allows it, I have the Sony 850DN and its in one of the configurations below. I don't have a sealed living room, its pretty open and connects to the back dining room and kitchen. Do't want to mount them in the rear, so think I'd get good sound in a 7.1?
> 
> See here it says you can use as rear surrounds or front high:


The receivers I own have extra terminals so you can choose which set of speakers to activate by choosing the sound mode. If you are having trouble deciding, try mounting both and switching back and forth between them to see how they compare. Personally I would go with the rear speakers before the height speakers but if Atmos is involved you might want speakers directly overhead for a more 3d sound field. Remember that rear speakers of 7.1 can be ceiling mounted so there is no problem with a missing wall.


----------



## DCMlover

Dan Hitchman said:


> What is your budget? I'd go with SVS's Prime Series or the EMP Tek Impression Series before I went with Fluance.


NOt sure of a budget. Experimenting now with floor standing vs. wall mount.


----------



## na_rsx

CherylJosie said:


> The receivers I own have extra terminals so you can choose which set of speakers to activate by choosing the sound mode. If you are having trouble deciding, try mounting both and switching back and forth between them to see how they compare. Personally I would go with the rear speakers before the height speakers but if Atmos is involved you might want speakers directly overhead for a more 3d sound field. Remember that rear speakers of 7.1 can be ceiling mounted so there is no problem with a missing wall.


Gotcha, only reason I ask is because I already have bookshelves mounted in the rear, also already drilled some massive holes to install them mounts. My rears are almost 15lbs each lol. So this is why I was thinking front highs...


----------



## CherylJosie

na_rsx said:


> Gotcha, only reason I ask is because I already have bookshelves mounted in the rear, also already drilled some massive holes to install them mounts. My rears are almost 15lbs each lol. So this is why I was thinking front highs...


If those are your 5.1 rears, they are already behind the listener. The added benefit of 7.1 rear surrounds would be best if you put them all the way on that rear wall instead of hanging them off that covered beam with red arrows pointing to it. That will give you a much more ambient sound from the rears.

Front high is not going to add much to the ambiance. It helps with the 3D-ness but to get more ambiance you have to illuminate more room with sound waves. That is the primary benefit of rear surrounds IMO due to the poor directional perception behind the head anyway, and when rear speakers are too close to the listener they don't help with that ambiance nearly as much regardless of how close the rear wall is.


----------



## JonasHansen

I would like to add my experience to the whole bipole vs dipole vs monopole question.

For a long time, I had a home theater which used monopole surround speakers. I recently moved to a new apartment where I had to setup the theater in a much smaller room (10 feet wide). The width of the room made me wonder if I should upgrade my surround speakers.

I read tons of forum posts about which surround speakers and found very different opinions about which route to go, and especially now with Atmos, more and more people recommended monopole speakers. 

My preference when watching movies is, that the surround speakers should never become localizable/dominating/annoying. Because of this, I chose to buy two sets of dipole speakers (http://www.jamo.com/search/?sku=D600SUR).

My impression so far:

*Pro's*
No localization issues. Sound field is very diffuse.
Room sounds much bigger than it is.
Panning of sounds are smooth.
Anonymous (Which is what I prefer)

*Con's*
Precise pin-point not as good as monopoles. Pannings are smooth and audible but more diffuse and can sound like it melts together.
Anonymous (which some people would say is a limitation)
Does not sound as dynamic as monopoles.

*My verdict*
I personally think that the dipole solution in my new much smaller room, sounds better than monopoles in my previous room which was bigger. They provide exactly the big sound field I prefer with no hint of where the speakers are placed.

I have not yet installed Atmos in my room, but I tend to believe that it would provide a better result in a small'ish room.

Hope you can use my input if you are in the same situation.


----------



## foobrew

JonasHansen said:


> *My verdict*
> I personally think that the dipole solution in my new much smaller room, sounds better than monopoles in my previous room which was bigger. They provide exactly the big sound field I prefer with no hint of where the speakers are placed.


Thanks for sharing. That's pretty much what I'd expect based on the majority of this thread and also my own experience. I recently went from a smallish room using dipoles to a somewhat large one (20' x 20') using bipoles. The surrounds are selectable between bipole/dipole so I tried both modes that's just what sounded best for each room. The trick seems to be trying to remove localization without allowing the sound to get too muddled and chaotic.

Did you have a chance to try bipoles in either room?


----------



## JonasHansen

foobrew said:


> Thanks for sharing. That's pretty much what I'd expect based on the majority of this thread and also my own experience. I recently went from a smallish room using dipoles to a somewhat large one (20' x 20') using bipoles. The surrounds are selectable between bipole/dipole so I tried both modes that's just what sounded best for each room. The trick seems to be trying to remove localization without allowing the sound to get too muddled and chaotic.
> 
> Did you have a chance to try bipoles in either room?


No, never tried bipole. I have heard them in multiple demos and to me, they wound very much like monopoles.


----------



## westbergjoakim

I have a question not about speakers but placement for the surrounds. 

I'm going to take my side surround speakers down a bit to better match the ear level. Would I want them placed more to 90° in a 7.1-setup or a little more to the back when my sofa and rears are near the backwall, around 2.5 feet? Will it get better separation with those at around 90°? I'm also planing for Atmos in a while. Does that impact anything with the placement of the side surrounds?

Here are pics with my surrounds. Thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

westbergjoakim said:


> I have a question not about speakers but placement for the surrounds.
> 
> I'm going to take my side surround speakers down a bit to better match the ear level. Would I want them placed more to 90° in a 7.1-setup or a little more to the back when my sofa and rears are near the backwall, around 2.5 feet? Will it get better separation with those at around 90°? I'm also planing for Atmos in a while. Does that impact anything with the placement of the side surrounds?
> 
> Here are pics with my surrounds. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler



In your situation, I would only do a 5.1.4 layout. You won't get any real benefit from rear surrounds as there isn't enough space (angle separation) between the sides and the rears. I would, however, have your sides at about 100 degrees, so closer to the wall corner. 

I can't see the front of your room, but you could perhaps do 7.1.4 (only with upper end Denon and Marantz gear, mind you) with 5.1.4 plus Front Wides, which _might_ be a better solution in your case. You would take the surrounds you're using behind you now and then placing them in Dolby's recommended FW positions towards the front of the room. They help fill in the sonic gap between the screen wall speakers and the side surrounds. Dolby Atmos uses them all the time as does Neural: X upmixing and native DTS: X. 

Also, drop the side wall surrounds to just above head level while seated. They're high enough so somebody's head doesn't block the sound from any other viewer, but low enough to have separation between the lower and upper speaker layers.


----------



## Jonas2

Ideally, one would tonally match speakers by sticking within a line and brand - or so my studies thus far indicate - though less critical than L/C/R matching.

Given my less-than-ideal arrangements, I'm probably not going to be able to do this - I need really low-profile side surrounds that force me into a different brand than mains. 

I'm hoping to convince my local dealer to set up the surrounds I'm looking at in the same room as the mains I have, should be pretty easy - but I'm looking for recommendations on a soundtrack that could put this to the test - to see how badly mismatched (or not) the speakers might be. Any recommendations?


----------



## Xaviers

Hi guys,

This is a really interesting thread and probably the best place where ask my question.
I can't decide what will be the best solution between bi-pole & mono-pole speakers for my room. Reading around it seems the best solution for my small room is a bi-pole,1 pole toward the viewers and 1 pole toward the lateral walls; but I've doubts because I don't have a reflective surface on the left (I can close that opening with some cloth but I think it will remain not sound reflective ???). Also the two walls have different distances from the central view point, I'm attaching a schema of the room that explain it better, I simulated the Monitor Audio Bronze FX.

This is my original thread where you can find others pictures of the room.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2593313-my-first-ht.html


----------



## wse

Multipole  with 180 degree coverage!


----------



## Xaviers

wse said:


> Multipole  with 180 degree coverage!


Hello, what do you mean with Multipole ? Could you link a speaker model as example ?


----------



## 3rotor

Xaviers said:


> Hello, what do you mean with Multipole ? Could you link a speaker model as example ?


I guess he mean dipole and bipole switch able like the polk fx line

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk


----------



## wse

Xaviers said:


> Hello, what do you mean with Multipole ? Could you link a speaker model as example ?


Joke


----------



## exm

aviaction said:


> I have a post in the KEF thread, I now believe firmly in the Bipole solutions in smaller rooms.
> I have just converted my KEF Q2ds from Dipole to Bipole as I now think with current information Monopole or Bipole is better with newer sound sources eg Atmos.
> It was over 10 years ago I was faced with the Dipole/Bipole/Monopole issue and went Dipole due to THX influence at that time (and a typically english smallish room)
> So far seems better sound placement (without being too direct as from a monopole)
> And the Yammi 3040 YPAO doesn't pick up the out of phase units.
> 
> Next am gonna try a 130mm full range KEF Uni-Q in place of the downward firing woofer - seperately wired to the amp for rear presence/atmos.


I am looking into rewiring my Q2DS (put some more info in the KEF thread):
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/724103-kef-owners-thread-305.html#post47465889

Any thoughts?


----------



## Xaviers

Xaviers said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> This is a really interesting thread and probably the best place where ask my question.
> I can't decide what will be the best solution between bi-pole & mono-pole speakers for my room. Reading around it seems the best solution for my small room is a bi-pole,1 pole toward the viewers and 1 pole toward the lateral walls; but I've doubts because I don't have a reflective surface on the left (I can close that opening with some cloth but I think it will remain not sound reflective ???). Also the two walls have different distances from the central view point, I'm attaching a schema of the room that explain it better, I simulated the Monitor Audio Bronze FX.
> 
> This is my original thread where you can find others pictures of the room.
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2593313-my-first-ht.html


No one would like to comment


----------



## Mikenificent1

Xaviers said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> This is a really interesting thread and probably the best place where ask my question.
> I can't decide what will be the best solution between bi-pole & mono-pole speakers for my room. Reading around it seems the best solution for my small room is a bi-pole,1 pole toward the viewers and 1 pole toward the lateral walls; but I've doubts because I don't have a reflective surface on the left (I can close that opening with some cloth but I think it will remain not sound reflective ???). Also the two walls have different distances from the central view point, I'm attaching a schema of the room that explain it better, I simulated the Monitor Audio Bronze FX.
> 
> This is my original thread where you can find others pictures of the room.
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2593313-my-first-ht.html


I have this same setup but with dipoles. One side doesn't have a wall. Surround effects are excellent IMO and you get great spaciousness as well. It's like the advantages of monopole and dipole at the same time.


----------



## unknownbeef

Are there any reviews of the SVS Ultra Surrounds somewhere on the forums? I can't find any by searching.

https://www.svsound.com/products/ultra-surround


----------



## Dan Hitchman

unknownbeef said:


> Are there any reviews of the SVS Ultra Surrounds somewhere on the forums? I can't find any by searching.
> 
> https://www.svsound.com/products/ultra-surround


If you're looking for surrounds to add to a Dolby Atmos/DTS: X capable system, then I wouldn't recommend these. Bipoles/dipoles are not the best choices for immersive surround.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Xaviers said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> This is a really interesting thread and probably the best place where ask my question.
> I can't decide what will be the best solution between bi-pole & mono-pole speakers for my room. Reading around it seems the best solution for my small room is a bi-pole,1 pole toward the viewers and 1 pole toward the lateral walls; but I've doubts because I don't have a reflective surface on the left (I can close that opening with some cloth but I think it will remain not sound reflective ???). Also the two walls have different distances from the central view point, I'm attaching a schema of the room that explain it better, I simulated the Monitor Audio Bronze FX.
> 
> This is my original thread where you can find others pictures of the room.
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2593313-my-first-ht.html


The Monitor Audio Bronze FX should work well for your situation. I have the Silver FX and in bipole (not dipole) mode, the mid/woofer is firing forward (giving you the benefit of a direct-firing speaker), while the tweeters are firing to the sides.
In bipole mode, they are, of course, firing in phase.

Mounting them directly on the back wall will not hurt anything since they are sealed units.
I have 2 rows of seats.
Mine were on stands along each side wall sitting between the 2 rows and aimed straight ahead.
They threw an excellent surround field.

Just in case you picked up on the tense, they are no longer used there. I was lucky enough to get a very good deal
on a pair of MA Gold GXFX. They are now my side surrounds, and the Silver FX have been moved to my rear
surrounds. They make a truly impressive sound field.

My fronts and my center are Goldenear Technology (Triton 7's and XL center), and my top fronts and top rears are Goldenear Technology Supersat 3's.
This is all run in a 7.2.4 configuration. My subs are a SVS PB-12 Plus and a SVS PB-1000.
The subs may seem an odd pairing, but I am dealing with a soffit that runs along the right-hand ceiling of my room.
The smaller sub is on that side of the room and helps smooth out the bass response.

The Monitor Audio Bronze/Silver FX in dipole mode are really sort of a combination direct-fire/dipole speaker, the best of both worlds.

Does that door opening/archway have a door? Close it--it would be sufficient a reflective surface.
If it does not have a door, can you install a door?
If you cannot install a door, you could use a stand-mounted reflective panel which should give you some re-inforcement of that left side of the sound field.

Even if you cannot, I think that you could get away with it. I cannot think of many speaker designs that have a forward firing driver as well as side firing drivers for bipole.
Like I said, they are sort of direct-fire anyway.

I would not hesitate.


----------



## mtbdudex

Xaviers said:


> No one would like to comment




DVD Willy gave you sound advice, since 2 months ago what did you end up doing?
Fwiw, we sometimes need to compromise on the ideals, and go with some slight non symmetric placement of speakers. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> The Monitor Audio Bronze FX should work well for your situation. I have the Silver FX and in bipole (not dipole) mode, the mid/woofer is firing forward (giving you the benefit of a direct-firing speaker), while the tweeters are firing to the sides.
> In bipole mode, they are, of course, firing in phase.
> 
> Mounting them directly on the back wall will not hurt anything since they are sealed units.
> I have 2 rows of seats.
> Mine were on stands along each side wall sitting between the 2 rows and aimed straight ahead.
> They threw an excellent surround field.
> 
> Just in case you picked up on the tense, they are no longer used there. I was lucky enough to get a very good deal
> on a pair of MA Gold GXFX. They are now my side surrounds, and the Silver FX have been moved to my rear
> surrounds. They make a truly impressive sound field.
> 
> My fronts and my center are Goldenear Technology (Triton 7's and XL center), and my top fronts and top rears are Goldenear Technology Supersat 3's.
> This is all run in a 7.2.4 configuration. My subs are a SVS PB-12 Plus and a SVS PB-1000.
> The subs may seem an odd pairing, but I am dealing with a soffit that runs along the right-hand ceiling of my room.
> The smaller sub is on that side of the room and helps smooth out the bass response.
> 
> The Monitor Audio Bronze/Silver FX in dipole mode are really sort of a combination direct-fire/dipole speaker, the best of both worlds.
> 
> Does that door opening/archway have a door? Close it--it would be sufficient a reflective surface.
> If it does not have a door, can you install a door?
> If you cannot install a door, you could use a stand-mounted reflective panel which should give you some re-inforcement of that left side of the sound field.
> 
> Even if you cannot, I think that you could get away with it. I cannot think of many speaker designs that have a forward firing driver as well as side firing drivers for bipole.
> Like I said, they are sort of direct-fire anyway.
> 
> I would not hesitate.


You could use a 4' x 8' plywood panel and make a stand something like this...

http://www.steffywood.com/img.axd?a...NF2GS33OMFWGG33VNZ2D2MBGKBUWG5DVOJSUSZB5GQ2TA

Or, cut the panel down to a smaller size, say, 3' x 6', put on a roller base and store it somewhere until you need it.

Or, paint it some nice matching color and push it up against the wall in the room to get it out of the way. It sort of depends on what the room is used for.

Where there is a will, there is a way. It just depends on your (and your wife's ) priorities.


----------



## LDBaha

Hey guys.

I need a little bit of help choosing the right surround/side speakers. 

For now I have a 5.1.2 config. Elac Uni-Fis at the front (UF5, UC5), Atmos speakers and some old Bose Series IV speakers as surrounds. 

The problem is that I have very little space behind me, very little space to the left (corner) a side wall on the left but no sidewall on the right side. So I really don't know what the best speakers would be. The room is about 12.5x15.5 but I would say the listening area is 10ft x 12.5. I mean the TV is not centered in the area. 

1. I mounted the speakers on the wall but I kinda regret that as now I know that for a 5.1 speakers should be to the sides, also I rent this space so I would rather not drill any more holes that I have to fix in a year. Unless you guys tell me that a SVS Ultra surround (or similar) works on my space mounted on the wall then I'd just take these off and mount the new ones.. 

2. I was thinking of getting some UB5 to match the rest of my speakers, but being surrounds I think I could save money and get the Elac B5s without losing much audio quality right? but I have no idea if Di-Poles/Bi-Poles could work in my space. 

3. Also I wanted to get some stands and put my surrounds there, that way I can move them easily. I don't know if Dipole speakers can be put on a stand. 

4. After I get new surrounds, eventually I want to get more Atmos speakers to do 5.1.4, can I put the atmos up-firing on top of Di-pole speakers? 

I'm attaching a Photo of the space and a quick floor plan I created. I could also move the couch 1ft more away from the wall. We just move the couch back when we're not watching movies.


----------



## LDBaha

In addition to my post above, I'll make it shorter and see if I can get anyone to help me

The couch is against the wall, I move the couch everytime I'm goign to watch a movie about 1.5 feet away from the wall.

My question is:

1. Should I get stands and place some Elac B5s in that same position (or to the sides) ? 

2. Should I get bipole speakers and place them on the wall where those speakers are currently placed? I have to add that there is no wall to the right, it's an open living room and one of the speakers is trapped against a wall.


----------



## darthray

LDBaha said:


> In addition to my post above, I'll make it shorter and see if I can get anyone to help me
> 
> The couch is against the wall, I move the couch everytime I'm goign to watch a movie about 1.5 feet away from the wall.
> 
> My question is:
> 
> 1. Should I get stands and place some Elac B5s in that same position (or to the sides) ?
> 
> 2. Should I get bipole speakers and place them on the wall where those speakers are currently placed? I have to add that there is no wall to the right, it's an open living room and one of the speakers is trapped against a wall.



Just my personal opinion.


I would go with the Elac, and not bother with Bi/Dipole speaker.
Bi/Dipole speaker are meant to be on your side, but do need some distance to the back wall, to do there wonder of reflection of sound, just like your BOSE.


Your first picture, is where I would place them.
This way you got the benefit of side and back surrounds, with your 5.1 system, and been so close to the wall


As a disclaimer, I must point out to you, that I am not a fan of BOSE for their direct/reflecting so call technology.
But did use to have some Bi/Dipole speaker (you could switch in between, for your preference), and now much prefer direct.


Telling you the disclaimer, so you understand where my recommendation was from, so you can make an inform decision.


Also one more thing to consider.
Now a day, everything is moving to 7.1/Atmos , most recommend direct speakers, with the exception of the Atmos front module speaker.
A speaker that you put on your front main, that use the ceiling for reflection.
Many seem to be happy with-it.


Just not for me


Ray


----------



## LDBaha

darthray said:


> LDBaha said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to my post above, I'll make it shorter and see if I can get anyone to help me
> 
> The couch is against the wall, I move the couch everytime I'm goign to watch a movie about 1.5 feet away from the wall.
> 
> My question is:
> 
> 1. Should I get stands and place some Elac B5s in that same position (or to the sides) ?
> 
> 2. Should I get bipole speakers and place them on the wall where those speakers are currently placed? I have to add that there is no wall to the right, it's an open living room and one of the speakers is trapped against a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just my personal opinion.
> 
> 
> I would go with the Elac, and not bother with Bi/Dipole speaker.
> Bi/Dipole speaker are meant to be on your side, but do need some distance to the back wall, to do there wonder of reflection of sound, just like your BOSE.
> 
> 
> Your first picture, is where I would place them.
> This way you got the benefit of side and back surrounds, with your 5.1 system, and been so close to the wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a disclaimer, I must point out to you, that I am not a fan of BOSE for their direct/reflecting so call technology.
> But did use to have some Bi/Dipole speaker (you could switch in between, for your preference), and now much prefer direct.
> 
> 
> Telling you the disclaimer, so you understand where my recommendation was from, so you can make an inform decision.
> 
> 
> Also one more thing to consider.
> Now a day, everything is moving to 7.1/Atmos , most recommend direct speakers, with the exception of the Atmos front module speaker.
> A speaker that you put on your front main, that use the ceiling for reflection.
> Many seem to be happy with-it.
> 
> 
> Just not for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray
Click to expand...

Hey man thank you so much for the help. It's sound advice. 

I have to say that i DON'T like bose or these bose either. I think I'm more of a direct speaker kind if guy. 

I have the atmos modules in the front and they reflect sound from ceiling. It's kinda cool I would prefer having them on the ceiling, but I rent so no can do... 

Anyway i think I'll take these Bose down from the wall and get 2 Elacs for a full Elac setup


----------



## Ralph Potts

unknownbeef said:


> Are there any reviews of the SVS Ultra Surrounds somewhere on the forums? I can't find any by searching.
> 
> https://www.svsound.com/products/ultra-surround





Dan Hitchman said:


> If you're looking for surrounds to add to a Dolby Atmos/DTS: X capable system, then I wouldn't recommend these. Bipoles/dipoles are not the best choices for immersive surround.


Greetings,

I just added the SVS Ultra Surrounds to my 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos set up. They replaced a pair of Axiom QS8s. I have them set up in the bipole configuration, in the surround position, and find them to be excellent. I use monopole in-walls for the rear surrounds, and four in-ceiling speakers in the top front/rear positions. I find the imaging and spacial quality of the Ultras to be terrific at handling effects at ear level, with no compromise to the mix of sounds emanating from the channels above. 


Regards,


----------



## darthray

LDBaha said:


> Hey man thank you so much for the help. It's sound advice.
> 
> I have to say that i DON'T like bose or these bose either. I think I'm more of a direct speaker kind if guy.
> 
> * I have the atmos modules in the front and they reflect sound from ceiling. It's kinda cool I would prefer having them on the ceiling, but I rent so no can do...
> *
> Anyway i think I'll take these Bose down from the wall and get 2 Elacs for a full Elac setup


*
*
*
*




*
*
*
*
Come back with your impression


For the atmos modules, enjoy what you got at the moment, if one day you own your place.
Then it might be the time to look for something new, if not just enjoy


Ray


----------



## trp3383

I've been living with 3.1 for a year now and im ready for some insight on how to do my surround speakers. My couch is against the rear wall and im not sure what do yo with the surround speakers. I have wire in the ceiling above the couch for in ceiling speakers or would something else be better? Any advice would be great, id like my surround sound back for movies.










Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## jcchiefsfan

LDBaha said:


> In addition to my post above, I'll make it shorter and see if I can get anyone to help me
> 
> The couch is against the wall, I move the couch everytime I'm goign to watch a movie about 1.5 feet away from the wall.
> 
> My question is:
> 
> 1. Should I get stands and place some Elac B5s in that same position (or to the sides) ?
> 
> 2. Should I get bipole speakers and place them on the wall where those speakers are currently placed? I have to add that there is no wall to the right, it's an open living room and one of the speakers is trapped against a wall.












This is my setup with a pair of Klipsch RS-52II reference speaker's and it's pretty good although I have been trying to figure out how to widen them in this particular bad situation for surround but for now this works pretty well! Especially since I'm in the same boat as you and am renting so can't really drill a bunch of holes and run wiring like I would like to do. As far as those speaker options I can't really help you out since I've never had a chance to listen to them, there aren't any home sound store's around unless I drive an hour or more. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


----------



## jcchiefsfan

trp3383 said:


> I've been living with 3.1 for a year now and im ready for some insight on how to do my surround speakers. My couch is against the rear wall and im not sure what do yo with the surround speakers. I have wire in the ceiling above the couch for in ceiling speakers or would something else be better? Any advice would be great, id like my surround sound back for movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


I personally believe that you would be best off going to a 7.1 but if your budget won't allow it then your next best option would be to try them out in multiple positions to see exactly what you like the most. You could have a dozen people chime in but everybody has their own preferences to sound and placement. Ultimately it comes down to what you like and think sounds best although it's a lot of extra work, I think you will be happier with it in the long run. I hope this helps a little. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


----------



## LDBaha

jcchiefsfan said:


> This is my setup with a pair of Klipsch RS-52II reference speaker's and it's pretty good although I have been trying to figure out how to widen them in this particular bad situation for surround but for now this works pretty well! Especially since I'm in the same boat as you and am renting so can't really drill a bunch of holes and run wiring like I would like to do. As far as those speaker options I can't really help you out since I've never had a chance to listen to them, there aren't any home sound store's around unless I drive an hour or more.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


This is interesting. I was thinking of doing something like this. I also thought of going crazy all out and go 7.1.4 but I barely have room behind the sofa. So My idea was to put Bipole speakers on the side and rear speakers behind me but they would be pretty much behind my head, so I decided against that.

Have you tested direct firing speakers instead of those Klipsch bipoles ? I have these ugly Bose speakers that are not direct firing and to be honest, they're ok. 

This fall I'm going to upgrade to 5.2.4 but I still can't make up my mind if I should get direct speakers for my side surrounds....


----------



## jcchiefsfan

LDBaha said:


> This is interesting. I was thinking of doing something like this. I also thought of going crazy all out and go 7.1.4 but I barely have room behind the sofa. So My idea was to put Bipole speakers on the side and rear speakers behind me but they would be pretty much behind my head, so I decided against that.
> 
> Have you tested direct firing speakers instead of those Klipsch bipoles ? I have these ugly Bose speakers that are not direct firing and to be honest, they're ok.
> 
> This fall I'm going to upgrade to 5.2.4 but I still can't make up my mind if I should get direct speakers for my side surrounds....


Yea, the system that this one replaced was a 7.1 system with direct speaker's where the bipoles are now and 2 behind the couch on the stairway wall and it sounded pretty damn good for just a set of Infinity Primus HCS. Of course I am pretty much in love with my $3500 klipsch setup now and would never go back but I still have some more to add to this one and am going to add 2 direct speaker's, upgrade my center, and add another sub. Probably a little overkill for this room but we don't plan on living here for the rest of our lives so it will be all good! Unless the wife tries to put a stop to my madness! Lol 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


----------



## jcchiefsfan

You could always go with either one's on the sides and a set on the ceiling or just go with atmos speaker's in the high front position and forget about the ceiling and then add another sub. Just a couple more idea's to drive you nuts thinking about! Lol 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


----------



## LDBaha

jcchiefsfan said:


> You could always go with either one's on the sides and a set on the ceiling or just go with atmos speaker's in the high front position and forget about the ceiling and then add another sub. Just a couple more idea's to drive you nuts thinking about! Lol
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


Hahah thanks for the idea. Before I had this 5.1.2 I had a 5.1 horribly placed with the side speakers on top of the main speakers and I thought it was good. So dumb. 

Now I plan to go to 5.2.4 but change my rear speakers for some direct firing ones on stands. 
I'm using atmos modules at the front and I was planning on getting 2 more for the back. Upfiring modules are working for me because of low flat ceiling and I'm renting so.... 

Also I want to upgrade my sub to 2 subs! Haha
This is driving me crazy. The only thing holding me back is the wife! 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## jcchiefsfan

LDBaha said:


> Hahah thanks for the idea. Before I had this 5.1.2 I had a 5.1 horribly placed with the side speakers on top of the main speakers and I thought it was good. So dumb.
> 
> Now I plan to go to 5.2.4 but change my rear speakers for some direct firing ones on stands.
> 
> I'm using atmos modules at the front and I was planning on getting 2 more for the back. Upfiring modules are working for me because of low flat ceiling and I'm renting so....
> 
> Also I want to upgrade my sub to 2 subs! Haha
> 
> This is driving me crazy. The only thing holding me back is the wife!
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Lol! I have the same exact problem with my wife! It sounds to me like you have it all figured out and I think that is your best option. Let me know if you ever get it done. That bad boy will be a beast and you'll be future proofing with going with the atmos speaker's and if you come up with a way to get you wife to agree let me know because I'm running out of excuses for the upgrade fever!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


----------



## LDBaha

jcchiefsfan said:


> Lol! I have the same exact problem with my wife! It sounds to me like you have it all figured out and I think that is your best option. Let me know if you ever get it done. That bad boy will be a beast and you'll be future proofing with going with the atmos speaker's and if you come up with a way to get you wife to agree let me know because I'm running out of excuses for the upgrade fever!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


Hahahaha. I've been doing a lot of research. I'm still debating if Bipoles or direct sound for rears. I might even go as far as to audition them when the time comes.
I have been able to find excuses on changing AVRs, speakers, atmos speakers etc. But everytime I talk about getting a new sub I just don't know what to say! Specially trying to justify 2 subs!
We live on an apartment so she has that on her favor because she always replies "but you can't play them loud" or vibrations will disturb the neighbors etc. I need to figure out a way to justify at least a $800 purchase on 2 subs. 

On my defense, I've cut all other hobbies since I started on video/audio. So that keeps her calm.


----------



## p1jones

We got the Infinity Surround Speakers Reference RS152. Really Pleased with the performance


----------



## LDBaha

p1jones said:


> We got the Infinity Surround Speakers Reference RS152. Really Pleased with the performance


Those are interesting. Do you prefer them over the direct firing speakers? 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## sonic debauchery

LDBaha said:


> Hahahaha. I've been doing a lot of research. I'm still debating if Bipoles or direct sound for rears. I might even go as far as to audition them when the time comes.
> I have been able to find excuses on changing AVRs, speakers, atmos speakers etc. But everytime I talk about getting a new sub I just don't know what to say! Specially trying to justify 2 subs!
> We live on an apartment so she has that on her favor because she always replies "but you can't play them loud" or vibrations will disturb the neighbors etc. I need to figure out a way to justify at least a $800 purchase on 2 subs.
> 
> On my defense, I've cut all other hobbies since I started on video/audio. So that keeps her calm.


https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## darthray

LDBaha said:


> Hahahaha. I've been doing a lot of research. I'm still debating if Bipoles or direct sound for rears. I might even go as far as to audition them when the time comes.
> I have been able to find excuses on changing AVRs, speakers, atmos speakers etc. But everytime I talk about getting a new sub I just don't know what to say! Specially trying to justify 2 subs!
> We live on an apartment so she has that on her favor because she always replies "but you can't play them loud" or vibrations will disturb the neighbors etc. I need to figure out a way to justify at least a $800 purchase on 2 subs.
> 
> On my defense, I've cut all other hobbies since I started on video/audio. So that keeps her calm.



Keeping the better half happy is always important


If you at talking rear surround, and not side ones (also came in very late into this conversation).
I would go direct, for the side surrounds, my suggestion would be still direct and have tried also Bi-Di types, but it is a Preference on my part 


For the subs question, 2 subs will always be better than one, very few case 1 is better (none that I know).
I am sure, that you get a better price/shipping value when buying two, instead of one at the time.
Try to sell this idea, save money on the long run


Ray


----------



## Seraphim6801

In keeping with my Klipsch theme, I'm gonna pick up the RP250s soon as I can. I just got my brand new RF7s and RC64deliverd this weekend. It makes sense, to me, that a dipole setup would create a more saturated sound field... Having little to no exp in this matter I'm looking forward to getting some...mwhaha

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk


----------



## landonsdad

I bought the motion 4's for surround speakers. (5.1).

My couch is on the same wall as where I will mount the speakers. I purchased pivoting mounts. 

My original plan was to aim just in front of MLP and 2' above ears. 

Before I put holes in the wall, I wanted to verify this as being correct. I can pull my couch forward a foot for movie night, but no just for tv. 

I was told the Motion 4's would be good for surround but now wondering if I should have bought the FX?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Asgard1an

Bottom line, what speakers are currently good for a good surround experience (brand, price, model)? Lets say less that $200 a piece.


----------



## the_jaguar

Is it ok to mix & match speakers when it comes to surrounds? 

I have JBL 590's for my fronts and a 520C for the center. I just got 4 RSL C34E's for in-ceiling atmos. The dimensions of my dedicated HT room are 20' length X 14' width. I am having a really tough time deciding on surrounds and rears. Please help...


----------



## darthray

the_jaguar said:


> Is it ok to mix & match speakers when it comes to surrounds?
> 
> I have JBL 590's for my fronts and a 520C for the center. I just got 4 RSL C34E's for in-ceiling atmos. The dimensions of my dedicated HT room are 20' length X 14' width. I am having a really tough time deciding on surrounds and rears. Please help...



In the best word, everything should be match.
But when it come to surrounds, you have some leeway


My four surrounds are a perfect match to my front three.
Now I am working to get ceiling speakers for Atmos.
I end-up getting four SVS Elevation, not a perfect match to my Aperion bookshelf's.


So Yes, it is OK to mix and match, since it will not be as critical as your front stage.


Ray


----------



## the_jaguar

darthray said:


> In the best word, everything should be match.
> But when it come to surrounds, you have some leeway
> 
> 
> My four surrounds are a perfect match to my front three.
> Now I am working to get ceiling speakers for Atmos.
> I end-up getting four SVS Elevation, not a perfect match to my Aperion bookshelf's.
> 
> 
> So Yes, it is OK to mix and match, since it will not be as critical as your front stage.
> 
> 
> Ray


Thanks for the input. I have my front LCR matching (JBL 590 and 520C). I ended up buying RSL C34E for the in-ceiling atmos setup, so I went with RSL CG3's for surrounds. A bit of mix & match, but still keeping the differences minimal. I am hoping this will all play out well.


----------



## darthray

the_jaguar said:


> Thanks for the input. I have my front LCR matching (JBL 590 and 520C). I ended up buying RSL C34E for the in-ceiling atmos setup, so I went with RSL CG3's for surrounds. A bit of mix & match, but still keeping the differences minimal. I am hoping this will all play out well.



I think, they will


Your ceiling speaker and surrounds are made by the same company.
And RSL look like another ID company that might get popular in the future.


Anyhow, let us know on how you like your new set-up!
I will bet you a nickel ($0.05, not sure if that term is use outside Canada ), that it will sound great.


Enjoy!


Ray


----------



## Rgb

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I just added the SVS Ultra Surrounds to my 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos set up. They replaced a pair of Axiom QS8s. I have them set up in the bipole configuration, in the surround position, and find them to be excellent. I use monopole in-walls for the rear surrounds, and four in-ceiling speakers in the top front/rear positions. I find the imaging and spacial quality of the Ultras to be terrific at handling effects at ear level, with no compromise to the mix of sounds emanating from the channels above.
> 
> 
> Regards,



It appears the consensus among the "experts" is Bipoles for side surrounds in typical home sized theater rooms-

Anthony Grimani also advocates using Bipoles
https://twit.tv/shows/home-theater-geeks/episodes/177
https://twit.tv/shows/home-theater-geeks/episodes/178
https://twit.tv/shows/home-theater-geeks/episodes/233

Bottom line- every room and personal preferences vary.

But I think for most home-sized theaters, bipoles may replicate the sound of recent design large commercial theaters, with their rows of multiple side (monopole) speakers, without requiring several monopole side speakers/wall for multi-row (Seating) home theaters.

But as always, YMMV, try monopoles and bipoles before judging.

The idea is that for multiple row home theaters, yes you *could* install multiple monopoles on each side wall (requiring more amps for extra speakers), but this is more complicated and the speakers may end up sounding too localized or "in the ear" of some seat positions due to the smaller dimensions of home sized theater rooms vs large commercial venues.


----------



## rizorith

Rgb said:


> It appears the consensus among the "experts" is Bipoles for side surrounds in typical home sized theater rooms-
> 
> Anthony Grimani also advocates using Bipoles
> https://twit.tv/shows/home-theater-geeks/episodes/177
> https://twit.tv/shows/home-theater-geeks/episodes/178
> https://twit.tv/shows/home-theater-geeks/episodes/233
> 
> Bottom line- every room and personal preferences vary.
> 
> But I think for most home-sized theaters, bipoles may replicate the sound of recent design large commercial theaters, with their rows of multiple side (monopole) speakers, without requiring several monopole side speakers/wall for multi-row home theaters.
> 
> But as always, YMMV, try monopoles and bipoles before judging.
> 
> The idea is that for multiple row home theaters, yes you *could* install multiple monopoles on each side wall (requiring more amps for extra speakers), but this is more complicated and the speakers may end up sounding too localized or "in the ear" of some seat positions due to the smaller dimensions of home sized theater rooms vs large commercial venues.


I was looking at the fluance sxbp bipole speakers as my side rears in a 5.1.2 atmos setup. My front's will be Chane 1.4/2.4 but I'm told I can go cheap on the surrounds. The room is small - 10x14 and the seats will be back against the 14' wall almost to the corner. It sounds like bipoles would be a good match. Can I position these so close to the listener? It would basically be 2 feet above and a foot to the left of the leftmost listener. The right would be a bit further away.. 

I take it the in ceiling atmos speakers will be direct firing but I haven't gotten that far into it. Any suggestions on good value speakers for the side surrounds and the ceiling surrounds?


----------



## Rgb

rizorith said:


> I was looking at the fluance sxbp bipole speakers as my side rears in a 5.1.2 atmos setup. My front's will be Chane 1.4/2.4 but I'm told I can go cheap on the surrounds. The room is small - 10x14 and the seats will be back against the 14' wall almost to the corner. It sounds like bipoles would be a good match. Can I position these so close to the listener? It would basically be 2 feet above and a foot to the left of the leftmost listener. The right would be a bit further away..
> 
> I take it the in ceiling atmos speakers will be direct firing but I haven't gotten that far into it. Any suggestions on good value speakers for the side surrounds and the ceiling surrounds?


One of the go to speakers for surround/ceiling are the DIYSG Volt's (6,8 or 10)
http://www.diysoundgroup.com/coaxial-speaker-kits.html

These are monopoles.

You want to place any speaker (Mono or bipole) so that it doesn't shoot directly into the ear of seated viewers during a movie, i.e. placed above and/or behind the viewers.

There should be enough distance from the speaker to the closest ear to allow the speaker to radiate/spread the sound.


----------



## jassoe87

I recommended quadpole or omnipole.


----------



## Prophizee

So I got set of paradigm ADP surrounds and was wondering would you guys suggest using these over my paradigm v7 mini monitors as my rear surrounds. The problem is that I don't have a lot of space behind my sitting area so they are pushed a little off to the side and there is about a 5 foot distance on each side from the center sitting position. My thought was after reading trough the thread that the adps would disburse the sound a little better. Btw the ADP are v5s Any help would be great thanks 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## clint74

On this subject one question: is it possible to mount bipoles/dipoles near corners (actually very close to the corners or at the corners)?
It would be for a bedroom setup as currently I have small monopoles but the sound is very localized given the short distance with the bed if you are not dead center, and at least one of us if not both will never be in the center. Would it be beneficial or even worse?
Room is reasonably large as a bedroom but still a bedroom with the bed against the back wall.....

Thanks.


----------



## mtkagan

Are there any recommended dipole speakers for around $200? up to 300? I'm using monopoles on sidewalls for a small narrow room and am trying to improve my surround experience. Been reading that dipoles increase the sound field but I can't seem to find any online .. I can easily find some bipoles easily like fluances online. any ideas? its a 5.1 setup btw


----------



## Zcars

clint74 said:


> On this subject one question: is it possible to mount bipoles/dipoles near corners (actually very close to the corners or at the corners)?
> It would be for a bedroom setup as currently I have small monopoles but the sound is very localized given the short distance with the bed if you are not dead center, and at least one of us if not both will never be in the center. Would it be beneficial or even worse?
> Room is reasonably large as a bedroom but still a bedroom with the bed against the back wall.....
> 
> Thanks.


I have bipoles in the corners of my family room, one right over the corner of the sectional. Not ideal but they do bounce the sound around well enough.


----------



## enkrypt3d

Hey guys, trying to decide on surround sound speakers..... a little advice?

What surround sound speakers should I use that support atmos? or should I not worry about that and only use the front firing atmos speakers? My setup is this:

Polk TSi 400's in front
Polk CS10 Center channel
Polk OWM3 for front Atmos speakers
Polk PSW10 (I know it sucks going to swap it with the PSW505)
Surrounds?? I don't think Polk has an Atmos "enabled" speaker do they?

Polk S10's or S15's? Then I wouldn't have a rear Atmos channel tho unless I got 4 separate speakers...... sigh


----------



## Dan Hitchman

enkrypt3d said:


> Hey guys, trying to decide on surround sound speakers..... a little advice?
> 
> What surround sound speakers should I use that support atmos? or should I not worry about that and only use the front firing atmos speakers? My setup is this:
> 
> Polk TSi 400's in front
> Polk CS10 Center channel
> Polk OWM3 for front Atmos speakers
> Polk PSW10 (I know it sucks going to swap it with the PSW505)
> Surrounds?? I don't think Polk has an Atmos "enabled" speaker do they?
> 
> Polk S10's or S15's? Then I wouldn't have a rear Atmos channel tho unless I got 4 separate speakers...... sigh


We need more information. How far away would you be sitting from the side and rear surrounds? What are the dimensions of the room? Open or closed floorplan? 

Receiver being used?


----------



## enkrypt3d

Dan Hitchman said:


> We need more information. How far away would you be sitting from the side and rear surrounds? What are the dimensions of the room? Open or closed floorplan?
> 
> Receiver being used?


It's an open floor plan - room is roughly 20' x 35' TV is at one end of the room. 










AVR is Yamaha RX-V683

The surrounds would have to go on either side of the couch towards the rear in the corners.... so roughly 3-4' from seating position.

This pic was taken this morning and just got in the OWM3's and new sub added to this setup FYI


----------



## Dan Hitchman

enkrypt3d said:


> It's an open floor plan - room is roughly 20' x 35' TV is at one end of the room.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVR is Yamaha RX-V683
> 
> The surrounds would have to go on either side of the couch towards the rear in the corners.... so roughly 3-4' from seating position.
> 
> This pic was taken this morning and just got in the OWM3's and new sub added to this setup FYI



Sorry for the delay in responding. 

I would go with bipole (not dipole) surround speakers since you will have them so close to the main listening position (MLP). If you were a little farther away, I would say book shelf types on stands. 

Put the Owm3's on the ceiling using angle ceiling brackets and aim them toward the MLP in the Top Middle position.










My next question is this: are you completely satisfied with your Polk speakers or have you considered upgrading? If you're sticking with the Polk's then get the matching bipole wall mounted speakers from the same model line as the rest of your Polk speakers. You want to timbre match the surrounds just like you would the center channel speaker for immersive audio.

As for a subwoofer, I would definitely look at an SVS, Rythmik, or HSU Research before I plunked any more money down on another Polk subwoofer. I would return the sub you just purchased. The HSU VTF-3 mk5 or VTF-15H mk2 (even better!) would absolutely be worth the investment, as examples, and will blow the Polk subs out of the water. Polk Audio subs are anemic at best, one hit wonders at worst. You need solid, tight slam.


----------



## enkrypt3d

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sorry for the delay in responding.
> 
> I would go with bipole (not dipole) surround speakers since you will have them so close to the main listening position (MLP). If you were a little farther away, I would say book shelf types on stands.
> 
> Put the Owm3's on the ceiling using angle ceiling brackets and aim them toward the MLP in the Top Middle position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My next question is this: are you completely satisfied with your Polk speakers or have you considered upgrading? If you're sticking with the Polk's then get the matching bipole wall mounted speakers from the same model line as the rest of your Polk speakers. You want to timbre match the surrounds just like you would the center channel speaker for immersive audio.
> 
> As for a subwoofer, I would definitely look at an SVS, Rythmik, or HSU Research before I plunked any more money down on another Polk subwoofer. I would return the sub you just purchased. The HSU VTF-3 mk5 or VTF-15H mk2 (even better!) would absolutely be worth the investment, as examples, and will blow the Polk subs out of the water. Polk Audio subs are anemic at best, one hit wonders at worst. You need solid, tight slam.


https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LVWWZS0/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Ordered these right before you posted - should I change it? And yea trying not to spend more $ than I have to. The new AVR has insane sound quality over my old RX-A710... really impressed with that. LMK and yea probably exchange the sub with something better thanks!

https://www.amazon.com/Polk-Audio-Surround-Speakers-Black/dp/B000V2SEZA should I exchange for these instead?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

enkrypt3d said:


> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LVWWZS0/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> Ordered these right before you posted - should I change it? And yea trying not to spend more $ than I have to. The new AVR has insane sound quality over my old RX-A710... really impressed with that. LMK and yea probably exchange the sub with something better thanks!
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Polk-Audio-Surround-Speakers-Black/dp/B000V2SEZA should I exchange for these instead?


Go with the Surrounds instead. You can switch them to bipole mode. Monopoles can get a little too directional at close distances.

What subs are you now considering (besides the manufacturers I mentioned)?


----------



## enkrypt3d

Dan Hitchman said:


> Go with the Surrounds instead. You can switch them to bipole mode. Monopoles can get a little too directional at close distances.
> 
> What subs are you now considering (besides the manufacturers I mentioned)?


sweet thanks! I'll report back and let you know how it goes...

For the OWM3's should I mount them almost directly over the couch or should reflecting them be ok?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

enkrypt3d said:


> sweet thanks! I'll report back and let you know how it goes...
> 
> For the OWM3's should I mount them almost directly over the couch or should reflecting them be ok?


You have a unique seating arrangement and if the recliner and side couch are the "sweet spots" for viewing considering the distance from the TV, I would place the OWM3's in Dolby's recommended 5.1.2 layout with the Top Middle's about a foot in front of the sitting position (using the center of the room as a guideline - auto calibration will compensate for off set seating arrangements). I would not use them in the reflecting Atmos "enabled" locations firing towards the ceiling. That would be the absolute worst Dolby Atmos and DTS: X experience you could imagine. Overheads were meant to be just that... over head.  That helps create the 3D sonic landscape as objects travel around the room. 

Flush mount the OWM3's to the ceiling, but give yourself a little leeway to pivot the speakers so the drivers aim slightly towards the MLP, and not straight down at the floor with the tweeter pointed toward the back of the room and towards the ceiling (orienting the same way was the front speakers).


----------



## enkrypt3d

Dan Hitchman said:


> You have a unique seating arrangement and if the recliner and side couch are the "sweet spots" for viewing considering the distance from the TV, I would place the OWM3's in Dolby's recommended 5.1.2 layout with the Top Middle's about a foot in front of the sitting position (using the center of the room as a guideline - auto calibration will compensate for off set seating arrangements). I would not use them in the reflecting Atmos "enabled" locations firing towards the ceiling. That would be the absolute worst Dolby Atmos and DTS: X experience you could imagine. Overheads were meant to be just that... over head.  That helps create the 3D sonic landscape as objects travel around the room.
> 
> Flush mount the OWM3's to the ceiling, but give yourself a little leeway to pivot the speakers so the drivers aim slightly towards the MLP, and not straight down at the floor with the tweeter pointed toward the back of the room and towards the ceiling (orienting the same way was the front speakers).


yea i wish i could flush mount them but this is a rental so I'll just have to mount them as best as I can.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

enkrypt3d said:


> yea i wish i could flush mount them but this is a rental so I'll just have to mount them as best as I can.


On the ceiling will be fine and use drywall molly bolts if you don't have a stud in the right location. Use plastic wire molding to hide the wires leading up to them.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

enkrypt3d said:


> sweet thanks! I'll report back and let you know how it goes...
> 
> For the OWM3's should I mount them almost directly over the couch or should reflecting them be ok?



If you run into problems mounting the OWM3's in the correct locations on the ceiling, here is what someone else did with their overheads. Granted, they had a 5.1.4 system (hence the four overhead speakers). It's a compromise sonically, but still much better than upward firing speakers.


----------



## enkrypt3d

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you run into problems mounting the OWM3's in the correct locations on the ceiling, here is what someone else did with their overheads. Granted, they had a 5.1.4 system (hence the four overhead speakers). It's a compromise sonically, but still much better than upward firing speakers.


that looks pretty good! I'll have to try that... Are the sonic differences that noticeable when placed this way vs the way you were saying? Now I'm obsessed with audio quality now that I have a decent AVR LoL watching the same movies over and over.

I might pickup another 2 OWM3's but I think that would be overkill eh?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

enkrypt3d said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you run into problems mounting the OWM3's in the correct locations on the ceiling, here is what someone else did with their overheads. Granted, they had a 5.1.4 system (hence the four overhead speakers). It's a compromise sonically, but still much better than upward firing speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that looks pretty good! I'll have to try that... Are the sonic differences that noticeable when placed this way vs the way you were saying? Now I'm obsessed with audio quality now that I have a decent AVR LoL watching the same movies over and over.
> 
> I might pickup another 2 OWM3's but I think that would be overkill eh?
Click to expand...

You want the overheads to sound above you and not off to the far sides. That's what I mean by that image above being a depicted compromise in overhead speaker locations.

As far as another pair of OWM3's, you would need a different and better receiver model that can handle up to 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos and DTS: X processing. You could still do 5.1.4 due to your room layout. 

Right now you're stuck at 5.1.2 with the Yamaha RX-V683


----------



## enkrypt3d

Dan Hitchman said:


> You want the overheads to sound above you and not off to the far sides. That's what I mean by that image above being a depicted compromise in overhead speaker locations.
> 
> As far as another pair of OWM3's, you would need a different and better receiver model that can handle up to 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos and DTS: X processing. You could still do 5.1.4 due to your room layout.
> 
> Right now you're stuck at 5.1.2 with the Yamaha RX-V683


Thanks - Got the Polk Audio FXI A4 mounted up behind me on the wall about 6' up. Not sure which way the woofers should be facing? right now the woofers are facing the wall which I might swap L & R. I also have them set as bipole mode and not dipole mode... I need to run YPAO again.

I think 5.1.2 is enough for me. The wife thinks it's "loud" enough.......  as much as I try to explain to her it's not about the volume! ugh.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

enkrypt3d said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want the overheads to sound above you and not off to the far sides. That's what I mean by that image above being a depicted compromise in overhead speaker locations.
> 
> As far as another pair of OWM3's, you would need a different and better receiver model that can handle up to 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos and DTS: X processing. You could still do 5.1.4 due to your room layout.
> 
> Right now you're stuck at 5.1.2 with the Yamaha RX-V683
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks - Got the Polk Audio FXI A4 mounted up behind me on the wall about 6' up. Not sure which way the woofers should be facing? right now the woofers are facing the wall which I might swap L & R. I also have them set as bipole mode and not dipole mode... I need to run YPAO again.
> 
> I think 5.1.2 is enough for me. The wife thinks it's "loud" enough.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as much as I try to explain to her it's not about the volume! ugh.
Click to expand...

Woofers of the surrounds firing inwards. 

The drivers of said surrounds should be just above seated head height, no higher if possible. The whole point is that the main layer and overhead layer of speakers have a distinct separation and that helps create the 3D effect as audio objects are panned around. If the surrounds are placed too high, then things can get muddied.


----------



## mneuman916

Dan Hitchman said:


> Woofers of the surrounds firing inwards.


I thought they were only supposed to fire toward each other in dipole mode?


----------



## ruggercb

mtkagan said:


> Are there any recommended dipole speakers for around $200? up to 300? I'm using monopoles on sidewalls for a small narrow room and am trying to improve my surround experience. Been reading that dipoles increase the sound field but I can't seem to find any online .. I can easily find some bipoles easily like fluances online. any ideas? its a 5.1 setup btw




I just bought two pairs of fluance bipoles for 7.1 to replace some monopole Polk monitor 30s. Its the first time I’ve been happy with my surround setup. Like, ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mneuman916 said:


> I thought they were only supposed to fire toward each other in dipole mode?


We were talking about _bi_pole speakers.


----------



## mneuman916

Dan Hitchman said:


> We were talking about _bi_pole speakers.


I know you were; hence my confusion. If he has them set in bipole mode, shouldn't the woofers be facing away from each other, not inward as you suggested?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mneuman916 said:


> I know you were; hence my confusion. If he has them set in bipole mode, shouldn't the woofers be facing away from each other, not inward as you suggested?


It really depends on how they sound in the room. Those particular surround speakers weren't exactly in your typical mirrored bipole configuration anyway.


----------



## ljubica_bu

Does anyone use Logitech Z906? I'm considering buying them for my room. The price is around 200$ on Amazon,which is acceptable. My room is rather small and it I think it doesn't need the most powerful speakers for my intended use, which is just watching movies and playing some games. Do you guys have any better suggestions for the price?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ljubica_bu said:


> Does anyone use Logitech Z906? I'm considering buying them for my room. The price is around 200$ on Amazon,which is acceptable. My room is rather small and it I think it doesn't need the most powerful speakers for my intended use, which is just watching movies and playing some games. Do you guys have any better suggestions for the price?


I listed some excellent budget range bookshelf speakers in the Sony Core thread. You will need a good subwoofer at some point.


----------



## Zoland2020

Hey guys, I got one question about surround speakers. I'm running a 5.1 setup (after all, my Pioneer VSX-532 is only a basic 5 channel receiver) and had thoughts about getting a pair of bipole speakers for a little more convincing surround sound, I'm somewhat on a budget so can't go for Klipsch nor even Polk speakers at the moment, I was thinking about these Fluance speakers. They very well fit my budget but are they worth the purchase or should I look elsewhere?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00067OLO...olid=16QUKXYII1QW5&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Zoland2020 said:


> Hey guys, I got one question about surround speakers. I'm running a 5.1 setup (after all, my Pioneer VSX-532 is only a basic 5 channel receiver) and had thoughts about getting a pair of bipole speakers for a little more convincing surround sound, I'm somewhat on a budget so can't go for Klipsch nor even Polk speakers at the moment, I was thinking about these Fluance speakers. They very well fit my budget but are they worth the purchase or should I look elsewhere?
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00067OLO...olid=16QUKXYII1QW5&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it


Let's just say that with Fluance you get what you paid for. 

Bipole speakers are best when your surround speakers are fairly close to your listening position. Otherwise, monopoles are best. 

Either way, they should be timbre matched to the rest of your front speakers. Anything else is a system performance compromise.


----------



## Zoland2020

Dan Hitchman said:


> Let's just say that with Fluance you get what you paid for.
> 
> Bipole speakers are best when your surround speakers are fairly close to your listening position. Otherwise, monopoles are best.
> 
> Either way, they should be timbre matched to the rest of your front speakers. Anything else is a system performance compromise.


I do after all wanted a closer listening experience so Bipoles should work fine for me. Any decent monopole speakers out there you could suggest me before I make the move by the end of the month?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Zoland2020 said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just say that with Fluance you get what you paid for.
> 
> Bipole speakers are best when your surround speakers are fairly close to your listening position. Otherwise, monopoles are best.
> 
> Either way, they should be timbre matched to the rest of your front speakers. Anything else is a system performance compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> I do after all wanted a closer listening experience so Bipoles should work fine for me. Any decent monopole speakers out there you could suggest me before I make the move by the end of the month?
Click to expand...

It's not about wanting a closer experience... you actually want a bigger bubble of sound... it's about how far away the surrounds are physically from your seating location. That determines if bipole or monopole surround speakers are best.

What make and model speakers do you currently own?


----------



## Zoland2020

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's not about wanting a closer experience... you actually want a bigger bubble of sound... it's about how far away the surrounds are physically from your seating location. That determines if bipole or monopole surround speakers are best.
> 
> What make and model speakers do you currently own?


Nothing too special, just a budget 5.1 speaker system from Yamaha, I'm only replacing the surround pair speakers with something else, the fronts & center speaker are fine where it is for now and so is the subwoofer. I'm actually new to A/V receivers as I was previously a soundbar person so I'm still trying to get the hang of it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Zoland2020 said:


> Nothing too special, just a budget 5.1 speaker system from Yamaha, I'm only replacing the surround pair speakers with something else, the fronts & center speaker are fine where it is for now and so is the subwoofer. I'm actually new to A/V receivers as I was previously a soundbar person so I'm still trying to get the hang of it.


What I would do is pick a surround speaker from a brand and model line that you would definitely be interested in going with in the near future to replace your Yamaha speakers with something sonically superior. That way you end up with timbre matched speakers all around. 

What kind of budget range are you thinking of? It's best to be a little flexible as a few bucks here and there isn't worth fretting over. What counts is that you're satisfied without absolutely going hog wild price wise. Super cheap speakers are just a way of wasting money in the end. You're looking for bang vs buck.


----------



## Zoland2020

Dan Hitchman said:


> What I would do is pick a surround speaker from a brand and model line that you would definitely be interested in going with in the near future to replace your Yamaha speakers with something sonically superior. That way you end up with timbre matched speakers all around.
> 
> What kind of budget range are you thinking of? It's best to be a little flexible as a few bucks here and there isn't worth fretting over. What counts is that you're satisfied without absolutely going hog wild price wise. Super cheap speakers are just a way of wasting money in the end. You're looking for bang vs buck.


I've heard Polk speakers are really great and they even fit my budget, even Pioneer speakers are good, I'll check into them again sometime, they may be better than Fluance I've mentioned earlier. My maximum budget for all type speakers (fronts, surrounds, and center) is $200, only Klipsch and SVS speakers are over my limit.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Zoland2020 said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I would do is pick a surround speaker from a brand and model line that you would definitely be interested in going with in the near future to replace your Yamaha speakers with something sonically superior. That way you end up with timbre matched speakers all around.
> 
> What kind of budget range are you thinking of? It's best to be a little flexible as a few bucks here and there isn't worth fretting over. What counts is that you're satisfied without absolutely going hog wild price wise. Super cheap speakers are just a way of wasting money in the end. You're looking for bang vs buck.
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard Polk speakers are really great and they even fit my budget, even Pioneer speakers are good, I'll check into them again sometime, they may be better than Fluance I've mentioned earlier. My maximum budget for all type speakers (fronts, surrounds, and center) is $200, only Klipsch and SVS speakers are over my limit.
Click to expand...

I would bump my spending up just a wee bit. The cheapest budget with build quality speakers I would go with are the SVS Prime speakers.

Next would be the HSU Research HB-1 speakers as they can really crank for their price range, but sound smoother than some lower end Klipsch speakers.

Polk speakers are not what they used to be. They've really been cheapened over the years.


----------



## Zcars

Zoland2020 said:


> Hey guys, I got one question about surround speakers. I'm running a 5.1 setup (after all, my Pioneer VSX-532 is only a basic 5 channel receiver) and had thoughts about getting a pair of bipole speakers for a little more convincing surround sound, I'm somewhat on a budget so can't go for Klipsch nor even Polk speakers at the moment, I was thinking about these Fluance speakers. They very well fit my budget but are they worth the purchase or should I look elsewhere?
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00067OLO...olid=16QUKXYII1QW5&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it


I have the next level up XLBP bipolars as surrounds because I have an irregular room with seating up against the corner walls, so this works well for me. I would say they are fine as surrounds, and I don't think they bring down the overall listening experience given I have KEF Q series LCR. Personally, I would not spend a lot on the surrounds until later, and these may do fine for you for a while. That budget is not much, so look for used fronts to start or put more into getting some decent entry level LCR speakers and maybe do the surrounds later. I disagree that timbre matching is an important factor for surrounds, especially with the budget you are working with. You will not really notice. Another option as a starter are the Pioneer Andrew Jones bookshelves often found quite cheap. I had these before my KEFs and they really are not bad as LR mains. You could move them to surround duty when you upgrade. The centre has been criticized for being too muddy for dialogue, but I found it acceptable to start with.


----------



## Quinte

I'm looking to replace my JBL2500 bookshelf rear speakers and would greatly appreciate some feedback and recommendations. 

Current speakers: FR Canton Ergo 607DC, CEN Canton CM502, SUR Canton Ergo F book, R JBL2500, CL Dynamic Audio Labs KVSC-65, SW Paradigm PD12 

I lucked in a while back and acquired the Canton's from a coworker at an awesome price. I finally updated the amp last month at moved to the 7.1.2 configuration based on Dolby's suggested layout. I have a wonderful equilateral triangle placement of the front speakers (11ft), with the sides at 7ft and rears 9ft. Almost 9ft ceilings. 

There are two ideas I'm toying with, trying to work within a price range of $700'ish. 

1. Move the Canton books to the rear and purchase a pair of dipole surrounds (Possibly: Definitive Technology SR-9080 or Paradigm Surround series 1 or series 7)
2. Replace the JBLs with bookshelf's (Emotiva Audio Surround Books or possibly ELAC B6) 

Given that the sweet spot is 7 ft away from the sides, I've noted earlier comments recommending to stay with bookshelves when there is enough distance. I'm not sure if this is the case given that the span of the 3 recliners leaves only 3.5 ft to the sides (15ft wide room). 

Open to ideas and speaker recommendations.


----------



## Jonas2

Quinte said:


> I'm looking to replace my JBL2500 bookshelf rear speakers and would greatly appreciate some feedback and recommendations.
> 
> Current speakers: FR Canton Ergo 607DC, CEN Canton CM502, SUR Canton Ergo F book, R JBL2500, CL Dynamic Audio Labs KVSC-65, SW Paradigm PD12
> 
> I lucked in a while back and acquired the Canton's from a coworker at an awesome price. I finally updated the amp last month at moved to the 7.1.2 configuration based on Dolby's suggested layout. I have a wonderful equilateral triangle placement of the front speakers (11ft), with the sides at 7ft and rears 9ft. Almost 9ft ceilings.
> 
> There are two ideas I'm toying with, trying to work within a price range of $700'ish.
> 
> 1. Move the Canton books to the rear and purchase a pair of dipole surrounds (Possibly: Definitive Technology SR-9080 or Paradigm Surround series 1 or series 7)
> 2. Replace the JBLs with bookshelf's (Emotiva Audio Surround Books or possibly ELAC B6)
> 
> Given that the sweet spot is 7 ft away from the sides, I've noted earlier comments recommending to stay with bookshelves when there is enough distance. I'm not sure if this is the case given that the span of the 3 recliners leaves only 3.5 ft to the sides (15ft wide room).
> 
> Open to ideas and speaker recommendations.


Dolby does not recommend use of dipoles for Atmos configs. Monopole / Bipole O.K. Of course you could deploy dipoles and have a totally fine experience. Just their recommendation, so to be considered.

I'd agree - monopoles are great if you have the distance - that 3.5 feet will make it easier to locate the speaker. I speak from personal experience, unfortunately.  6-7 feet is about where my particular speakers disappear. Placing the side surrounds forward of the listeners at around 80 degrees and then aiming them at the furthest listener actually has worked well to minimize the localization for the near-side speaker, so you could try that if you stick with monopole.


----------



## Quinte

Jonas2 said:


> Dolby does not recommend use of dipoles for Atmos configs. Monopole / Bipole O.K. Of course you could deploy dipoles and have a totally fine experience. Just their recommendation, so to be considered.
> 
> I'd agree - monopoles are great if you have the distance - that 3.5 feet will make it easier to locate the speaker. I speak from personal experience, unfortunately.  6-7 feet is about where my particular speakers disappear. Placing the side surrounds forward of the listeners at around 80 degrees and then aiming them at the furthest listener actually has worked well to minimize the localization for the near-side speaker, so you could try that if you stick with monopole.


Dyslexia has kicked in, I meant to say Bipole.
Plausible idea of moving the surrounds slightly forward as I do find them a little prominent right now at roughly 90deg. That being said, I just manually metered the speakers and the side/rear speakers are about 8db louder than the fronts and ceiling. Not sure if this was a flaw of the amplifiers calibration (Denon AVRX4400H) or done by design.


----------



## Jonas2

Quinte said:


> Dyslexia has kicked in, I meant to say Bipole.
> Plausible idea of moving the surrounds slightly forward as I do find them a little prominent right now at roughly 90deg. That being said, I just manually metered the speakers and the side/rear speakers are about 8db louder than the fronts and ceiling. Not sure if this was a flaw of the amplifiers calibration (Denon AVRX4400H) or done by design.


Definitely give moving them forward a go. I know, the Dolby specs. for Atmos indicate 90-100 (110?) angular spread for the sides in a 7.x.x configuration, and that might be in a perfect world. But they are juts recommendations (albeit, good ones), so you've got a range to play with, so experiment if you can. 

I also found that moving the speakers forward gave better separation between the rears, provided for a more integral sound field. 

Don't know what t say about those calibration levels. You can always drop the trim on the speakers that are sounding too prominent, see if that helps. My system had all of the speakers within 4b of one another, from -2 to +2, exception is the lopsided, right surround speaker that is significantly closer to the MLP, set that one at -3. Without knowing more, I'd say that 8dB seems a bit odd???


----------



## mohmony

Trying to find a pair of side surrounds. 
Was thinking of Fluance, But see mixed comments earlier in the thread.. 
Aperion has couple of bipole/dipole speakers.. My front sound stage is Aperion Intimus 5T and 5C - Are their surround offerings any good? (Dont see any mention of these two speakers here in this thread)...
https://www.aperionaudio.com/speakers/surrounds/intimus-4bp-bipole-surround-speaker-735
https://www.aperionaudio.com/speakers/surrounds/verus-surround-dipole-bipole-speaker

Looking for a pair ~ $300, Any suggestions?


----------



## Toxic teletubby

mohmony said:


> Trying to find a pair of side surrounds.
> Was thinking of Fluance, But see mixed comments earlier in the thread..
> Aperion has couple of bipole/dipole speakers.. My front sound stage is Aperion Intimus 5T and 5C - Are their surround offerings any good? (Dont see any mention of these two speakers here in this thread)...
> https://www.aperionaudio.com/speakers/surrounds/intimus-4bp-bipole-surround-speaker-735
> https://www.aperionaudio.com/speakers/surrounds/verus-surround-dipole-bipole-speaker
> 
> Looking for a pair ~ $300, Any suggestions?


I have a set of the fluance. They make noise and are nothing more than a placeholder until I order a set of Volt 10's from DIY Soundgroup. Not sure if you have thought of going the DIY route but with the Volts, a flatpack, some glue and you have some of the best bang for your buck speakers.


----------



## mohmony

Toxic teletubby said:


> I have a set of the fluance. They make noise and are nothing more than a placeholder until I order a set of Volt 10's from DIY Soundgroup. Not sure if you have thought of going the DIY route but with the Volts, a flatpack, some glue and you have some of the best bang for your buck speakers.


Thats good to know about the DIY Route, This setup iam doing is not for my place but for someone.
Sofar -- For 5.1.4
Front: Aperion Audio Intimus 5C,2*5T
Height: RSL C34E (4)
Subwoofer: Rythmic L12
AVR: Marantz SR7011
Rear Surrounds: ????


----------



## Quinte

Jonas2 said:


> Definitely give moving them forward a go. I know, the Dolby specs. for Atmos indicate 90-100 (110?) angular spread for the sides in a 7.x.x configuration, and that might be in a perfect world. But they are juts recommendations (albeit, good ones), so you've got a range to play with, so experiment if you can.
> 
> I also found that moving the speakers forward gave better separation between the rears, provided for a more integral sound field.
> 
> Don't know what t say about those calibration levels. You can always drop the trim on the speakers that are sounding too prominent, see if that helps. My system had all of the speakers within 4b of one another, from -2 to +2, exception is the lopsided, right surround speaker that is significantly closer to the MLP, set that one at -3. Without knowing more, I'd say that 8dB seems a bit odd???


Attracted by the price/value factor, opted to go with Martin Logan LX16's to replace the rear JBL2500's. Being a former Magnapan MGIIIa owner, I can now go to my grave knowing that I finally bought a Martin Logan speaker. I'm toying with the idea of moving the Canton FBooks to the rear and putting the Logans into the surround given the wider dispersion of the tweeter. Thought's anyone?

I'm also replacing the mid-ceilings with the ELAC IC-DT61W's because of the 30 deg tilt, hoping to improve the focus. SVS-PB1000 is coming in today, considering to go dual. So lots of moving parts that will keep me busy for the next little while.

Just a follow up for those who may be interested in how things turned out. 
As stated, I did go with the LX16's and placed them in the rear, keeping the Canton F Bookshelves on the Side Surround. Once all the other speakers came in, I ran the Audyssey calibration again and found a significant improvement in the overall surround balance. The surrounds no longer sound overbearing, which was my primary concern. The Dolby demo with the bird flying around is much more realistic now. Thanks for the help!


----------



## paulmleblanc

Greetings,

I am looking for some on wall surrounds to go with my 7.1.2 system. I have a pair of Triton 2+ L/R, SuperCenter XXL, SVS SB13 Ultra SW, in ceiling rear surrounds GE HT7000. I don't want to get too crazy on the price so i'd like to keep it under 1000 per speaker.

Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

paulmleblanc said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I am looking for some on wall surrounds to go with my 7.1.2 system. I have a pair of Triton 2+ L/R, SuperCenter XXL, SVS SB13 Ultra SW, in ceiling rear surrounds GE HT7000. I don't want to get too crazy on the price so i'd like to keep it under 1000 per speaker.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated.


That's easy. Go with the GoldenEar SuperSats to timbre match your other GE's. If you want a little more bass response in the surrounds (and lowering your receiver's bass management crossover threshold), go a notch or two bigger than the 3's. Remember, Atmos effects can be full frequency from every speaker.


----------



## paulmleblanc

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's easy. Go with the GoldenEar SuperSats to timbre match your other GE's. If you want a little more bass response in the surrounds (and lowering your receiver's bass management crossover threshold), go a notch or two bigger than the 3's. Remember, Atmos effects can be full frequency from every speaker.


Ok - Good Point.


----------



## paulmleblanc

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's easy. Go with the GoldenEar SuperSats to timbre match your other GE's. If you want a little more bass response in the surrounds (and lowering your receiver's bass management crossover threshold), go a notch or two bigger than the 3's. Remember, Atmos effects can be full frequency from every speaker.


I guess i'm looking for some suggestions/options in the 400-1000$ range / per speaker. SVS, Klipsch have some nice products. What you would you pick in this range?


----------



## Soulburner

I just picked up some Emotiva E2 surrounds since my room is only 17 x 10.5 x 8 and the speakers won't be very far from me. I plan to have them pull surround duty by themselves in bipole mode in a 4.2 setup, a couple of feet back and up. Compromises...


----------



## AC2011

Zoland2020 said:


> Hey guys, I got one question about surround speakers. I'm running a 5.1 setup (after all, my Pioneer VSX-532 is only a basic 5 channel receiver) and had thoughts about getting a pair of bipole speakers for a little more convincing surround sound, I'm somewhat on a budget so can't go for Klipsch nor even Polk speakers at the moment, I was thinking about these Fluance speakers. They very well fit my budget but are they worth the purchase or should I look elsewhere?
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00067OLO...olid=16QUKXYII1QW5&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it



I know I'm late to the party on your question, but I'll throw in my 2 cents. I have actually owned the Fluance surrounds you picture (AVBP, I think?) and I thought they did a good job; I definitely noticed a major difference in my overall soundfield when I added them to my system. When the larger XLBP's came out (which someone else mentioned), I sold these AVBP's and got the bigger ones. I am still running these (been at least 2 years now) and I like them. I know Fluance isn't a "name" brand and some folks here and elsewhere on the internet think they are equal to a "white van" speaker, but if you are on a budget, I think they have a more than respectable performance to price ratio.

For reference, my L/C/R and front height/presence speakers are Boston Acoustics, I run a Yamaha Aventage RX-A3040 and I have multiple Emotiva external amps and 2 15" Power Sound Audio subs - so not exactly a purely "budget" system. My point being that I use these Fluance bi-poles within that system and they work for me - considering the prices for other bipoles from "name" brands, I will probably continue to use them for awhile. My focus now is finding speakers to put on the rear wall for a 9.2.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Navyship

Hello

I’m finishing my Atmos system (4 SVS elevation speakers in the upper right/left corner near the ceiling 9 ft tall, Klipsch RP250 bipolars sides approximately 2 feet from the Atmos speakers). I currently have a set of 8 year old in walls in the rear. Should I replace the rear in walls with a set of bipolars. Will that help, hurt or not make a difference.


----------



## Soulburner

Navyship said:


> Hello
> 
> I’m finishing my Atmos system (4 SVS elevation speakers in the upper right/left corner near the ceiling 9 ft tall, Klipsch RP250 bipolars sides approximately 2 feet from the Atmos speakers). I currently have a set of 8 year old in walls in the rear. Should I replace the rear in walls with a set of bipolars. Will that help, hurt or not make a difference.


I believe Dolby recommends surround backs to be single pole speakers.

They also recommend surrounds be no more than half way up the wall height to provide enough elevation difference between them and the heights. From your seated head height, they should be about a foot up and a foot behind you, depending on room size. Probably 2 feet in a large room.


----------



## pachieh

Probably same question here... But looking at SVS Ultra Surrounds as my rears with Prime Elevations as heights to match my Aerial 6Ts and 7CC. Thoughts?

I know Dolby states monopoles for surrounds, but is it THAT much of a difference that SVS Ultra Surrounds would sound like crap on an ATMOS or DTS:X mixed track?


----------



## Soulburner

pachieh said:


> Probably same question here... But looking at SVS Ultra Surrounds as my rears with Prime Elevations as heights to match my Aerial 6Ts and 7CC. Thoughts?
> 
> I know Dolby states monopoles for surrounds, but is it THAT much of a difference that SVS Ultra Surrounds would sound like crap on an ATMOS or DTS:X mixed track?


Bipoles are fine for small rooms. I just put up Emotiva E2 surrounds and am so far preferring their "inverted bipole" mode, where both tweeters are out of phase with the woofer, but in phase with each other. You need reflective walls to make them work, though, for the same reason that you need a hard, bare ceiling for up-firing atmos modules to work.


----------



## pachieh

Soulburner said:


> Bipoles are fine for small rooms. I just put up Emotiva E2 surrounds and am so far preferring their "inverted bipole" mode, where both tweeters are out of phase with the woofer, but in phase with each other. You need reflective walls to make them work, though, for the same reason that you need a hard, bare ceiling for up-firing atmos modules to work.


My room is probably 20x28x9 (basement) with the listening area 20x18x9. Normal dry wall including the ceiling, but a tile floor.


----------



## RafaelSmith

For a 19x13x8 room where the furthest surrounds mounted on side walls could be from rear wall is about 3ft...(3 ft behind seats) should i be looking at monopoles angled toward seats or bipoles? This is for 5.1.4 setup with 4 ceiling (TF,TR) speakers...8ft celing.

Normal drywall


----------



## ___MIKE___

==


----------



## Dan Hitchman

___MIKE___ said:


> I would like to appeal to the folks here that a damn site more than myself on rear surround speaker options and placement than myself.
> 
> I’m currently in the process of putting together my 5.1.2 system but having real issues deciding on which speakers I use for rear surround.
> 
> Up front I have SVS ultra L/R/C, front highs are SVS prime satellites and sub when it arrives will be a PB13 ultra.
> 
> My room is an open plan living room with kitchen to the left, full width window to the right of my sofa. This is in my apartment in the Philippines.
> 
> Now unfortunately my sofa (10feet wide) has no other option but must remain on the back wall as WAF means the view out of the window remains as full as possible.
> 
> This leads me on to my last issue, rear surrounds. I’ve already decided on either SVS prime satellites mounted on brackets pointing toward MLP or SVS ultra surrounds on the back wall about a foot above head height.
> 
> Which speaker out of the two suggested would be best for the job?
> 
> In which position would you mount them?
> 
> (I have limited options for speaker availability here, there is no SVS prime elevation in the country. The cost difference between the prime satellites and ultra surrounds should not be considered as a factor)
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



I would base placement of the SVS Ultra Surrounds in bipole mode (since you're sitting so close to the surrounds) on your prime seating location on the back wall. If you have access to plastic wire chase covers, I would suggest moving the Front Heights to the Top Middle position for better Atmos effect using ceiling brackets.


----------



## Yurkich

I want to collect home theater, currently I have the fronts monitor audio bronze 6 and the buffer. My room There are a few issues I can't resolve. 
1. Which is better: 

• dibeli/bipole monitor audio bronze fx on the walls ( all manuals dolby does not recommend this type of acoustics) 
• put built-in monopoles in the walls, but the distance from the sofa to the wall is 85 cm (33.4” (2.8 ft)) and I'm afraid I'll hear where the 
sound comes from. 
2. Which is better: 

• Embed 4 Atmos speakers but will get that they are very close to the wall, as the angle to the rear speakers will be only 10* (monitor 
audio has a model cp-ct260 with a boundary compensator, which should compensate for this location, but the sound still will not 
dissipate as it should 
url=https://postimg.cc/K1C7d7Xb]







[/url
• make 2 Atmos speakers at dolby's recommendations
url=https://postimg.cc/ppTDrcRx]







[/url


----------



## Bluebaru

*Height recommendations?*

I'm replacing speakers and will be working my way up to a 7.2.6 system over the course of the next 9 months. When I got my current system the AVR manual recommended placing surround speakers 2-3 ft above ear level, which I did, placing them at 6 ft to the center of the speaker. Do I understand correctly that *now* the recommendation is to place them at ear level? I'm wondering if that is just an Atmos related thing and specifically relating to installations with normal height ceilings?

It has been suggested that the surround speakers should be less than half the height of any down firing Atmos speakers but in my case the Atmos speakers will be mounted 12'-3" above the floor, so anything below 6 ft is good? Or, do You think of it relative to seated ear level? My seated ear level is 3'-3" so, with a 9' difference anything less than 7'-9" for the surrounds should work? I really don't think 7''9" would work or that I'd even try that but just wondering. I'd really like to keep the surrounds at my current height, at least in the rear, but with some effort I can get the centers of all of them down to 54 to 56 inches. Does any one see a performance issue with any of this? The idea, I think, used to be that with the surrounds mounted above ear level, that anyone else's head wouldn't block your straight line of hearing.

While I'm on the subject, are bi-pole's specifically not recommended, as surrounds, in an Atmos installation? I just ordered some Emotiva, Airmotiv, E2's for use as my surrounds. My thinking was that with the woofer pointing straight out and the tweeters, on the other two sides aiming just 30* off to the left and right that they may act mostly like a mono-pole as long as every thing is kept in phase. All my surrounds will be apx 9 ft from the MLP. I will be playing with the phase however, which should be interesting, with either of the two tweeters being able to be in or out of phase with the woofer or each other!


----------



## Soulburner

That was my understanding as well. According to my reading, in an Atmos system, surrounds can be still be a little up and back relative to the listener in a small room (you want to avoid having a speaker in your ear), but should be no more than halfway up the wall. Bipoles are okay, for the same reason.


----------



## phanttom

Soulburner said:


> That was my understanding as well. According to my reading, in an Atmos system, surrounds can be still be a little up and back relative to the listener in a small room (you want to avoid having a speaker in your ear), but should be no more than halfway up the wall. Bipoles are okay, for the same reason.


So for my plan, I went into an A/V store where I live. I too need help on surround choices. Been referred to Monitor Audio Bronze FX. 


Existing Equipment:
- TV, 55" 4K: Samsung UN55KU7000F (For the time being)
- Receiver: Yamaha RX-V581
- Current Sub: Sony SA-WMSP87
- Blu-Ray: Samsung	BD-J6300 (for the time being)
- Front Speakers: Pioneer SP-FS52


Proposed New Equipment:
- New 75” QLED TV, specs to be confirmed
- New 4k Blu-Ray, specs to be confirmed
- New Subwoofer: SVS PB-1000 (1 for now, will get a second one to replace the Sony sub in the future)
- Atmos in ceiling Speakers: Monitor Audio C165 ceiling speakers
- Centre Channel Speaker: Philharmonic Audio MTM center channel
- Rear surround: Monitor Audio Bronze FX


QUESTIONS:
1) With our raised area at the back for the power recliners, thoughts on the MA Bronze FX? 



Thank you!


----------



## RafaelSmith

This weekend, I should finish building my riser for my 2nd row of seating.


WIth that...I need to make a final decision on what to do about my surround speakers for my 5.1.4 setup.


The second row seating will end up about 6inchs from back wall (enough to be able to recline)....then main row will be forward of that....about 8 1/2 feet from back wall.



So...I think I have two options....


1) Good pair of bookshelves mounted on the side walls next to the rear row but tilted/angled toward the main row. 



2) Good pair of bi-poles mounted on side walls mid way between first and second row.


While I am not concerned so much with optimal sound for the 2nd row...I do not want to overwhelm those sitting in second row with sound from the surrounds. 



Room is about 12 1/2ft wide.


Also, the ceiling speakers are already installed....not ideal but pretty close to centered on a 10x10 box around MLP. (center of first row).


Appreciate recommendations?


Thanks


----------



## rboster

I've decided to try a speaker tweak for my set up. Currently, I have Tannoy DC 12i's for my LCR. I'm using Tannoy AMS 8DC for the sides and rears. My in-ceiling speakers are Tannoy 603 DC speakers two pair in Front and Middle designation. I have two rows of seats with the back row about 3.5 feet from the rear wall.

I rear speakers are up slightly from ear level and tilted slightly towards the listner. I've never been really happy with the rear soundstage. I've fallen into the thinking of mono speakers only....but recently a pair of Tannoy EFX-1 rear channel di/bi-pole speakers became available. My thought is to use the Tannoy bi-pole for rear placement in my atmos set up. Why? The distance between the rear seats and the MLP (3.5 ft). I'm hoping to use the bi-pole design to create a more immersive soundstage. I know I'll maybe giving up rear localized placement of sound effects (as Atmos intended), but trying to straddle a middle ground. 

https://www.manualslib.com/manual/772350/Tannoy-Efx-1.html

My question would be placement of the speakers? Where to best locate them relative to the rear seats...above ear level? How high above. Off to the sides of the listening position (on the rear wall)? Any suggestions would be appreciated. I will use some stacked boxes to move the speakers around behind the MLP, while I test out what works best. And, I may decide not to keep them if they don't work out as intended etc.

I should also add I am using an NAD receiver with Dirac 2 calibration. 


Thanks for any help

Ron


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rboster said:


> I've decided to try a speaker tweak for my set up. Currently, I have Tannoy DC 12i's for my LCR. I'm using Tannoy AMS 8DC for the sides and rears. My in-ceiling speakers are Tannoy 603 DC speakers two pair in Front and Middle designation. I have two rows of seats with the back row about 3.5 feet from the rear wall.
> 
> I rear speakers are up slightly from ear level and tilted slightly towards the listner. I've never been really happy with the rear soundstage. I've fallen into the thinking of mono speakers only....but recently a pair of Tannoy EFX-1 rear channel di/bi-pole speakers became available. My thought is to use the Tannoy bi-pole for rear placement in my atmos set up. Why? The distance between the rear seats and the MLP (3.5 ft). I'm hoping to use the bi-pole design to create a more immersive soundstage. I know I'll maybe giving up rear localized placement of sound effects (as Atmos intended), but trying to straddle a middle ground.
> 
> https://www.manualslib.com/manual/772350/Tannoy-Efx-1.html
> 
> My question would be placement of the speakers? Where to best locate them relative to the rear seats...above ear level? How high above. Off to the sides of the listening position (on the rear wall)? Any suggestions would be appreciated. I will use some stacked boxes to move the speakers around behind the MLP, while I test out what works best. And, I may decide not to keep them if they don't work out as intended etc.
> 
> I should also add I am using an NAD receiver with Dirac 2 calibration.
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help
> 
> Ron



Part of your decision hinges around where you consider the PRIME seats to be. As in any commercial dubbing stage, there are still only a very few seats that are considered prime locations for hearing a movie... in the whole auditorium. The rest of the seats are compromises. 



Do you find the surround engagement to be lacking in the front row, if that is where you normally watch movies? 



Depending on the distances from the side walls and the rear walls, sometimes the suggestion was bipoles for the sides between the two rows and direct radiators for the backs to cover two rows with a "spray" of sound if only using two bipolars. If you have enough of a gap between rows and want equal coverage, the next best thing would be two pairs of side surrounds (one for each row like in a commercial theater). You would have to split the signal and add a separate DSP unit for calibrating delays and what not for each pair of speakers... or you would individually address them if you had something like a Trinnov or Emotiva RMC-1 (on the lower end) processor that can handle more Atmos speaker "channels." 



Going back to bipoles or direct radiating monopoles for surrounds, it still comes down to distances from the seating to the speaker. 3 feet and under distance and bipoles would be recommended to stave off hot spotting. If your back row is considered overflow seating and your prime seats are in the front and you get good surround coverage there, then bipoles aren't worth it... _unless_ you sit very close to the side walls in a narrow room, where bipoles on the sides and direct radiators in the rear would be the better choice.


----------



## rboster

Dan Hitchman said:


> Part of your decision hinges around where you consider the PRIME seats to be. As in any commercial dubbing stage, there are still only a very few seats that are considered prime locations for hearing a movie... in the whole auditorium. The rest of the seats are are compromises.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you find the surround engagement to be lacking in the front row, if that is where you normally watch movies?
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on the distances from the side walls and the rear walls, sometimes the suggestion was bipoles for the sides between the two rows and direct radiators for the backs to cover two rows with a "spray" of sound if only using two bipolars. If you have enough of a gap between rows and want equal coverage, the next best thing would be two pairs of side surrounds (one for each row like in a commercial theater). You would have to split the signal and add a separate DSP unit for calibrating delays and what not for each pair of speakers... or you would individually address them if you had something like a Trinnov or Emotiva RMC-1 (on the lower end) processor that can handle more Atmos speaker "channels."
> 
> 
> 
> Going back to bipoles or direct radiating monopoles for surrounds, it still comes down to distances from the seating to the speaker. 3 feet and under distance and bipoles would be recommended to stave off hot spotting. If your back row is considered overflow seating and your prime seats are in the front and you get good surround coverage there, then bipoles aren't worth it... _unless_ you sit very close to the side walls in a narrow room, where bipoles on the sides and direct radiators in the rear would be the better choice.


Thanks Dan for your response. 

As far as front row, I really don't consider the sound in that row, since normally guests like to sit in the front row with the reclining theater seats. The rear row (couch) has the transducers under it and where I specify the MLP for calibration etc. 

MLP location: Is back row center.....as stated the unfortunately puts listening zone about 3.5 feet from rear wall/speakers. 

Sounds like I maybe on the right path relative to your descriptions. I may for grins try the bi-poles on the sides as well...just to hear the difference. 

Thanks again for taking the time to provide a detailed response.

Ron


----------



## Erod

Dan Hitchman said:


> Going back to bipoles or direct radiating monopoles for surrounds, it still comes down to distances from the seating to the speaker. 3 feet and under distance and bipoles would be recommended to stave off hot spotting. If your back row is considered overflow seating and your prime seats are in the front and you get good surround coverage there, then bipoles aren't worth it... _unless_ you sit very close to the side walls in a narrow room, where bipoles on the sides and direct radiators in the rear would be the better choice.


I've experimented with this a lot the past several months. My 7.2.4 dedicated room, by definition, is a "large" room primarily because the cubic feet resulting from high ceilings. However, the floor dimension are 15' wide by 22' long, two rows of seating. 

I've come to the conclusion that bipoles on the side surrounds are the best decision for virtually all theater rooms in an Atmos setup. They still tend to be the most "localized" of all speakers, especially for movie effects, and that broadening the sound a bit with bipoles helps to diffuse the sound nicely. Otherwise, they become a too present in the room compared to the other channels.

Additionally, I find Atmos to be overrated when it comes to the idea of "object placed" sound. Yes, it's immersive in terms of enveloping you in a sound field, and that's nice. But it doesn't triangulate sound in the room to specific locations as it's somewhat advertised. Maybe one day, but not now.

Monopoles definitely for the backs because they don't get as much action as stand-alone channels. Mostly they just support other channels or handle panning sound. 

I still quibble over whether to turn up the high channels. I go back and forth on that.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Erod said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going back to bipoles or direct radiating monopoles for surrounds, it still comes down to distances from the seating to the speaker. 3 feet and under distance and bipoles would be recommended to stave off hot spotting. If your back row is considered overflow seating and your prime seats are in the front and you get good surround coverage there, then bipoles aren't worth it... _unless_ you sit very close to the side walls in a narrow room, where bipoles on the sides and direct radiators in the rear would be the better choice.
> 
> 
> 
> I've experimented with this a lot the past several months. My 7.2.4 dedicated room, by definition, is a "large" room primarily because the cubic feet resulting from high ceilings. However, the floor dimension are 15' wide by 22' long, two rows of seating.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that bipoles on the side surrounds are the best decision for virtually all theater rooms in an Atmos setup. They still tend to be the most "localized" of all speakers, especially for movie effects, and that broadening the sound a bit with bipoles helps to diffuse the sound nicely. Otherwise, they become a too present in the room compared to the other channels.
> 
> Additionally, I find Atmos to be overrated when it comes to the idea of "object placed" sound. Yes, it's immersive in terms of enveloping you in a sound field, and that's nice. But it doesn't triangulate sound in the room to specific locations as it's somewhat advertised. Maybe one day, but not now.
> 
> Monopoles definitely for the backs because they don't get as much action as stand-alone channels. Mostly they just support other channels or handle panning sound.
> 
> I still quibble over whether to turn up the high channels. I go back and forth on that.
Click to expand...

Object behaviour is very much movie dependent and on Disney UHD titles, especially, there are no 3D objects included - just a channel-based print-out of the Atmos mixing session. 

Given that I've heard a number of high speaker count Atmos consumer demos of tracks containing real object content, I will say that you must utilize greater than 7.1.4 with speaker arrays to really hear the benefits of Atmos 3D positioning. 

Often times, the greatest use of objects is in the lower speaker layer and not overhead. You don't realize it with a 7.1.4 layout. You need at least Front Wides and one or two extra side surround locations.

Of course, the price of admission is steep.


----------



## mtbdudex

I’ve has Paradigm ADP-390’s for my side and rear surrounds since 2008, now I’m 7.2.6 / 9.2.4 active and still using them.

Here’s the rears as I lowered them for the rear heights, before their final install 









Now I’m building HTM-6’s actually for my family room usage, but I’m going to try them in my basement HT as temp surrounds. Curious how the waveguide will sound vs current speakers 



















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## phaelon56

Hello to all. Not new to the forum but inactive for years, and mostly lurked prior to that. About 10 to 12 ten years ago I put together, from used and new demo equipment, the audio components for a home theater surround system, but life got in the way and it was never installed. Since then, I got married, relocated, and as of July my wife and I have a new (to us) house. She has given me clearance to remodel our poorly done upstairs "bonus room" into a home theater and media room. I will add a closet on the wall where the laundry closet currently sits, and change the high vaulted ceiling to one that is flat, then angles down on both sides, and ends in in a 5 foot tall knee wall on one side, and a 7 foot tall closet wall on the other. The angle portion of the ceiling will be short on the closet side - about 1 foot, but longer on the opposite side - about 4 feet. I will end up with a room that is 17 or 18 feet wide and 20 feet long, with the flat ceiling area being 9 feet in height and about 10 feet x 20 feet in size.

My current speakers are NHT ST-4 towers with passive side firing "subs" (actually 8" woofers,) an NHT center channel, NHT dipole side surrounds, and two NHT Super Zero Xu for the rear center. I have an Outlaw 7125 (125 wpc across 7 channels) and two NHT mono sub amps with the NHT active crossover for the "subs." 

I plan to listen to some 5.1 encoded music as well as movies. Should I keep the dipole surrounds? Some say they aren't a good idea with Atmos but are they still the best thing for 5.1 encoded source material? And can an Atmos processor be set up to automatically route to the side surrounds and rear center but then only to the rear surrounds and Atmos ceiling speakers for Atmos material? Or do I need to add side surrounds that are fully or partially directional in nature (e.g. bipole) to fully support Atmos?

Will a modestly priced AVR be adequate for use as a 5.1 / 7.1 / 9.1 / Atmos processor, and to provide a few extra channels of amplification for new/additional surround speakers? I currently have a Denon AVR that supports up to 9.1, and had planned to use that as a processor, but it doesn't support Atmos. It's probably worth no more than $25 or $35 due to its age, and it's brand new but I will just take th ehit on that. Was looking at a Yamaha that's around $600. If I power the LCR, dipole side surrounds, and two rear center speakers that is 7 channels of amplification required. Could I adequately power 4 in-ceiling Atmos speakers adequately with the Yamaha AVR ( it is often described as 630W but the model number appears to be RXV-685.)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

phaelon56 said:


> Hello to all. Not new to the forum but inactive for years, and mostly lurked prior to that. About 10 to 12 ten years ago I put together, from used and new demo equipment, the audio components for a home theater surround system, but life got in the way and it was never installed. Since then, I got married, relocated, and as of July my wife and I have a new (to us) house. She has given me clearance to remodel our poorly done upstairs "bonus room" into a home theater and media room. I will add a closet on the wall where the laundry closet currently sits, and change the high vaulted ceiling to one that is flat, then angles down on both sides, and ends in in a 5 foot tall knee wall on one side, and a 7 foot tall closet wall on the other. The angle portion of the ceiling will be short on the closet side - about 1 foot, but longer on the opposite side - about 4 feet. I will end up with a room that is 17 or 18 feet wide and 20 feet long, with the flat ceiling area being 9 feet in height and about 10 feet x 20 feet in size.
> 
> My current speakers are NHT ST-4 towers with passive side firing "subs" (actually 8" woofers,) an NHT center channel, NHT dipole side surrounds, and two NHT Super Zero Xu for the rear center. I have an Outlaw 7125 (125 wpc across 7 channels) and two NHT mono sub amps with the NHT active crossover for the "subs."
> 
> I plan to listen to some 5.1 encoded music as well as movies. Should I keep the dipole surrounds? Some say they aren't a good idea with Atmos but are they still the best thing for 5.1 encoded source material? And can an Atmos processor be set up to automatically route to the side surrounds and rear center but then only to the rear surrounds and Atmos ceiling speakers for Atmos material? Or do I need to add side surrounds that are fully or partially directional in nature (e.g. bipole) to fully support Atmos?
> 
> Will a modestly priced AVR be adequate for use as a 5.1 / 7.1 / 9.1 / Atmos processor, and to provide a few extra channels of amplification for new/additional surround speakers? I currently have a Denon AVR that supports up to 9.1, and had planned to use that as a processor, but it doesn't support Atmos. It's probably worth no more than $25 or $35 due to its age, and it's brand new but I will just take th ehit on that. Was looking at a Yamaha that's around $600. If I power the LCR, dipole side surrounds, and two rear center speakers that is 7 channels of amplification required. Could I adequately power 4 in-ceiling Atmos speakers adequately with the Yamaha AVR ( it is often described as 630W but the model number appears to be RXV-685.)


It sounds like you need a receiver with 7.1.4 capabilities as well as one with a full array of RCA pre-amp outs in order to use your Outlaw amp for the 7 base level speakers. 

I would stay away from Yamaha in this instance as there is an impedance problem with their pre-amp outputs that can make level matching a chore with outboard amplifiers. 

I would look at a new Marantz receiver like the 6013. Contact AV Science and chat with JD. Say you're a forum member. 

As for the side surrounds, you need to use either bipole or monopole speakers. Dipoles are absolutely not recommended for Atmos as 3D audio (and multi-channel music) works with more directional audio cues. Dipole speakers smear the sound field and were only necessary in the old Prologic matrix surround days due to limited mono sound output along the side walls. 

The choice of monopoles or bipoles depends on the distance from the main or "prime" listening position and the side walls. If you're mainly sitting 3 to 4 feet or closer to the side walls, then bipoles will help with hot spotting. Otherwise, matching monopoles are usually best. 

Given the age of your speakers, I would consider slowly replacing them with new speakers and then end up having timbre matched and more capable units for the more thunderous Atmos tracks that show up like Blade Runner 2049. 

If you need more help with proper speaker placement for Atmos, head over to the Dolby Atmos for the Home thread.


----------



## phaelon56

Dan Hitchman said:


> It sounds like you need a receiver with 7.1.4 capabilities as well as one with a full array of RCA pre-amp outs in order to use your Outlaw amp for the 7 base level speakers.
> 
> I would stay away from Yamaha in this instance as there is an impedance problem with their pre-amp outputs that can make level matching a chore with outboard amplifiers.
> 
> I would look at a new Marantz receiver like the 6013. Contact AV Science and chat with JD. Say you're a forum member.
> 
> As for the side surrounds, you need to use either bipole or monopole speakers. Dipoles are absolutely not recommended for Atmos as 3D audio (and multi-channel music) works with more directional audio cues. Dipole speakers smear the sound field and were only necessary in the old Prologic matrix surround days due to limited mono sound output along the side walls.
> 
> The choice of monopoles or bipoles depends on the distance from the main or "prime" listening position and the side walls. If you're mainly sitting 3 to 4 feet or closer to the side walls, then bipoles will help with hot spotting. Otherwise, matching monopoles are usually best.
> 
> Given the age of your speakers, I would consider slowly replacing them with new speakers and then end up having timbre matched and more capable units for the more thunderous Atmos tracks that show up like Blade Runner 2049.
> 
> If you need more help with proper speaker placement for Atmos, head over to the Dolby Atmos for the Home thread.


Thanks for your input. I will plan on putting the dipoles up for sale. If the foam surrounds are okay on the other NHT speakers (might not even be foam - I need to check,) then I'm disinclined to shift to a different brand. At present everything is already timbre matched. Also - It will mostly just be me watertight movies or listening to music. My wife rarely watches movies, I will watch perhaps two per week (at most) and we don't need thunderous volume. We spent some serious $$ on a kitchen remodel immediately after moving into the house, and I'm trying to do this project as economically as possible. I would just get a processor but those all seem to be $1,000+. I wil contact JD - thanks fore the referral! Oh - by the way - I will be at least 6 feet from either side wall - as will anyone sitting next to me.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

phaelon56 said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you need a receiver with 7.1.4 capabilities as well as one with a full array of RCA pre-amp outs in order to use your Outlaw amp for the 7 base level speakers.
> 
> I would stay away from Yamaha in this instance as there is an impedance problem with their pre-amp outputs that can make level matching a chore with outboard amplifiers.
> 
> I would look at a new Marantz receiver like the 6013. Contact AV Science and chat with JD. Say you're a forum member.
> 
> As for the side surrounds, you need to use either bipole or monopole speakers. Dipoles are absolutely not recommended for Atmos as 3D audio (and multi-channel music) works with more directional audio cues. Dipole speakers smear the sound field and were only necessary in the old Prologic matrix surround days due to limited mono sound output along the side walls.
> 
> The choice of monopoles or bipoles depends on the distance from the main or "prime" listening position and the side walls. If you're mainly sitting 3 to 4 feet or closer to the side walls, then bipoles will help with hot spotting. Otherwise, matching monopoles are usually best.
> 
> Given the age of your speakers, I would consider slowly replacing them with new speakers and then end up having timbre matched and more capable units for the more thunderous Atmos tracks that show up like Blade Runner 2049.
> 
> If you need more help with proper speaker placement for Atmos, head over to the Dolby Atmos for the Home thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your input. I will plan on putting the dipoles up for sale. If the foam surrounds are okay on the other NHT speakers (might not even be foam - I need to check,) then I'm disinclined to shift to a different brand. At present everything is already timbre matched. Also - It will mostly just be me watertight movies or listening to music. My wife rarely watches movies, I will watch perhaps two per week (at most) and we don't need thunderous volume. We spent some serious $$ on a kitchen remodel immediately after moving into the house, and I'm trying to do this project as economically as possible. I would just get a processor but those all seem to be $1,000+. I wil contact JD - thanks fore the referral! Oh - by the way - I will be at least 6 feet from either side wall - as will anyone sitting next to me.
Click to expand...

Monopoles for sure, then.

I would invest in a receiver with pre-amp outs (or pre-amp) that allows you to grow. 7.1.4 is the minimum for effective and more noticeable 3D sound, and yes they are north of $1,000 normally, though AV Science is pretty competitive. Better to bite the bullet and buy something good.

If your speakers have foam surrounds then that is a great excuse to look into new models and add a bit at a time. There are many economical speakers to choose from now, especially with ID companies in the picture.


----------



## phaelon56

Dan Hitchman said:


> Monopoles for sure, then.
> 
> I would invest in a receiver with pre-amp outs (or pre-amp) that allows you to grow. 7.1.4 is the minimum for effective and more noticeable 3D sound, and yes they are north of $1,000 normally, though AV Science is pretty competitive. Better to bite the bullet and buy something good.
> 
> If your speakers have foam surrounds then that is a great excuse to look into new models and add a bit at a time. There are many economical speakers to choose from now, especially with ID companies in the picture.


As I look at this more and more... I think it makes sense to just sell the Outlaw 7125 amplifier (it should still bring a fair price on the used market.) If I go north a bit on the AVR - maybe $1200 to $1500 - perhaps I can get one with preamp ins and outs. I stil wlant to drive the 8" side firing woofers with the dedicated monoblock sub amps. I'm thinking I don't need to use LFE out because I have the active crossover, plus they are nto true subs. Instead, I will be bi-amping the L/R speakers (good for music.) I can sell the HDP-1 NHT surround speakers (someone will want them if the price is right,) then get some used Super Zero speakers for the sides. NHT makes in-ceiling speakers but they're pricey relative to my budget. I have been given to understand that timbre matching is not really crucial for the in-ceiling Atmos speakers.

Here is the thing I have yet to gain an understanding of (despite extensive reading) - if my source is just 5.1 or 7.1 not Atmos - do the Atmos speakers get no signal until or unless the processor detects Atmos encoding?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

phaelon56 said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monopoles for sure, then.
> 
> I would invest in a receiver with pre-amp outs (or pre-amp) that allows you to grow. 7.1.4 is the minimum for effective and more noticeable 3D sound, and yes they are north of $1,000 normally, though AV Science is pretty competitive. Better to bite the bullet and buy something good.
> 
> If your speakers have foam surrounds then that is a great excuse to look into new models and add a bit at a time. There are many economical speakers to choose from now, especially with ID companies in the picture.
> 
> 
> 
> As I look at this more and more... I think it makes sense to just sell the Outlaw 7125 amplifier (it should still bring a fair price on the used market.) If I go north a bit on the AVR - maybe $1200 to $1500 - perhaps I can get one with preamp ins and outs. I still want to drive the 8" side firing woofers with the dedicated monoblock sub amps. I'm thinking I don't need to use LFE out because I have the active crossover, plus they are not true subs. Instead, I will be bi-amping the L/R speakers (good for music.) I can sell the HDP-1 NHT surround speakers (someone will want them if the price is right,) then get some used Super Zero speakers for the sides. NHT makes in-ceiling speakers but they're pricey relative to my budget. I have been given to understand that timbre matching is not really crucial for the in-ceiling Atmos speakers.
> 
> Here is the thing I have yet to gain an understanding of (despite extensive reading) - if my source is just 5.1 or 7.1 not Atmos - do the Atmos speakers get no signal until or unless the processor detects Atmos encoding?
Click to expand...

If you have stereo, 5.1, or 7.1 source material, you can use either Dolby Surround or DTS Neural: X upmixers to steer and spread the sound to all the speakers in the room using their matrix logic algorithms. They actually do a pretty decent job of extracting sounds and placing them around and above you when not playing true, discrete immersive Dolby Atmos or DTS: X tracks.

I do recommend picking up a UHD Blu-ray player with Dolby Vision support as that will allow you to play all the disc based immersive titles available. Some studios now only place their immersive mixes on UHD discs (like Fox and Disney, and often randomly from the other studios). If you haven't picked up a 4k display yet, you can still play 4k discs downgraded to 1080p.

Bi-amping/bi-wiring speakers is not as popular anymore as the tested benefits are small to nill as compared to the added expense and hassle. I would skip that.

Many of these mid tier receivers will need an outboard stereo amp to power one pair of overheads. The higher tier models now tend to have 11 digital amps built-in. 

No receiver has as robust an amp section as good external power amps, however.

Take a look at RSL speakers and their angled in-ceiling C34E model as those have been given the thumbs-up for modestly priced Atmos overheads.


----------



## rboster

rboster said:


> I've decided to try a speaker tweak for my set up. Currently, I have Tannoy DC 12i's for my LCR. I'm using Tannoy AMS 8DC for the sides and rears. My in-ceiling speakers are Tannoy 603 DC speakers two pair in Front and Middle designation. I have two rows of seats with the back row about 3.5 feet from the rear wall.
> 
> I rear speakers are up slightly from ear level and tilted slightly towards the listner. I've never been really happy with the rear soundstage. I've fallen into the thinking of mono speakers only....but recently a pair of Tannoy EFX-1 rear channel di/bi-pole speakers became available. My thought is to use the Tannoy bi-pole for rear placement in my atmos set up. Why? The distance between the rear seats and the MLP (3.5 ft). I'm hoping to use the bi-pole design to create a more immersive soundstage. I know I'll maybe giving up rear localized placement of sound effects (as Atmos intended), but trying to straddle a middle ground.
> 
> https://www.manualslib.com/manual/772350/Tannoy-Efx-1.html
> 
> My question would be placement of the speakers? Where to best locate them relative to the rear seats...above ear level? How high above. Off to the sides of the listening position (on the rear wall)? Any suggestions would be appreciated. I will use some stacked boxes to move the speakers around behind the MLP, while I test out what works best. And, I may decide not to keep them if they don't work out as intended etc.
> 
> I should also add I am using an NAD receiver with Dirac 2 calibration.
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help
> 
> Ron




I mounted the Tannoy's last night just slightly outside of the listening position on each side of the couch, about 2/3 up from the floor. I got what I had hoped, which was a fuller rear sound-stage from the bi-poles. I tried a couple of localized rear sound effects (Fury Road opening and Dark Knight swat team below the street attack by the joker) and was pleased with the localized effects performance. 

Since the first row (of two) sits within 3 ft of the side surrounds, I'm considering another pair of Tannoy EFX-1 bi-pole speakers for the sides.


----------



## dekert

*surround speakers*

Hello, has anyone heard of Golden Ear Triton one. I am using them in my 7.2.1 system, you get 2 subs 1600 watts built into your mains. No need for separate subs if space is a consideration.


----------



## funky22

Hello

I am about to buy the Mission Lx-2 + and the Mission Lx-C, but I have no space to place surrond bookself speakers.

Now i can buy second hands (good condition) Mission M7DS bipoles set, would the fit nicely with the Mission Lx series?

Greetings


----------



## Mickey Mouse

Electric_Haggis said:


> I've used many different types of speakers as surrounds. But until recently, I always thought that regular front-firing speakers were better for the surrounds, as they were a closer match to the fronts.
> 
> Damn... was I wrong!
> 
> After trying out a few types of dipoles and bipoles, I wonder why everyone doesn't have dipoles in their system. I'm also amazed that more hi-fi shops don't sell or push them... or even KNOW about them, as is all too often the case here in Australia !


I know, pretty old post...

i have started with "pseudo surround" at home as soon as the first VHS movies with ProLogic became available. The first time with a simple single speaker connected to the both "hot" (red) speaker pins of the stereo amp, until I bought a Sony TA-E1000ESD AV 5.1 Surround Pre.
For that one I used DIY "all around beaming" surround speakers. That was a special construction with a 2" dome on the top.

at the beginning of the new century a Yamaha AX1 moved in and the speaker layout grow to 6.1.2 (5.1 + rear center + 2 front high). The "all arounds" became the front high which where perfect for the reproduction of the Yamaha DSP programs with just two height speakers in the front and all the rest standard front firing.
the source wasn't VHS tape anymore but DVDs with DD or dts sound with separated 5.1 channels.

but I played a lot and searched for the most suitable speakers for the various placements, especially when the system grew up to 7.2.4 with the Yamaha Z11 in 2008 (long before Dolby announced Atmos for the HT).

I bought 2 pairs of these T+A surround speakers which are switchable between:
- direct
- dipol
- bipol

I'll try to make it short:
if you have a "normal" home theatre with enough space for the speakers (distance to the audience) on one hand but not more than one row of seats ("limited" listening area) there is no way around standard front firing speakers for ALL purposes/positions!

I really tried everything and anything else than a proper positioned direct firing speaker makes the precision and localization of effects worse!
there are cases when this "worse" is wanted. If the speakers are too near to (parts of) the audience a "fuzzy sound" may be more "pleasant".
but in general the direct firing speakers deliver the best result by far!

that can be expanded to height speakers as well. I tried all the different speakers as heights and the farer away they are from "direct dispersion" the worse it sounds.
maybe some people like this fuzzy sound at first. The sound seems to come from everywhere but that's not what you want! If the plane comes from behind to the front you want one precise "sound spot" moving through your cinema and not a cloud which fills the whole room and doesn't really move but just gets louder and quieter again.


----------



## jdlynch

rboster said:


> I mounted the Tannoy's last night just slightly outside of the listening position on each side of the couch, about 2/3 up from the floor. I got what I had hoped, which was a fuller rear sound-stage from the bi-poles. I tried a couple of localized rear sound effects (Fury Road opening and Dark Knight swat team below the street attack by the joker) and was pleased with the localized effects performance.
> 
> Since the first row (of two) sits within 3 ft of the side surrounds, I'm considering another pair of Tannoy EFX-1 bi-pole speakers for the sides.


If you do find another set of bipoles to use for side surrounds, please respond back with your observations. I'm thinking of switching out my monopole sides for a set of bipoles but have reservations. I don't really enjoy the buy, try, and resell cycle.


----------



## rboster

jdlynch said:


> If you do find another set of bipoles to use for side surrounds, please respond back with your observations. I'm thinking of switching out my monopole sides for a set of bipoles but have reservations. I don't really enjoy the buy, try, and resell cycle.


Though my experience may not translate to your set up or room dynamics, the move from monopole speakers to bi-pole speakers for the side surrounds are a positive. Though localization "may" take a hit, from either the first row or second the more diffused sound is a big plus. I'm finding the LCR blending better with the side surrounds creating a larger sound bubble. I primarily sit in the second row, so I still feel the sounds to the right or left of me are directional/localized coming from the bi-pole (matching the screen action). 

We are planning on moving and I expect to sell the house (with the home theater intact), so I may switch back to the monopoles, taking the bi/di-poles with me.


----------



## jdlynch

rboster said:


> Though my experience may not translate to your set up or room dynamics, the move from monopole speakers to bi-pole speakers for the side surrounds are a positive. Though localization "may" take a hit, from either the first row or second the more diffused sound is a big plus. I'm finding the LCR blending better with the side surrounds creating a larger sound bubble. I primarily sit in the second row, so I still feel the sounds to the right or left of me are directional/localized coming from the bi-pole (matching the screen action).
> 
> We are planning on moving and I expect to sell the house (with the home theater intact), so I may switch back to the monopoles, taking the bi/di-poles with me.


Ron, thank you. That's a pretty strong endorsement for the bipoles!


----------



## mtbdudex

mtbdudex said:


> I’ve has Paradigm ADP-390’s for my side and rear surrounds since 2008, now I’m 7.2.6 / 9.2.4 active and still using them.
> 
> Here’s the rears as I lowered them for the rear heights, before their final install
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I’m building HTM-6’s actually for my family room usage, but I’m going to try them in my basement HT as temp surrounds. Curious how the waveguide will sound vs current speakers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Well I ended up building 2 pair of HTM-8’s









Actually held a gtg at my home this past weekend 








 https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155...gtg-f8-mtm-f8-tm-htm-8-htm-6-893-s-other.html

I’ve installed one pair of HTM-8’s at the side surrounds...

























Discussion here is rear and back surrounds... 
As noted I was using paradigm ADP-390’s, their adaptive dipoles, has front facing woofer besides the side firing tweeter/miss.
As you can see on the sides I went monopole HTM-8’s. Aimed at 1st row mlp, however the rear surrounds... are closer to 2nd row than ideal and I’m re-thinking to now keep the ADP-390’s there. Thoughts?
Excuse the wires it’s a work in progress then they will be inwalls.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KatanPatel

KEF, great mids


----------



## Correct

Klipsch RP-502S
There is a wall behind the sofa. At what height is it best to hang?
Everything is complicated by the fact that the rear wall on the left and on the right has "corner" restrictions.
on the left is a cabinet 34 cm deep and 197 cm high, on the right is a corner wall 64 cm with a continuation to the window, that is, I can’t hang up close - the sound will be reflected
i.e. a minimum of 35-40 cm should be retreated.

Viewing / Listening Distance 2.7 m
Yes, I understand that everything is individual and depends on the room.

Front - Klipsch RP-280F
Center - Klipsch RP-440C


p.s. I assume that I need to put it on the cabinet, and the second in level with her


----------



## teetertotter

My 2 side surrounds are Polk S10 for the small room. They hang from the basement ceiling, a little behind my ears[not directly at my brain], angled down towards my ears, w the tweeters 22" above my ears. 

My 5.1 surround system is auto calibrated via AVR. It took some experimentation for best location for both surrounds. I found mounting them a bit behind my ears, was best for me, in my mounting. 14ga, 2 conductor speaker wire is strung above the basement drop ceiling and down to the speakers, attached by decorative chain link. The surround speaker chain links are attached from the 2 X 10 floor joist.

Room size is 8 X 10 w 55" screen with listening area 7 feet from 4K screen. Front L/R speaker tweeters are at ear level, angled towards listening seating, with center speaker just above ear level, angled down towards seating.


----------



## MCF34

Looking for some basic surround speakers. I Think direct firing would be best for my needs. I have a Pioneer Elite receiving, a Klipsch RC-25 and two RB-25's for left and right channels. THe room is a large bedroom. The center will be about 10' in front of me and the left and right channels will be about 11' apart and approximately 11' from the main seating position. I am looking for two 'smaller' (the Klipsch 25's are already pretty big for the room) surround speakers for a 5.1 set up (may go 7.1 in the future). I can stand mount the surround speakers or if possible, I could mount them to the wall behind the seating area (about 2' from seating area to back wall) and to the left and right of seating area (in line with the front left and right channels). Any suggestions for direct firing and 'articulating' wall mounts for the surrounds that would allow me to angle them in towards seating position? Thanks!!


----------



## Richard in SF

I've read through a good percentage of the 36 pages, and I think I have a unique situation. I have a new Marantz SR 5013 winging its way, (slowly), to me. I have, and want to continue using one Rear Surround. It is a Cambridge S305, and can be either Bipole or Dipole, but there is just one pair of wires that will go to the receiver. I'm wondering about doubling the + & - wires and inserting them in both the L & R rear surround channels, or if merely inserting in either L or R might work and the rcvr. will figure it out. Incidentally, does anyone know if the L & R rear channels are truly discrite?
Thanx,
Richard


----------



## Richard in SF

PS

Is this a brain wave, or is it a cesspool? Set the switch to Bipole, and then wire the + to one rear, and the - to the other?


----------



## exm

Richard in SF said:


> I've read through a good percentage of the 36 pages, and I think I have a unique situation. I have a new Marantz SR 5013 winging its way, (slowly), to me. I have, and want to continue using one Rear Surround. It is a Cambridge S305, and can be either Bipole or Dipole, but there is just one pair of wires that will go to the receiver. I'm wondering about doubling the + & - wires and inserting them in both the L & R rear surround channels, or if merely inserting in either L or R might work and the rcvr. will figure it out. Incidentally, does anyone know if the L & R rear channels are truly discrite?
> Thanx,
> Richard



I think you'll have to connect it 'normally' using one speaker cable for either Rear Left or Rear Right. Both channels are discrete. You can't add a second one?


----------



## Richard in SF

Thank you, exm; I appreciate your opinion, but due to WAF, (and mine), we don't want a multi-use room to look like a used speaker sales shop. I just got notification that the new receiver should be here later today. Hopefully, there may be some way to contact Marantz/Denon tech support to see if there is an alternate way to just receiving L or R surround.


----------



## Richard in SF

Well, it turns out that my original question is moot. During set-up it asked if I had one or two Rear Surrounds, & it was perfectly happy with setting up one. However - - - there are two sub. pre amp out puts, and I plugged my two subs in, but it only recognized one. I still have my old Y connector, so I reused that, but after I have gone through some more thorough understanding & set-up I can try to figure out that one.


----------



## Akash Makkar

Been through the thread, but I'm still not 100% sure about the right choice. I'm upgrading to 4.0 setup in a small bedroom. Front LR is finalized; JBL Stage A120. Now for the surround speakers, which will go directly 2 feet above the listeners' ears on the back behind the bed, what would be preferable;

Using the same speaker set for optimum timber match; JBL Stage A120

Bipole speakers; Wharfedale WH-DFS

Down-firing speakers; Dali Alteco C1

Side wall placement not possible. However, there will be a small segment of wall right next to speakers on both sides, which should bounce and diffuse sound. Both the JBL and Dali seem to have good horizontal directivity.

Now from what I have understood, placing the speakers above the speakers in such a situation is done to reduce directivity of sound, right? So would placing Dali Alteco C1 firing down to listeners be counter productive? If yes, and they are ruled out, what would be better between the other options; different brand's bipole or matching monopole?

Speaker choices will remain these only, as I'm from India, with limited choice.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Akash Makkar said:


> Been through the thread, but I'm still not 100% sure about the right choice. I'm upgrading to 4.0 setup in a small bedroom. Front LR is finalized; JBL Stage A120. Now for the surround speakers, which will go directly 2 feet above the listeners' ears on the back behind the bed, what would be preferable;
> 
> Using the same speaker set for optimum timber match; JBL Stage A120
> 
> Bipole speakers; Wharfedale WH-DFS
> 
> Down-firing speakers; Dali Alteco C1
> 
> Side wall placement not possible. However, there will be a small segment of wall right next to speakers on both sides, which should bounce and diffuse sound. Both the JBL and Dali seem to have good horizontal directivity.
> 
> Now from what I have understood, placing the speakers above the speakers in such a situation is done to reduce directivity of sound, right? So would placing Dali Alteco C1 firing down to listeners be counter productive? If yes, and they are ruled out, what would be better between the other options; different brand's bipole or matching monopole?
> 
> Speaker choices will remain these only, as I'm from India, with limited choice.



Since it's a bedroom system and doesn't have to be really "pretty," I would just get another pair of A120's for the rear surrounds for timbre matching. Nothing is going to be perfect with a setup like this compared to a living room or dedicated home theater, but at least the sound will stay consistent.


----------



## Akash Makkar

Dan Hitchman said:


> Since it's a bedroom system and doesn't have to be really "pretty," I would just get another pair of A120's for the rear surrounds for timbre matching. Nothing is going to be perfect with a setup like this compared to a living room or dedicated home theater, but at least the sound will stay consistent.


Ah! Thanks for the response. So if I go for the JBL only, should I tilt them down or would that defeat the purpose mounting them above the listener?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Akash Makkar said:


> Ah! Thanks for the response. So if I go for the JBL only, should I tilt them down or would that defeat the purpose mounting them above the listener?



You can tilt them down a bit if it ends up sounding better. I would experiment. You could also get the matching Stage center speaker and shelf mount it below your TV depending on your layout.


----------



## Ricky

With the back of the sofa only 10 inches from the back wall, the Classic Twos are too directional as rear speakers (see pic). I would like to replace them with bipoles or tripoles. This 5.1 system is used for video-gaming (ie, Animal Crossing on Switch) and netflix/plex streaming. No music listening.

NHT doesn't make any bipole or tripole speakers. What brands or exact models would be work best in this setup and placement? M&K? Polk? Paradigm ADP? Mirage? Def Tech? Other?

I don't mind buying used.


----------



## Duane T

Ricky said:


> With the back of the sofa only 10 inches from the back wall, the Classic Twos are too directional as rear speakers (see pic). I would like to replace them with bipoles or tripoles. This 5.1 system is used for video-gaming (ie, Animal Crossing on Switch) and netflix/plex streaming. No music listening.
> 
> NHT doesn't make any bipole or tripole speakers. What brands or exact models would be work best in this setup and placement? M&K? Polk? Paradigm ADP? Mirage? Def Tech? Other?
> 
> I don't mind buying used.



Ricky, before you buy another pair of speakers I have a suggestion you may or may not like, but testing is easy. 



I have a similar set up in my living room and someone suggested I place my surrounds on the floor facing up for a more diffuse sound. I like it, it's more diffuse, not firing right in my ear. My rears have rear ports so I made some 1 foot stands to give some port room. I think your speakers don't have rear ports?



Your left rear may get more reflection off the side wall than the right rear, but it would be a cheap test. You'll likely need to raise the rear levels.Worst case scenario is you don't like it, but no money lost if so.


----------



## Ricky

Duane T said:


> Ricky, before you buy another pair of speakers I have a suggestion you may or may not like, but testing is easy.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a similar set up in my living room and someone suggested I place my surrounds on the floor facing up for a more diffuse sound. I like it, it's more diffuse, not firing right in my ear. My rears have rear ports so I made some 1 foot stands to give some port room. I think your speakers don't have rear ports?
> 
> 
> 
> Your left rear may get more reflection off the side wall than the right rear, but it would be a cheap test. You'll likely need to raise the rear levels.Worst case scenario is you don't like it, but no money lost if so.


Great idea! Many years ago, when Circle Surround added a matrix rear center for 6.1, I had NHT 2.9 tower rears and did the same. I placed a single NHT bookshelf on the floor, upward firing behind the couch. It worked well for 6.1.

My NHTs are too big to fit comfortably on the floor without risking damage. I have 4 Anthony Gallo Nucleus Micro speakers in the closet. They are 4" spheres. I just tried them as upward firing rears (placed at the sides of sofa) and they sound nice and diffused. I will next try the other 2 as upward firing rear centers (behind the sofa)...why not, I have them, extra speaker wire and 2 open channels on my Denon 5200W receiver. 

https://galloacoustics.com/micro/


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Hard to believe I started this thread 13 YEARS AGO !!!

I'll be moving from 7.1 to Atmos 7.2.4 soon, and am keen to hear from anyone who's using bipoles or quadpoles for their height channels...?


----------



## Icecreamfarmer

I now see that there is a separate thread for my problem:

I am planning to buy 2 concept 300's with a concept center speaker. But I am still doubting about the rears.
First i thought of the kef t101's but after making a mock up with my sonos one's on stands I find them too big.
The couch is in the middle ca 50cm from the wall and behind it is a large acoustic jungle wall. The kef's are too high.
So my options are now:
Kef T101
B&W M-1
CA Minx Min22
QA 7000Lri
QA 3010i

I am now leaning towards the min 22 as they are nice and small but the B&W should have better sound characteristics.
The thing I hate about them are that the stands are absurdly priced, they cost almost as much as the speakers.

I am searching for a solution that has the same size as my sonos one's. Any other ideas?


----------



## HD DLP

Electric_Haggis said:


> Hard to believe I started this thread 13 YEARS AGO !!!
> 
> I'll be moving from 7.1 to Atmos 7.2.4 soon, and am keen to hear from anyone who's using bipoles or quadpoles for their height channels...?


i'm in the same boat. Looking at Difinitive tech for the rear four, and monoprice alpha for atmos.


----------



## mtbdudex

Electric_Haggis said:


> Hard to believe I started this thread 13 YEARS AGO !!!
> 
> I'll be moving from 7.1 to Atmos 7.2.4 soon, and am keen to hear from anyone who's using bipoles or quadpoles for their height channels...?



I used bipoles, well Paradigms spin on the ADP-390’s for 7.1 side and rear surrounds 2008-2018. I tried to use them when I went to 7.2.6 but their off axis differences were too much.
I settled on monopoles 


Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Thanks... interesting. What channels were you using the Paradigms for before you ditched them? 
And what did you replace them with?


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Ryan-x

I do have a pair of Energy RVSS (Dipole).

I wonder if I could turn off one side in order to fire the sound as a monopole.

Does someone know?

Thank you.


----------



## mattg3

Has anyone ever used the Polk LSIM 202 surrounds? Expensive now but they go on sale every so often. They have an odd speaker placement and are actually monopole but don't look it. Wonder if anyone has any feedback on using these on stands rather than wall mount?


----------



## teetertotter

For my 12X10 open basement area w full size 30 X 40 basement, my suspended Polk S-20's with their tweeters 20" above ear level, are just great, as surrounds.. Other specs in my below signature. 

I sit 8' from the 55" 4K UHD HDR screen. The F/L speakers are 6' apart as the surrounds are too. 

F/L speaker tweeters are at ear height, and angled at my head, w the center at head level. The Polk S-20 SURROUNDS are angled down at my head, and a bit behind the ears. 

DD sound from the S-20's are perfect......for me, in my small size room. I vote for Polk!


----------



## mtbdudex

Ryan-x said:


> I do have a pair of Energy RVSS (Dipole).
> 
> I wonder if I could turn off one side in order to fire the sound as a monopole.
> 
> Does someone know?
> 
> Thank you.



If there’s no switch, then swap the polarity on one side of the tweeter and woofer .... dipole becomes bipole










Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbdudex

Electric_Haggis said:


> Thanks... interesting. What channels were you using the Paradigms for before you ditched them?
> And what did you replace them with?
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk



Tried as Rear heights , I also recognized their limitations as side and rear surrounds in discrete mixes.
They are ... old school ... work for 5.1 and 7.1 in un-treated room ... if your 9.x.4 with acoustic treatments monopole is way to go.
I went DIY route, HTM-8’s.


Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Noted! Thanks.

Though I still can't help but feel that in some cases - like in our 3.4m-wide room - having bipoles for the side-surrounds only will help to reduce localisation and distraction for those sitting too close to the side walls. Hmmm...


----------



## Lackboost

I sold something once to a fellow member on this forum and they suggested something like an Ohm speaker. As a stopgap, they recommended putting my direction surrounds on their backs pointed up - haven't looked back since. I run RTi4's so with their wall mount they conveniently sit flat and stable on as table when placed on their back. Since they are placed pretty close to a wall, and are placed at either end of a sofa, the sound is still well localized, but more diffused. It was a very handy tip! Thanks!


----------



## Ryan-x

mtbdudex said:


> If there’s no switch, then swap the polarity on one side of the tweeter and woofer .... dipole becomes bipole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk



I'll do it.
What do you think, would it be possible to leave one side off to be more like a monopole one?
Thanks for helping me.


----------



## Jl8178

I would say just disconnect the tweeter and driver from one side


----------



## Technology3456

Can anyone please advise, can Vandersteen model 2 speakers be used well in a surround sound setup? 

On BF weekend I bought a Infinity Reference 263 3 way center channel, two 263 3 way towers, and two RS152 surround back speakers, but the towers were the least discounted of them all, and I have two Vandersteen model 2 towers that I used to use for music, but are no longer convenient to have in that room. 

Could I return the Infinity 263 Towers, and use the Vandersteen 2's as towers instead along with the Infinity R263 center and the RS152 back speakers? I know the Vandersteen is a higher quality speaker, but I'm concerned it is only for music, or only one channel or one direction, not a surround 3 channel speaker like the Infinity 263's? Or is that incorrect? 

Also I dont know which type of model 2 Vandersteen they are because I dont know how to check.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Technology3456 said:


> Can anyone please advise, can Vandersteen model 2 speakers be used well in a surround sound setup?
> 
> On BF weekend I bought a Infinity Reference 263 3 way center channel, two 263 3 way towers, and two RS152 surround back speakers, but the towers were the least discounted of them all, and I have two Vandersteen model 2 towers that I used to use for music, but are no longer convenient to have in that room.
> 
> Could I return the Infinity 263 Towers, and use the Vandersteen 2's as towers instead along with the Infinity R263 center and the RS152 back speakers? I know the Vandersteen is a higher quality speaker, but I'm concerned it is only for music, or only one channel or one direction, not a surround 3 channel speaker like the Infinity 263's? Or is that incorrect?
> 
> Also I dont know which type of model 2 Vandersteen they are because I dont know how to check.


 I would not use Vandersteens in a movie listening system. I don't think their drivers are robust enough for spirited listening levels that often accompany movie watching.

If anything, I would at least switch out the three Infinity fronts with three JBL Studio Series 5 580's when they are on sale at 50 or more percent off at their direct website (590's only if you have the room real estate as they are beasts). That series are more than decent speakers for the money when they are on sale and can get plenty loud and dynamic due to their real cinema grade compression tweeters from JBL's somewhat older Pro line. They are a bit zippy in the top end, but nothing like some cheaper Klipsch horns that can get downright nasty at high volumes.

In fact, I would even return the lot and get all Series 5's if you choose to stick with the Harman house brands. They are better suited speakers for movies than Infinity anyway.


----------



## Technology3456

Dan Hitchman said:


> In fact, I would even return the lot and get all Series 5's if you choose to stick with the Harman house brands. They are better suited speakers for movies than Infinity anyway.


I didnt know you could mix and match, plus the others were more expensive. Can you recommend anything same price range as Infinities that are better? Or what to look for used? I heard the JBL series 5 center channel isnt as good as Infinity's. Otherwise, I had a hunch I should have looked at the JBL towers instead. But my budget for the 5 speakers is $700 give or take $100-$150 for a really good deal. If you have suggestions how I can beat the Infinity's for that, Im definitely interested. 

If not, I think at min I will keep the center channel because it was good value and the one piece everyone raves about out of them, and the back surrounds because they were cheap, and seek advice on how I can find better towers that will go with those for $400 or less, $500 max. Any suggestions?

I also never got clear advice whether to get the RS152 surround back, or the bookshelves, in a room with no corner on one side, and the wall directly, like literally an inch, behind me. They were (are?) the same price. 

So Im keeping the center chan for sure, but need advice whether to keep RS152 or exchange them for equal price bookshelves, and advice how to upgrade the 263 towers. Or, the whole system, for similar budget, used or new. But Im not sure I can beat the cc, or the backs, for the price? Combined for those 3 speakers, $280 total. Cc was $150, backs were $129 for the pair. Not sure I can beat that, just concerned which backs to keep or get, and the angle. But I am definitely open to suggestions about all of it, especially, especially, the towers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Technology3456 said:


> I didnt know you could mix and match, plus the others were more expensive. Can you recommend anything same price range as Infinities that are better? Or what to look for used? I heard the JBL series 5 center channel isnt as good as Infinity's. Otherwise, I had a hunch I should have looked at the JBL towers instead. But my budget for the 5 speakers is $700 give or take $100-$150 for a really good deal. If you have suggestions how I can beat the Infinity's for that, Im definitely interested.
> 
> If not, I think at min I will keep the center channel because it was good value and the one piece everyone raves about out of them, and the back surrounds because they were cheap, and seek advice on how I can find better towers that will go with those for $400 or less, $500 max. Any suggestions?
> 
> I also never got clear advice whether to get the RS152 surround back, or the bookshelves, in a room with no corner on one side, and the wall directly, like literally an inch, behind me. They were (are?) the same price.
> 
> So Im keeping the center chan for sure, but need advice whether to keep RS152 or exchange them for equal price bookshelves, and advice how to upgrade the 263 towers. Or, the whole system, for similar budget, used or new. But Im not sure I can beat the cc, or the backs, for the price? Combined for those 3 speakers, $280 total. Cc was $150, backs were $129 for the pair. Not sure I can beat that, just concerned which backs to keep or get, and the angle. But I am definitely open to suggestions about all of it, especially, especially, the towers.


 How big is your room? With a good sub in the mix, JBL 530 bookshelves all around or just the front three if you are very tight of funds (yes, even the center as you want the front screen speakers to match, especially, though all around speaker matching is best) would kick the snot out of the Infinity speakers you purchased in a normal sized living room. 

Cross the 530's over at 80 Hz, let a sub do the lower bass, and they would really open up. 

JBL randomly has the Series 5 at tremendous price cuts and then jump as I did. Don't skimp on speakers. Look at them as investments.


----------



## Technology3456

Dan Hitchman said:


> How big is your room? With a good sub in the mix, JBL 530 bookshelves all around or just the front three if you are very tight of funds (yes, even the center as you want the front screen speakers to match, especially, though all around speaker matching is best) would kick the snot out of the Infinity speakers you purchased in a normal sized living room.
> 
> Cross the 530's over at 80 Hz, let a sub do the lower bass, and they would really open up.
> 
> JBL randomly has the Series 5 at tremendous price cuts and then jump as I did. Don't skimp on speakers. Look at them as investments.


I definitely read that the 580 and 590s were better towers than the Infinity's, but the 530s? That's not consistent with what I've read elsewhere, I don't think, but you dont need to tell me there is a lot of bs on the internet. And I definitely read the center channel isnt clear like the Infinity in a bunch of places.



> yes, even the center as you want the front screen speakers to match


Wait, you're not supposed to get a center channel for the center, and towers to the left and right? You're supposed to get 3 of the same thing?

And what about the "3 way channel" thing? Arent the bookshelves only 2 or 1? Ahh this is so confusing.

Edit: Just to make sure we're on the same page, I am still planning to get a sub either way. Are you saying the JBL + sub is better than Infinities without sub, or even with a sub, still better? But please answer the pre-edit questions if you can because that's the main confusion.

Also, my room is 9x9x8.5 except it's completely open on one side where there is a 2 foot angular dip in the ceiling for a foot, then it dips back up 3 feet, and horizontally that side of the room opens completely to another much bigger room, Im guessing 13 by 27 with 9.5 foot ceilings.

So on three sides + ceiling, 9x9x8.5, but then opens up to 13x27x9.5, but the ceiling goes down then up at the point of transition between the two rooms.

And the unopen side of the 9x9x8.5 part is almost half windows, and the back wall 6-7 feet to the right of my chair is window which is about 20% of the 9x8.5 wall which then extends to the other bigger room another 13 feet or so. I will put blinds over the windows, open to recommendations.

Porcelain tile floor, also, through the entirety of both rooms.


----------



## Technology3456

Heads up Dan I just added important info in an edit.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Technology3456 said:


> I definitely read that the 580 and 590s were better towers than the Infinity's, but the 530s? That's not consistent with what I've read elsewhere, I don't think, but you dont need to tell me there is a lot of bs on the internet. And I definitely read the center channel isnt clear like the Infinity in a bunch of places.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, you're not supposed to get a center channel for the center, and towers to the left and right? You're supposed to get 3 of the same thing?
> 
> And what about the "3 way channel" thing? Arent the bookshelves only 2 or 1? Ahh this is so confusing.
> 
> Edit: Just to make sure we're on the same page, I am still planning to get a sub either way. Are you saying the JBL + sub is better than Infinities without sub, or even with a sub, still better? But please answer the pre-edit questions if you can because that's the main confusion.
> 
> Also, my room is 9x9x8.5 except it's completely open on one side where there is a 2 foot angular dip in the ceiling for a foot, then it dips back up 3 feet, and horizontally that side of the room opens completely to another much bigger room, Im guessing 13 by 27 with 9.5 foot ceilings.
> 
> So on three sides + ceiling, 9x9x8.5, but then opens up to 13x27x9.5, but the ceiling goes down then up at the point of transition between the two rooms.
> 
> And the unopen side of the 9x9x8.5 part is almost half windows, and the back wall 6-7 feet to the right of my chair is window which is about 20% of the 9x8.5 wall which then extends to the other bigger room another 13 feet or so. I will put blinds over the windows, open to recommendations.
> 
> Porcelain tile floor, also, through the entirety of both rooms.


For starters, on a budget and in a room of your size, the 530's would be more than adequate *with a subwoofer*. The reason the 530's were getting knocked was that for some reason people thought they could run a bookshelf speaker full range. No bookshelf in existance can reproduce all the audible frequency range. Because? Physics. Even third party reviewers have stated that if you cross the 530's over at 80 Hz and then let a good subwoofer take up the slack, they are very capable speakers for the money. So, yes, given a 530 and a subwoofer, they would trounce the Infinities you purchased for volume and dynamics. The secret sauce is the professional commercial theater compression tweeters legendary Harman Audio speaker engineer Greg Timbers included in his partial redesign of the Series 5 when he was brought on board to rescue the series. They put out an amazing amount of sound because that's what compression drivers are designed to do. Plus, they won't fall apart when pushed.





















I own two pairs myself (along with three 590's) and they are awaiting my parent's finally completed basement as the JBL's were purchased for them. They are sitting in my open concept living room, which is about the same size as yours, but with vaulted 12 foot ceilings. They could make your ears bleed if I really cranked them, as they will hit high SPL's without breaking a sweat.

A horizontal "center" speaker is and always has been a compromise. (I'm not shouting, I'm emphasizing to make a point) You want IDENTICAL, VERTICAL speakers for AT LEAST your front three speakers. ALWAYS. This has been the rule since God talked to Moses and is the practice of all professional theater mixing studios. It has to do with sound dispersion and the fact that when sounds pan from one side to another, the sound is kept consistent.

A well designed two-way speaker can be just as capable as a three-way. In fact, if a three-way speaker is poorly designed, it can sound worse than a two-way.

The Infinities you bought are super cheap because they use super cheap drivers in comparison to the Series 5. The metal driver baskets alone in the Series 5 are massive for such inexpensive speakers (when on sale), so the cone's piston action (excursion) can travel a greater distance without breakup.

Don't worry that the 530's only come in pairs because when on sale, they are such a steal. You will have a backup speaker in case something goes wrong or you get a little too spirited with your volume levels without enough amplifier power, leading to high distortion levels. Too little amplifier power can lead to distortion, which damages speakers more than a little too much power based on the manufacturer's recommended amp power range.

I would seriously look at HSU Research, Rythmik Audio, SVS, or Monoprice's Monolith THX lineup before buying a cheap sub. Save up and invest.


----------



## Technology3456

Dan Hitchman said:


> For starters, on a budget and in a room of your size, the 530's would be more than adequate *with a subwoofer*. The reason the 530's were getting knocked was that for some reason people thought they could run a bookshelf speaker full range. No bookshelf in existance can reproduce all the audible frequency range. Because? Physics. Even third party reviewers have stated that if you cross the 530's over at 80 Hz and then let a good subwoofer take up the slack, they are very capable speakers for the money. So, yes, given a 530 and a subwoofer, they would trounce the Infinities you purchased for volume and dynamics. The secret sauce is the professional commercial theater compression tweeters legendary Harman Audio speaker engineer Greg Timbers included in his partial redesign of the Series 5 when he was brought on board to rescue the series. They put out an amazing amount of sound because that's what compression drivers are designed to do. Plus, they won't fall apart when pushed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own two pairs myself (along with three 590's) and they are awaiting my parent's finally completed basement as the JBL's were purchased for them. They are sitting in my open concept living room, which is about the same size as yours, but with vaulted 12 foot ceilings. They could make your ears bleed if I really cranked them, as they will hit high SPL's without breaking a sweat.
> 
> A horizontal "center" speaker is and always has been a compromise. (I'm not shouting, I'm emphasizing to make a point) You want IDENTICAL, VERTICAL speakers for AT LEAST your front three speakers. ALWAYS. This has been the rule since God talked to Moses and is the practice of all professional theater mixing studios. It has to do with sound dispersion and the fact that when sounds pan from one side to another, the sound is kept consistent.
> 
> A well designed two-way speaker can be just as capable as a three-way. In fact, if a three-way speaker is poorly designed, it can sound worse than a two-way.
> 
> The Infinities you bought are super cheap because they use super cheap drivers in comparison to the Series 5. The metal driver baskets alone in the Series 5 are massive for such inexpensive speakers (when on sale), so the cone's piston action (excursion) can travel a greater distance without breakup.
> 
> Don't worry that the 530's only come in pairs because when on sale, they are such a steal. You will have a backup speaker in case something goes wrong or you get a little too spirited with your volume levels without enough amplifier power, leading to high distortion levels. Too little amplifier power can lead to distortion, which damages speakers more than a little too much power based on the manufacturer's recommended amp power range.
> 
> I would seriously look at HSU Research, Rythmik Audio, SVS, or Monoprice's Monolith THX lineup before buying a cheap sub. Save up and invest.


Do you put a vertical bookshelf under the TV at the center or how does the vertical one fit?

I wish someone had told me this before I bought the Infinity speakers instead of saying the center is amazing, etc etc. I don't want to say anything bad about this forum but the advice I've gotten not just from one poster who might not know what they're doing, but from handfuls of posters all pushing the same (apparently) false advice, and pressuring me to buy, and giving me false sales deadlines, and now recommending a great _buy 1 $700 starke subwoofer get 1 free_ sale that I should take quickly because _it will probably end any day _while conveniently forgetting to tell me that this subwoofer was available for $350 the last month, has been very, well, that speaks for itself, and it has caused me to lose days of my time trying to fish out any good advice from all of these posts, as well as apparently get the wrong thing on the one sale weekend I had a chance to get the JBLs at 75% off.

I even remember asking should I get the JBLs instead, are they better, and all I got was a "they're out of your budget." But for many other products, they were more than happy to push me to double or triple my budget. _If I didn't know better_, ahem, I'd say it was almost like they were trying to steer me to whichever of the JBL or Infinity's a company was having more trouble moving, or had more excess supply of, and maybe that happened to be the Infinity's. But I have no way of knowing for sure. There have been some really helpful posters on the forum who I am grateful towards, and about 25% of the responses have been super helpful, but the other 75%, I feel like I am being steered and misinformed, not advised or helped. And then when I say as much and say I need correct information, not misleading or false information, and real advice to make a purchase decision on the remaining products, I get called a tire kicker or a troll and so on.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Technology3456 said:


> Do you put a vertical bookshelf under the TV at the center or how does the vertical one fit?
> 
> I wish someone had told me this before I bought the Infinity speakers instead of saying the center is amazing, etc etc. I don't want to say anything bad about this forum but the advice I've gotten not just from one poster who might not know what they're doing, but from handfuls of posters all pushing the same (apparently) false advice, and pressuring me to buy, and giving me false sales deadlines, and now recommending a great _buy 1 $700 starke subwoofer get 1 free_ sale that I should take quickly because _it will probably end any day _while conveniently forgetting to tell me that this subwoofer was available for $350 the last month, has been very, well, that speaks for itself, and it has caused me to lose days of my time trying to fish out any good advice from all of these posts, as well as apparently get the wrong thing on the one sale weekend I had a chance to get the JBLs at 75% off.
> 
> I even remember asking should I get the JBLs instead, are they better, and all I got was a "they're out of your budget." But for many other products, they were more than happy to push me to double or triple my budget. _If I didn't know better_, ahem, I'd say it was almost like they were trying to steer me to whichever of the JBL or Infinity's a company was having more trouble moving, or had more excess supply of, and maybe that happened to be the Infinity's. But I have no way of knowing for sure. There have been some really helpful posters on the forum who I am grateful towards, and about 25% of the responses have been super helpful, but the other 75%, I feel like I am being steered and misinformed, not advised or helped. And then when I say as much and say I need correct information, not misleading or false information, and real advice to make a purchase decision on the remaining products, I get called a tire kicker or a troll and so on.


Sorry you feel that you have been getting bad advise. All I can say is that everyone has their own opinions, and when you may be new to the home theater side of the audio spectrum, it can become confusing. I am speaking from many years in this hobby and my own experiences, research, and discussions with others in the audio biz. Are the JBL Series 5's the end-all, be-all of speakers? Of course not! My main system consists of Triad Gold LCR monitors and a Monolith THX 15 sub and they are far more refined than the JBL Series 5 and amazing for music too. They should be for triple or quadruple the price of the 590's, depending on sales at the time. However, at 50 or more percent off, they're killer.

It is hard to pin down JBL and their sales and stock availability. You just have to keep coming back to their main site every so often... and sign up for their e-mail sale alerts. Black Friday and Cyber Monday prices, for instance, were excellent. Maybe now... maybe toward Christmas they will drop again.

As for the vertical center... I would measure up to the bottom of your TV and then get a speaker stand that will allow the 530 to fit underneath the display. Then angle it up slightly with a small block of foam or something like that, so it fires up towards your listening position, but not so much as to make it tipsy and easy to knock over. For the Left and Rights, get stands that place the tweeters at about ear level while seated. You don't have to get super expensive stands... just stable ones. Monoprice has solid metal stands and Rockville Audio makes some decent, inexpensive wood stands... one of their models has sleek red cherry side stripes (if that floats your boat).


----------



## Technology3456

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sorry you feel that you have been getting bad advise. All I can say is that everyone has their own opinions, and when you may be new to the home theater side of the audio spectrum, it can become confusing. I am speaking from many years in this hobby and my own experiences, research, and discussions with others in the audio biz. Are the JBL Series 5's the end-all, be-all of speakers? Of course not! My main system consists of Triad Gold LCR monitors and a Monolith THX 15 sub and they are far more refined than the JBL Series 5 and amazing for music too. They should be for triple or quadruple the price of the 590's, depending on sales at the time. However, at 50 or more percent off, they're killer.
> 
> It is hard to pin down JBL and their sales and stock availability. You just have to keep coming back to their main site every so often... and sign up for their e-mail sale alerts. Black Friday and Cyber Monday prices, for instance, were excellent. Maybe now... maybe toward Christmas they will drop again.
> 
> As for the vertical center... I would measure up to the bottom of your TV and then get a speaker stand that will allow the 530 to fit underneath the display. Then angle it up slightly with a small block of foam or something like that, so it fires up towards your listening position, but not so much as to make it tipsy and easy to knock over. For the Left and Rights, get stands that place the tweeters at about ear level while seated. You don't have to get super expensive stands... just stable ones. Monoprice has solid metal stands and Rockville Audio makes some decent, inexpensive wood stands... one of their models has sleek red cherry side stripes (if that floats your boat).


Can you and others please help me understand more about high efficiency speakers vs the Infinities? Andrew Robinson in the comments of his Infinity Reference Series review, responding to someone asking whether they should get the Infinity's or the "Tekton design speakers," which he also references as "lores," wrote this:



> Dollar for dollar they're both tremendous values. The question you need to ask yourself is (do you feel lucky, joking) *do you like a sound that is more "live" and "immediate" or do you prefer something a little more "studio-like."* *High efficiency loudspeakers are going to sound as if the music (or movies) are more in the room with you, with less electronics in front of them, whereas more traditional speakers are going to sound like wonderful masters of a studio recording.* Again, neither way is right nor wrong, just different. I couldn't nor would I attempt to tell you which one you should buy, suffice to say either way you go I doubt you'll be disappointed.


And also he said:



> the Tekton designs are known as a high efficiency designs, whereas the Infinity product is a bit more traditional. *High efficiency speakers require less power than their traditional counterparts in order to "come alive," which many listeners equate to a sense of "ease, transparency and fluidity."* Not that you cannot get that with Infinity's new loudspeakers, or more traditional loudspeakers for that matter, you're just going to have to bring a bit more power to the table in order to do so.


Easy fluid sound, that also more "comes alive," sounds like the best of both worlds. So does sound that feels more in the room with you, and less like there are electronics in front of you. Who would want the second over the first? And shouldn't surround sound sound "alive" not just like a static studio recording? "Alive" sound can still be "accurate."

I didn't realize how big the Infinity's were when I bought them. Do I really need that much power in my 9x9x8.5 viewing area? Yes on one side it's totally open to a 26x13x9.5 room, but the speakers will be pointing at me only 8-10 feet away, not to the side. Are there smaller "high efficiency" speakers that will still get my room as loud as I want it and more, and not get overpowered by a sub, but sound better than the Infinity's? Im worried I will only be able to turn the Infinity's up to 10% of their total volume, and that they wont sound good that way. Or is it possible to turn them up as much as necessary to get the best sound out of them, but still control the volume in my room however I want just by keeping the audio output from the receiver down, but the Infinity's volume dial up?

Or does it not matter how far you turn the Infinity volume dial up, they will not sound their best unless they are outputing high volume no matter which way you do it? When I asked for the best surround sound speaker recs in my price range, no one even mentioned high efficiency options, or any other options besides "you need a center, two towers, and back speakers." No one told me there were other options, no one really discussed size even when I asked, etc. That is what is frustrating. Leaving out key information, often providing false or misleading information in terms of the information that was given, pressuring to buy, false deadlines, potentially steering to certain products over others, etc. 

I really would appreciate more help to figure this out and get it done in the next few days. I might actually just have to send everything back ASAP during the return window if I cant find reliable info before then to feel I made the right purchase, or get something else.


----------



## Rich 63

Technology. What are you talking about the speakers are passive. They have not volume knob. You have been all over this forum for weeks and appear to have learned very little. Your second guessing yourself and others. And on top of that have implied that others are misleading you on what you should buy. As I mentioned in another of your many threads. You do the research. You make the purchase and you live with that desicion. It's not up to forum members to make sure your happy with your purchase. 
Rich


----------



## Technology3456

Rich 63 said:


> Technology. What are you talking about the speakers are passive. They have not volume knob. You have been all over this forum for weeks and appear to have learned very little. Your second guessing yourself and others. And on top of that have implied that others are misleading you on what you should buy. As I mentioned in another of your many threads. You do the research. You make the purchase and you live with that desicion. It's not up to forum members to make sure your happy with your purchase.
> Rich


Where would you suggest I research? There are so many advertisements dressed up as reviews online, how can anyone know what information is reliable and what is not if they are not a speaker engineer themself, let alone someone brand new to audio? That's what experienced forum members should be able to help with, but my subjective experience, I'm not claiming it is fact just my subjective experience, is that there may be more than a fair amount of the same problem on this very forum. And I've given clear examples why I have that opinion already a number of times, so let's not rehash it. 

I am trying to research. On the forum, and elsewhere. It's just a lot more complicated than you are making it out. 

I can't even find some basic information like, for my room size, are towers a good idea for front L and R speakers, or something else? In my thread I don't remember being told there was an alternative. People said bookshelves were for the back speakers, not the front. And no one mentioned "high efficiency" speakers either.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Technology3456 said:


> Can you and others please help me understand more about high efficiency speakers vs the Infinities? Andrew Robinson in the comments of his Infinity Reference Series review, responding to someone asking whether they should get the Infinity's or the "Tekton design speakers," which he also references as "lores," wrote this:
> 
> 
> 
> And also he said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy fluid sound, that also more "comes alive," sounds like the best of both worlds. So does sound that feels more in the room with you, and less like there are electronics in front of you. Who would want the second over the first? And shouldn't surround sound sound "alive" not just like a static studio recording? "Alive" sound can still be "accurate."
> 
> I didn't realize how big the Infinity's were when I bought them. Do I really need that much power in my 9x9x8.5 viewing area? Yes on one side it's totally open to a 26x13x9.5 room, but the speakers will be pointing at me only 8-10 feet away, not to the side. Are there smaller "high efficiency" speakers that will still get my room as loud as I want it and more, and not get overpowered by a sub, but sound better than the Infinity's? Im worried I will only be able to turn the Infinity's up to 10% of their total volume, and that they wont sound good that way. Or is it possible to turn them up as much as necessary to get the best sound out of them, but still control the volume in my room however I want just by keeping the audio output from the receiver down, but the Infinity's volume dial up?
> 
> Or does it not matter how far you turn the Infinity volume dial up, they will not sound their best unless they are outputing high volume no matter which way you do it? When I asked for the best surround sound speaker recs in my price range, no one even mentioned high efficiency options, or any other options besides "you need a center, two towers, and back speakers." No one told me there were other options, no one really discussed size even when I asked, etc. That is what is frustrating. Leaving out key information, often providing false or misleading information in terms of the information that was given, pressuring to buy, false deadlines, potentially steering to certain products over others, etc.
> 
> I really would appreciate more help to figure this out and get it done in the next few days. I might actually just have to send everything back ASAP during the return window if I cant find reliable info before then to feel I made the right purchase, or get something else.


In Andrew's flowery way, he is just saying that less efficient speakers require more amp power for equal volume levels compared to a speaker that may be more "efficient" in its sensitivity ratings and use less amp power to get to a certain target volume level. I'm powering the horn loaded 530's with a 75 watts per channel Denon surround receiver (75 watts during a blue moon... receiver amp ratings are marketing B.S. and tend to be only a fraction of that with many speakers drawing power off the same load) and if I go past 60 on the dial they can start getting uncomfortably loud for my tastes.

JBL 530's are less efficient than say the 590's I have also powered, but they still get plenty loud with a modest receiver. 

You were going to get a subwoofer anyway and think the Infinity towers are maybe too big, sooo...


----------



## Technology3456

Dan Hitchman said:


> You were going to get a subwoofer anyway and think the Infinity towers are maybe too big, sooo...


Can you please tell me if they are or not? I dont mean they look too big, although they do take up a lot of space, but I am fine with that if Im getting better sound quality. My question is how loud do I have to turn them up to get them to sound good? Comments are saying at low volumes they sound clear but pretty basic, but then when you turn them up they start to really shine and produce the sound quality they are capable of. So how loud is that, and is it going to be too loud when combined with a center channel and a sub? I get that the sub needs to be powerful because bass is liek water and is going to fill the entire space, including the big room that is connected to the TV room, but the other speakers may not be as affected by the big room to the side, so am I better off with little small speakers that I can turn up near max volume?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Technology3456 said:


> Can you please tell me if they are or not? I dont mean they look too big, although they do take up a lot of space, but I am fine with that if Im getting better sound quality. My question is how loud do I have to turn them up to get them to sound good? Comments are saying at low volumes they sound clear but pretty basic, but then when you turn them up they start to really shine and produce the sound quality they are capable of. So how loud is that, and is it going to be too loud when combined with a center channel and a sub? I get that the sub needs to be powerful because bass is liek water and is going to fill the entire space, including the big room that is connected to the TV room, but the other speakers may not be as affected by the big room to the side, so am I better off with little small speakers that I can turn up near max volume?


As I mentioned in the Infinity thread, the JBL Series 5 have more in common with the speakers you would find in a commercial theater due to their use of authentic, commercial-grade compression tweeters. To expand: they spread sound out in a BIIIIIIIIIIG, DYNAMIC way and are a little bit brash in the very top of the frequency range (but not harsh and ugly like some Klipsch that use titanium domes rather than compression drivers), but exciting and punchy, not completely neutral and laid back. If that sounds intriguing for movie watching, go with those. If not, stick with what you purchased.


----------



## Technology3456

Dan Hitchman said:


> As I mentioned in the Infinity thread, the JBL Series 5 have more in common with the speakers you would find in a commercial theater due to their use of authentic, commercial-grade compression tweeters. To expand: they spread sound out in a BIIIIIIIIIIG, DYNAMIC way and are a little bit brash in the very top of the frequency range (but not harsh and ugly like some Klipsch that use titanium domes rather than compression drivers), but exciting and punchy, not completely neutral and laid back. If that sounds intriguing for movie watching, go with those. If not, stick with what you purchased.


Thanks for explaining. Unless I heard both I cant say. IF thye're brash at the top of the frequency, would that be tiring to listen to? Would it maybe sound good with cool sci fi movie effects, like Star Wars, but bad for vocal clarity? 

Can you just tell me how high the volume has to be dialed up on the Infinity's to get in their sweet zone, and if that will be too loud for my space? My space is 9x9x8.5, except on one side it opens up to 13x26x9.5 perpendicular room. Floor is porcelain tile.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks for explaining. Unless I heard both I cant say. IF thye're brash at the top of the frequency, would that be tiring to listen to? Would it maybe sound good with cool sci fi movie effects, like Star Wars, but bad for vocal clarity?
> 
> Can you just tell me how high the volume has to be dialed up on the Infinity's to get in their sweet zone, and if that will be too loud for my space? My space is 9x9x8.5, except on one side it opens up to 13x26x9.5 perpendicular room. Floor is porcelain tile.


If you find the Infinity front speakers to sound boring to you, the Studios may be more to your liking. They are not harsh or fatiguing. Their frequency plot point actually shows a rapid fall off above 20 kHz, so they are not "hot" sounding speakers, they just emphasize the top end a bit more to fill the room. For an action movie or something with some "kick" to the soundtrack, they sound ballsy and muscular where they need to be. Both the 530's and Infinity towers take about the same amount of amp "juice" to play at the same volume level.

My folks were listening to some Christmas choral music and my dad said it sounded like the choir was right in the room with them. As I mentioned, they throw a BIG, WIDE soundstage. We then watched True Lies via Amazon (since it's not yet out on 4k disc... damn it!) and it left everyone with a large grin on their faces. No one said they couldn't understand the dialog or my ears were hurting or turn it down!


----------



## Technology3456

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you find the Infinity front speakers to sound boring to you, the Studios may be more to your liking. They are not harsh or fatiguing. Their frequency plot point actually shows a rapid fall off above 20 kHz, so they are not "hot" sounding speakers, they just emphasize the top end a bit more to fill the room. For an action movie or something with some "kick" to the soundtrack, they sound ballsy and muscular where they need to be. Both the 530's and Infinity towers take about the same amount of amp "juice" to play at the same volume level.
> 
> My folks were listening to some Christmas choral music and my dad said it sounded like the choir was right in the room with them. As I mentioned, they throw a BIG, WIDE soundstage. We then watched True Lies via Amazon (since it's not yet out on 4k disc... damn it!) and it left everyone with a large grin on their faces. No one said they couldn't understand the dialog or my ears were hurting or turn it down!


They both take the same amount of juice to run, but how loud do they sound when they run? Are they too loud for my space at their sweetspot volume outputs? Or just right? My space has a low ceiling and is kind of small where the TV is, but one entire side opens up to a huge room. So... expert help needed to tell me whether that means I have a big room where it wont be too loud, or a small room where it will be. Where I at, it is fairly small, but it opens up to a very big room. But both have pretty low ceilings.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Technology3456 said:


> They both take the same amount of juice to run, but how loud do they sound when they run? Are they too loud for my space at their sweetspot volume outputs? Or just right? My space has a low ceiling and is kind of small where the TV is, but one entire side opens up to a huge room. So... expert help needed to tell me whether that means I have a big room where it wont be too loud, or a small room where it will be. Where I at, it is fairly small, but it opens up to a very big room. But both have pretty low ceilings.


See my last reply in the JBL Series 5 thread.


----------



## Rich 63

Anybody tired yet?


----------



## Technology3456

Rich 63 said:


> Anybody tired yet?


For sure. Trying to do the entire home theater at once, in the span of a month, has been a lot more complicated and a lot more time consuming than I thought, and it's definitely tiring after awhile.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Technology3456 said:


> For sure. Trying to do the entire home theater at once, in the span of a month, has been a lot more complicated and a lot more time consuming than I thought, and it's definitely tiring after awhile.


Did you figure out if you can accommodate a third Studio 580 in your space by raising the TV a bit? The speaker's specs are on JBL's website. As mentioned, keep the Infinity surrounds, at least.


----------



## Technology3456

Can anyone tell me, the Infinity Reference series I bought, I assume these are "digital" speakers? Is there such thing as analog surround speakers for anywhere near the price range? Do they have any advantages? I dont like digital TV image compared to analog, so Im worried this might be the same. However thats mostly just the motion issue, and digital speakers dont have that problem. Ive had digital speakers before that I liked and they werent even that expensive. But I would just like to learn more about digital surround vs analog surround, and why most the recommendations I got if not all were digital. Is analog surround not a thing these days?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Technology3456 said:


> Can anyone tell me, the Infinity Reference series I bought, I assume these are "digital" speakers? Is there such thing as analog surround speakers for anywhere near the price range? Do they have any advantages? I dont like digital TV image compared to analog, so Im worried this might be the same. However thats mostly just the motion issue, and digital speakers dont have that problem. Ive had digital speakers before that I liked and they werent even that expensive. But I would just like to learn more about digital surround vs analog surround, and why most the recommendations I got if not all were digital. Is analog surround not a thing these days?


Speakers are not digital nor analog, they're a type of window to the source (some better than others). The audio source can be digitally or analog captured. Almost all soundtracks and music are digitally captured and stored nowadays and with the right high resolution equipment and mastering can beat the pants off analog. Some speakers have amplifiers built-in, but those are often studio monitors. 

Don't worry about that marketing stuff and overthink things. It's what sounds good to your ears.


----------



## Technology3456

Dan Hitchman said:


> Speakers are not digital nor analog, they're a type of window to the source (some better than others). The audio source can be digitally or analog captured. Almost all soundtracks and music are digitally captured and stored nowadays and with the right high resolution equipment and mastering can beat the pants off analog. Some speakers have amplifiers built-in, but those are often studio monitors.
> 
> Don't worry about that marketing stuff and overthink things. It's what sounds good to your ears.


Thanks that makes sense. I wasn't sure if the speakers themselves could be digital or analog. That clears it up, ty.


----------



## oceanz

Hi, I am renovating my basement and looking to upgrade my home theater setup to 5.1.2. I am a bit confused on the surround sound and reading conflicting information for rears and would like some recommendations.
My current setup:
Receiver: Onkyo NR-737
Front L/R: Polk RTiA9
Center: Polk CSI A6
Sub: Polk HTS 12"
Ceiling: Polk MC60 (I may install 4 speakers to future proof and upgrade the receiver overtime)
Size of room: Length, just over 12'; Width is wider (21'); Height (just over 6'~). The wider area will not be part of the Home theater and is an exercise area.
Sofa distance to TV: thinking around 9-10'~ and between a 4k 65" and 77" OLED (not sure if I can stretch) if I go 65" then I'll have a bit more room behind.
Possible options from research, trying to stay under 250-300USD~:
Polk S10/S15
Polk OMW3
Elac Debut B5.2
Infinity R152 showed up a few times but I cannot find this in Canada
Paradigm SE Atom
Paradigm Surround 1
In-Wall - more options, I have a preference for this to help save space but shortcomings are the angle and sound quality (seems to not matter as much for surrounds?). Any thoughts here?


thank you!


----------



## gbaby

Can someone please tell me if the old Infinity surround speakers, the QPS and QPS-1, are dipoles or bi-pole speakers?


----------



## head_unit

Technology3456 said:


> how can anyone know what information is reliable and what is not if they are not a speaker engineer themself


Well I am a loudspeaker engineer so on that basis let me say a few things:

Speaker specifications are pretty much useless nonsense. This is because first off, companies each have their own measurement setups and methodologies, which their marketing deparments may then transmute/exaggerate/lie to different degrees, therefore you cannot compare speakers across brands on the basis of specs AT ALL. Which makes non-expert consumers' task confusing and difficult 😕
Later you mention towers versus bookshelf speakers. There is some conventional wisdom that big speakers are "too big" for small rooms. That is NOT necessarily so. That "wisdom" comes about when a big speakers extended low frequency response excites resonances (peaks or boominess) in the room. A smaller speaker which doesn't output such low notes at all won't excite the resonance...but you might have no bass like a friend of mine turned out to be missing. Resonance (look it up) depends on the room and the speaker positions and the listening position, so it's like any stereotype: it might originate from grains of truth, but there are many exceptions. And in this case, if a big speaker is tuned for a slow rolloff, it could be fine even in a "boomy" room.
Since most setups don't have much latitude for listener and speaker placement, room correction software like Dirac or Audyssey may be the only thing that can help.
Rear speakers do NOT have to be bookshelf. That comes about just due to practicality; most folks can't or aesthetically won't put towers for the side or rear speakers, but there's no technical reason against it.
The "sweet spot" for listening volume you allude to is complex. Our hearing is very very sensitive to volume level, especially in the bass (search "Fletcher Munson") so more and more volume literally lets you hear more of the music. This effect can be exacerbated by the peaks and dips in response produced by the room. Mmmmm, offhand I'm not feeling one speaker would be better at this than another, that it would be more interaction with the room, but that is my musing not a technical statement.
Yes some speakers are more efficient (aka more sensitive) than others. Physics says they must then be bigger, or have less bass. Speaker design engineering constraints mean the most efficient speakers will have larger woofers-that's why rock concert PAs don't have small woofers. Unfortunately as I alluded to above, this specification is the most lied about bull*** in speakerdom. Klipsch exaggerates which is kinda dumb as they do produce more sensitive speakers, likewise Zu Audio.
Speakers are rated 8 ohms or 4 ohms, but this is a wild approximation of a very complex impedance which varies tremendously across different speakers. Amps are tested only with resistors due to time and money, so amp power ratings are only a crude approximation of how they can drive actual speakers. What counts is the 4 ohm (or better yet 2 ohm) rating, never mind the "ohms" of the speakers. And yes as someone mentioned every single AVR I've ever seen tested droops seriously in power as you drive more and more channels = the power supplies are not super strong. But without seeing test evidence, don't assume an outboard amp will be better. For more actual power than an AVR my rule of thumb is you need 300+ watts at 4 ohms at <1% distortion.


----------



## head_unit

Er, back to the thread: just wanted to post that with Focal 936 and CC900 up front, changing from monopole Focal to bipole SR900 really improved the cohesiveness of the sound. It made a better connection between front and rear. This is with the surrounds up some feet above the listeners, not much behind the listeners, in a cathedral ceiling setup. YMMV.


----------



## Technology3456

head_unit said:


> Well I am a loudspeaker engineer so on that basis let me say a few things:
> 
> Speaker specifications are pretty much useless nonsense. This is because first off, companies each have their own measurement setups and methodologies, which their marketing deparments may then transmute/exaggerate/lie to different degrees, therefore you cannot compare speakers across brands on the basis of specs AT ALL. Which makes non-expert consumers' task confusing and difficult 😕
> Later you mention towers versus bookshelf speakers. There is some conventional wisdom that big speakers are "too big" for small rooms. That is NOT necessarily so. That "wisdom" comes about when a big speakers extended low frequency response excites resonances (peaks or boominess) in the room. A smaller speaker which doesn't output such low notes at all won't excite the resonance...but you might have no bass like a friend of mine turned out to be missing. Resonance (look it up) depends on the room and the speaker positions and the listening position, so it's like any stereotype: it might originate from grains of truth, but there are many exceptions. And in this case, if a big speaker is tuned for a slow rolloff, it could be fine even in a "boomy" room.
> Since most setups don't have much latitude for listener and speaker placement, room correction software like Dirac or Audyssey may be the only thing that can help.
> Rear speakers do NOT have to be bookshelf. That comes about just due to practicality; most folks can't or aesthetically won't put towers for the side or rear speakers, but there's no technical reason against it.
> The "sweet spot" for listening volume you allude to is complex. Our hearing is very very sensitive to volume level, especially in the bass (search "Fletcher Munson") so more and more volume literally lets you hear more of the music. This effect can be exacerbated by the peaks and dips in response produced by the room. Mmmmm, offhand I'm not feeling one speaker would be better at this than another, that it would be more interaction with the room, but that is my musing not a technical statement.
> Yes some speakers are more efficient (aka more sensitive) than others. Physics says they must then be bigger, or have less bass. Speaker design engineering constraints mean the most efficient speakers will have larger woofers-that's why rock concert PAs don't have small woofers. Unfortunately as I alluded to above, this specification is the most lied about bull*** in speakerdom. Klipsch exaggerates which is kinda dumb as they do produce more sensitive speakers, likewise Zu Audio.
> Speakers are rated 8 ohms or 4 ohms, but this is a wild approximation of a very complex impedance which varies tremendously across different speakers. Amps are tested only with resistors due to time and money, so amp power ratings are only a crude approximation of how they can drive actual speakers. What counts is the 4 ohm (or better yet 2 ohm) rating, never mind the "ohms" of the speakers. And yes as someone mentioned every single AVR I've ever seen tested droops seriously in power as you drive more and more channels = the power supplies are not super strong. But without seeing test evidence, don't assume an outboard amp will be better. For more actual power than an AVR my rule of thumb is you need 300+ watts at 4 ohms at <1% distortion.


Thanks for taking the time to explain all this. There's nothing I want to ask for clarification about on most points, just this one:

"Rear speakers do NOT have to be bookshelf. That comes about just due to practicality; most folks can't or aesthetically won't put towers for the side or rear speakers, but there's no technical reason against it."

I thought it had something to do with, for home theater seating, the bookshelf can be placed at ear level, so the whole sound comes right over the top of the seat, whereas with towers, sound is coming from near the floor and going into the back of your chair instead of to you. 

But on the other hand, even if you lose some of the tower sound, it has more sound to start with, so maybe it's still just as good? Except you are at least hearing the complete bookshelf sound without interference of the chair, whereas you might only get part of the tower... etc etc... basically from the "outside" I can see arguments on both sides so I'm asking for your "inside" knowledge (so to speak) on which way to view it.


----------



## Venomat

Could use some guidance in this space for my challenging room space, looking at 5.2.4 or 7.2.4.

Long story short, redoing basement and have a 17 x 12 space to work with but having a lot of trouble thinking about how to do the back space. The bottom graphic is a bit off (the couch will have to be further forward so no easy side walls to use).

Overall I only have 7 feet on the back wall and wondering if I could use bipole or dipole, and if so two or three. The fronts will be B&W 600 series, and ceiling are still in debate. 

Very lost on what to do (I have 5.1 but monopole and I have the back wall) and appreciate advice.


----------



## head_unit

Technology3456 said:


> whereas with towers, sound is coming from near the floor and going into the back of your chair instead of to you.


That depends how tall the tower speaker is 😁
You raise an interesting point. If front towers are shorter than your ears, we tend to listen "down" to them I guess. However for rears we are more conditioned to think of them as up high since that is how theaters are set up (and the one mixing theatre I've been in, Universal's, is like that as well). 

There is a disconnect between cinemas, inevitably with rising seating and a long row of identical speakers down the side up high, versus home setups. I don't really see this discussed much.
The video visually anchors your brain to the screen so to some extent exactly where the speakers are to the back and sides is not achingly critical.
Though yes you don't want the speakers firing into the back of a couch or something. By "firing" meaning like oh within several feet. You hopefully can get the surround spakers not so close to your head.
Back to the front speakers (ha ha), those are usually far enough away that even if they are not as tall as your head, the down angle is not so much. If a rear tower was close the angle might be considerably more.
Speakers' frequency response depends on the angle (coax designs like ELAC Unif-Fi or KEF Uni-Q aside) so ideally you want to have a physical setup that you can experiment with. In some cases, a bookshelf speaker might sound better upside down. Certainly experimenting with toe-in is something to try.


----------



## Technology3456

head_unit said:


> That depends how tall the tower speaker is 😁
> You raise an interesting point. If front towers are shorter than your ears, we tend to listen "down" to them I guess. However for rears we are more conditioned to think of them as up high since that is how theaters are set up (and the one mixing theatre I've been in, Universal's, is like that as well).
> 
> There is a disconnect between cinemas, inevitably with rising seating and a long row of identical speakers down the side up high, versus home setups. I don't really see this discussed much.
> The video visually anchors your brain to the screen so to some extent exactly where the speakers are to the back and sides is not achingly critical.
> Though yes you don't want the speakers firing into the back of a couch or something. By "firing" meaning like oh within several feet. You hopefully can get the surround spakers not so close to your head.
> Back to the front speakers (ha ha), those are usually far enough away that even if they are not as tall as your head, the down angle is not so much. If a rear tower was close the angle might be considerably more.
> Speakers' frequency response depends on the angle (coax designs like ELAC Unif-Fi or KEF Uni-Q aside) so ideally you want to have a physical setup that you can experiment with. In some cases, a bookshelf speaker might sound better upside down. Certainly experimenting with toe-in is something to try.


I didn't necessarily mean the rear bookshelves would be way up above your head, like cinema, but just the fact the bookshelf is a foot tall or something, the entire bookshelf can be placed so the very bottom starts right above the top of your chair, and the top of it is a foot above your chair. Its just high enough that the entire sound is shooting over the chair to your ears.

Whereas with the towers, maybe only the very top is higher than your chair, and most of it is below. So even if it's 5 feet behind you, is that enough for it to sort of arc over the chair and into your ears?

Obviously sound doesnt work like that, but Im just sort of trying to describe the theory of what people had been saying. That even if you put the towers 5 feet behind your chair, it's still a situation where 80% of the sound is coming from a height that is lower than your chair. Whereas with the rear bookshelves, the entire sound is coming from that one foot at ear level. 

With the front towers, the chair has no "front" to block the sound, only a back, so it wouldn't be an easy even at closer distances. The issue is, as others have posited it anyway, is specific to the back.


----------



## head_unit

Technology3456 said:


> the sound is coming from a height that is lower than your chair.


I would not like that for movies-I'd want it above my head like in a cinema. Now for music, the several studios I've seen are at/near ear height all around. I'm thinking I might set up both but am first trying to get some shelves made to move some electronics.


----------



## lordvader

Hey all









Was hoping to get some advice on converting a current 3.1 setup, to a 5.1, 7.1 or 5.1.2 setup, and this thread seems to touch on the same queries I have.

I've got a rectangular space downstairs, and have allocated a section of it as a "home theater" - which really means TV + 3.1 speakers.

It has the following limitations:

No rear wall, as there's a sliding door
Side walls are not equi-distance
There are steel beams, and heating ducts within the ceiling, that may impact ceiling speaker placements (represented by the red lines) 
Given that, if I want to enjoy surround sound, in ceiling seem to be my only option. I've attached an image of where I _think _in ceiling speakers should go (red dots), for either a 7.1, or a 5.1.2 setup (future proof). The brown squares are the front speakers, btw 

So ...

I'm not 100% if the speakers should be angled speakers, that point towards the couch, or just point straight down (or even a combo of angled and down firing)
Can I use the same placement for a 7.1 -> 5.1.2 
Should I just stick with 5.1 in that space, and if so, should I hug that rear wall, or over the couch? 
So much thinking! Would love some advice/direction, before putting a bunch of holes in the ceiling.


----------



## T-Bone

lordvader said:


> Hey all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was hoping to get some advice on converting a current 3.1 setup, to a 5.1, 7.1 or 5.1.2 setup, and this thread seems to touch on the same queries I have.
> 
> I've got a rectangular space downstairs, and have allocated a section of it as a "home theater" - which really means TV + 3.1 speakers.
> 
> It has the following limitations:
> 
> No rear wall, as there's a sliding door
> Side walls are not equi-distance
> There are steel beams, and heating ducts within the ceiling, that may impact ceiling speaker placements (represented by the red lines)
> Given that, if I want to enjoy surround sound, in ceiling seem to be my only option. I've attached an image of where I _think _in ceiling speakers should go (red dots), for either a 7.1, or a 5.1.2 setup (future proof). The brown squares are the front speakers, btw
> 
> So ...
> 
> I'm not 100% if the speakers should be angled speakers, that point towards the couch, or just point straight down (or even a combo of angled and down firing)
> Can I use the same placement for a 7.1 -> 5.1.2
> Should I just stick with 5.1 in that space, and if so, should I hug that rear wall, or over the couch?
> So much thinking! Would love some advice/direction, before putting a bunch of holes in the ceiling.
> 
> View attachment 3155966


12 days and no reply? But maybe I can help 

I am ignoring your comment that stated ceiling speakers is your only option.

Long story short, ceiling speakers for surround sound is the worst possible thing that anyone can do. Some people do it because they have no choice. And surround out of the ceiling is better than nothing to some. But that will limit your future Atmos capability.

Option 1: Based on the image that you supplied, put a nice table behind your seats. Those tables that are about 4 ft tall and about 18 in deep. About as wide as your seating row. And put a bookshelf on each end of the table facing each other. That's a start. You can worry about altering how they're aimed later on. I'll let you worry about how you going to run the wires from your receiver to those bookshelves.

Option 2: forget the table and go ahead and use bookshelves on stands. If you got kids then that's going to be cumbersome. The table offers more stability.

That's your best bet. 5.1. with future expansion to 5.1.2 or 5.1.4. Good luck. 

-T


----------



## T-Bone

As a quick follow-up, things have changed since 2007 thread creation. What was acceptable for surround sound in 2007 is no longer acceptable today. At least by the today's standards.

-T


----------



## teetertotter

My room is 12 X 10 and my speakers are Klipsch. My TV viewing distance is 7 feet, main speaker distance 6.5 feet with surrounds just behind my ears with tweeters 20" above my ears.


----------



## Technology3456

Can I ask a newb question... what does it mean that a speaker is "high sensitivity"? Are the Infinity R263 towers for example considered "high sensitivity"? I remember some comments saying most people prefer high sensitivity speakers for home theater, maybe as opposed to music, or idk.


----------



## teetertotter

Here is your answer: what does high sensitivity mean for a speaker - Bing


----------



## OrangeMan200

I have a noob question, i have a extremely high budget and would like the best home theatre possible, can anyone recommend me the absolute best setup for a home theatre including speakers / projector / amp / subwoofer / etc? I have 0 information on home cinemas but just want the best experience


----------



## T-Bone

OrangeMan200 said:


> I have a noob question, i have a extremely high budget and would like the best home theatre possible, can anyone recommend me the absolute best setup for a home theatre including speakers / projector / amp / subwoofer / etc? I have 0 information on home cinemas but just want the best experience


It's not possible. We don't even know what the definition of the best is. Then you have a high budget. Well, how much?

There are no shortcuts in av. You're going to have to create separate threads in each forum for the information that you need. You can't honestly expect folks to give you projected and receive a recommendations in the speaker forum.

If you truly want a turnkey solution, contract with a local retailer/installer by you and they can set up everything for you and you won't even have to think about it.

If you want more hands-on, then you have to do the research. Good luck on the journey 

-T


----------



## OrangeMan200

T-Bone said:


> It's not possible. We don't even know what the definition of the best is. Then you have a high budget. Well, how much?
> 
> There are no shortcuts in av. You're going to have to create separate threads in each forum for the information that you need. You can't honestly expect folks to give you projected and receive a recommendations in the speaker forum.
> 
> If you truly want a turnkey solution, contract with a local retailer/installer by you and they can set up everything for you and you won't even have to think about it.
> 
> If you want more hands-on, then you have to do the research. Good luck on the journey
> 
> -T


Thank you, btw what are the main components of a home speaker setup?


----------



## T-Bone

OrangeMan200 said:


> Thank you, btw what are the main components of a home speaker setup?


Wrong thread. You could Google it and include AVSforum in the search phrase

-T


----------



## Xikarzr

I recently purchased a full Klipsch speaker system (RP line) which has of the dipole RP502S surrounds. The system will be in 5.1 (with 2 subs) with an OLD RV-X2600 Yamaha Receiver , the speakers are Klipsch 8000F , 504C, 502S and two custom built 8 ohm Dayton Reference 12s run by a Yamaha P7000s amplifier. I realize room constraints have a lot to do with where people end up putting their surround speakers, and that is my case as well. My couch is against the back wall... I will likely try multiple places for surrounds and measure each location , but to start do you recommend trying them on the sides walls or rear wall. From what I have read here , it shouldn't really matter TOO much as dipoles are significantly less directional than typical surrounds. Again, I realize I have not given a ton of info for you to tell me OPTIMAL position, but where would you start out.... Rear or Sides since the wall is right behind me.

Cheers,


----------



## WLC

Xikarzr said:


> I recently purchased a full Klipsch speaker system (RP line) which has of the dipole RP502S surrounds. The system will be in 5.1 (with 2 subs) with an OLD RV-X2600 Yamaha Receiver , the speakers are Klipsch 8000F , 504C, 502S and two custom built 8 ohm Dayton Reference 12s run by a Yamaha P7000s amplifier. I realize room constraints have a lot to do with where people end up putting their surround speakers, and that is my case as well. My couch is against the back wall... I will likely try multiple places for surrounds and measure each location , but to start do you recommend trying them on the sides walls or rear wall. From what I have read here , it shouldn't really matter TOO much as dipoles are significantly less directional than typical surrounds. Again, I realize I have not given a ton of info for you to tell me OPTIMAL position, but where would you start out.... Rear or Sides since the wall is right behind me.
> 
> Cheers,


When I purchased my 7.4 Aerial Acoustic surround system 20 years ago, dipoles were in fashion for surrounds. I still love my AR3's, which I have set up in their dipole mode. I believe they are the main reason that we get overhead effects without overhead speakers. My speakers are set up directly opposite our heads, close to the ceiling, at a distance of about 8 feet. The room is open behind our chairs, so we also have rear speakers. Based on my experience, I think you should first try them on your side wall to maximize their effectiveness.


----------



## itsloud

I'm finally replacing my speakers in my family room. I was thinking thinking of a bi/di-pole speaker for my surrounds. Below is a rough sketch of my family room, it's not quite that stretched out though. Because of the kitchen doorway and the bay window, my location options for surrounds are limited. I was wondering if I could mount bi/di-pole speakers in the corners as shown or if I should just get some standard speakers and angle them in the corners.


----------



## teetertotter

N/A


----------



## macflirty

Does anyone have experience with those 2 Bipolar speakers?
Fluance Reference High Performance 2-Way Bipolar Surround Speakers --> $199
Fluance Elite High Definition 2-Way Bipolar Surround Speakers --> $119

I would like to install a cheaper solution and maybe upgrade those later to Klipsch RP-250S --> $500

My room layout looks like that:









Thank you,
Alex


----------



## RBhifi

itsloud said:


> I'm finally replacing my speakers in my family room. I was thinking thinking of a bi/di-pole speaker for my surrounds. Below is a rough sketch of my family room, it's not quite that stretched out though. Because of the kitchen doorway and the bay window, my location options for surrounds are limited. I was wondering if I could mount bi/di-pole speakers in the corners as shown or if I should just get some standard speakers and angle them in the corners.
> View attachment 3222594


Since your couch is against the wall try putting speakers to the left & right of it aimed at each other, and with them slightly angled out into the room. The other position is on the back wall above the couch, 2-3ft above the top of your head with the speakers angled mostly down, but out into the room at up to a 45° angle. This is how I have my rear speakers setup, since my couch and chair are up against the wall also. I used to have it both ways, but found it sounds best to me just on the rear wall angled out at about a 45° angle with them set on my AVR as the surround speakers. I've had it this way several years, and in a 5.2 configuration. I'm still very happy with the way it sounds in my small apartment living room.


----------



## itsloud

RBhifi said:


> Since your couch is against the wall try putting speakers to the left & right of it aimed at each other, and with them slightly angled out into the room. The other position is on the back wall above the couch, 2-3ft above the top of your head with the speakers angled mostly down, but out into the room at up to a 45° angle. This is how I have my rear speakers setup, since my couch and chair are up against the wall also. I used to have it both ways, but found it sounds best to me just on the rear wall angled out at about a 45° angle with them set on my AVR as the surround speakers. I've had it this way several years, and in a 5.2 configuration. I'm still very happy with the way it sounds in my small apartment living room.


That is how I have my not that great speakers now, pointing at each other across the couch. I didn't know if dipole would also add to the experience to those on the loveseat along the side wall and a chair under the window.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

OrangeMan200 said:


> I have a noob question, i have a extremely high budget and would like the best home theatre possible, can anyone recommend me the absolute best setup for a home theatre including speakers / projector / amp / subwoofer / etc? I have 0 information on home cinemas but just want the best experience


In this case, I would think a framing or general contractor would be the first step in a high budget system, to make a room, or convert a room for home Theater audio. Then the rest can fall into place with ease.


----------



## shete.prakash

Could use some guidance on *Basement Home theater speaker setup and spacing*. Framing, Electrical work is done. Next up, I need to buy speakers & equipment. So appreciate the prompt response.

*Limitations:*
1. Theater room is a three-sided space 14 feet wide x 17 feet deep, it does NOT have a back wall.
2. It opens up in the back, to a recreation area/room which is a large space, 27 feet x 20 feet ?
3. Kids/Pet situation so cannot have floor standing speakers, surrounds, etc.

Setup: I want 7.2.4 with room to expand for the future. (Though, I have not bought the equipment yet. open to suggestions on the placement, equipment, wiring, etc)

*See Pic & Summary below:*








*1. Seating* is a sofa – seating height at 17.5 inches from the floor
*2. Screen* will be 150" acoustic. Mounted on a frame + baffle wall.
*3. Baffle wall*: All equipment will be behind the acoustic screen. The base of the baffle wall is at 6-inch height.
*4. To make sure Center speakers are firing straight at listening height – or at the ear level* – What height should the Kef R2C be (which itself is 7 inches tall)? – any suggestion for a Center speaker stand? behind the acoustic screen?
*5. What’s the guidance on Front and Rear side speakers* *height*– I will have Ci3160RL-THX installed (Height 27 inches)
*6. What’s the guidance on Front and Rear in-ceiling atmos speakers location - *I will have Kef Ci200rr installed. The floor to Ceiling height is about 8 feet.
*7. I want to dual-zone - separate speakers for the recreation room.* Any suggestions on quality In-Ceiling speakers for this space? 27 feet x 20 feet?


----------



## datman

What's wrong about using any old book shelf speakers for surround speakers? 

I have been at this a long time I started when THX and laserdiscs were a thing. My whole system is old and mismatched. Several years ago I bought a Marantz av7702 replacing a Bryston sp 7.1. I used amps and speakers I had in a cabin. NHT Super zeros for ceiling speakers, NHT HDP1 for back surrounds, Fosgate SP90s for sides. Adcom 60 watt power amps for the ceiling and back speakers, Bryston 4b for my mains, a 3b for the center and channel and DIY subs powered by Adcom 555ll mono.

My point is it all sounded good to me without buying lots of new equipment.

Now in the house being built I decided I would need new back and side speakers replacing the old bipole speakers. I went cheap and got 4 Polk audio TSi100. I'm using two for my sides now in a 5.1 setup in the rental, they sound good so I think they will work fine.
It may not compare to a full blown home theater but I impresses me even in a 5.1 setup.


----------



## ml2316

Paul Scarpelli said:


> I could have predicted where this thread would go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've chimed in on the dipole debate before, and here's my spiel again. If your room is smallish and/or acoustically dead and/or you have multiple seats, dipoles _tend_ to work better, with an even but compromised listening window. If you have a larger and/or more live room with less seating, or seating away from the surround speakers, direct-radiating surrounds can be better. 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.
> 
> 
> All rooms are different, and no generalization can be made about surround speakers without considering the room.
> 
> 
> Now back to the bickering. I am enjoying it.


even if I weren't lonely and unliked my selfishness alone would make me prefer that setup. it sounds amazing.


----------



## oldtexasdog

I have found that Dipoles have there place-IE sofa is up against rear of room wall. They realy are the only solution I have found for rear speakers in that situation.


----------



## T-Bone

Paul Scarpelli said:


> I could have predicted where this thread would go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a sad, lonely, pathetic little* [non binary unit, or gender fluid individual]* who sits in *their* 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.


You posted in 2007. A lot has changed and it's 2022. So I fixed it for you 

-T


----------



## Dr. Manhattan

oldtexasdog said:


> I have found that Dipoles have there place-IE sofa is up against rear of room wall. They realy are the only solution I have found for rear speakers in that situation.


This would be the only excuse for di-poles, IMO. If nothing else will physically work, then yes, by all means. Otherwise, see below...

I had THX-rated Canton di-poles as both surround and back speakers in my previous 7.1 HT. I won't be making that mistake again. It wasn't the sound quality of the Cantons...the sound they output was great, but the surround effect was horrible. It was the effect of sound vaguely washing up and down the lengths of the side walls and width of the back wall, rather than giving _some_ directional information, that caused me to feel that I had wasted a lot of money. A sound that was supposed to come from off to your right instead came from the whole right side of the room. I ended up leaving them in the house when we sold it, and just taking the mono-pole LCRs with me for my new family room. My new HT will have architectural DefTech mono-poles (UIW RLS IIs) as the whole 9-channel bed layer. They deliver a far more resolvable and natural sounding spacial effect than those old di-poles...

Di-poles may have made some sense for throwing sound around in the old days when we were desperate for _any_ kind of spacial effect out of our primitive "surround" setups, but that was before modern processors/receivers existed that accomplish the deed _for real_. Di-poles now? No. Just...no. JMO/YMMV


----------



## ManBarra

Anybody using these?


----------



## TinnEars

I prefer omni-radial speakers because, IMO, they most closely reproduce sounds. Something akin to dodecahedrons. Of course, this is largely a fallacy but they're 'somewhat' closer to sounding 'real' than most designs. It's impossible... I repeat... impossible... to reproduce truly realistic sound in one's living room. It just... ain't... gonna... happen. This stated, I don't have the space, nor the funds, nor the wherewithal to bother trying. Had I the funds, I'd have a nice matched set of L+C+R large Martin-Logan curvilinear planars and would be very happy with them. The surrounds for movies could be just about anything not crappy and would be bipoles.


----------



## JMak00

May not be the appropriate place, but...

I recently upgraded my 1st gen Andrew Jones to Klipsch RP-280s in LF, the RP-450C center, and RP-160Ms for side-surrounds. I still have two 1st gen Andrew Jones BS-21s as rear-surrounds in a 7.1 system.

Local seller here has a pair of Klipsch RS-42s - RS-42 II Surround Speaker | Klipsch - for a reasonable price and, am trying to figure out if they would be a worthy candidate for side-surround duty and push the RP-160s to the rear-surround.

Thoughts, considerations, advice? Thanks!


----------



## RafaelSmith

Curious what the preferred choice is for side surround that will be less than 3ft from either left or right side of main seating....bipole, dipole, mono directly to sides or mono 1-2feet forward angled back?


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

datman said:


> What's wrong about using any old book shelf speakers for surround speakers?
> 
> I have been at this a long time I started when THX and laserdiscs were a thing. My whole system is old and mismatched. Several years ago I bought a Marantz av7702 replacing a Bryston sp 7.1. I used amps and speakers I had in a cabin. NHT Super zeros for ceiling speakers, NHT HDP1 for back surrounds, Fosgate SP90s for sides. Adcom 60 watt power amps for the ceiling and back speakers, Bryston 4b for my mains, a 3b for the center and channel and DIY subs powered by Adcom 555ll mono.
> 
> My point is it all sounded good to me without buying lots of new equipment.
> 
> Now in the house being built I decided I would need new back and side speakers replacing the old bipole speakers. I went cheap and got 4 Polk audio TSi100. I'm using two for my sides now in a 5.1 setup in the rental, they sound good so I think they will work fine.
> It may not compare to a full blown home theater but I impresses me even in a 5.1 setup.


Why have both subs in front? I find this to be least audible, the best visual of sub setup.


----------



## datman

Phil Indeblanc said:


> Why have both subs in front? I find this to be the best visual, least audible of sub setup.


My DIY subs are in massive 7cft boxes I built years ago and had no idea what I was doing and how having those big boxes will limit my setups for years to come. The thing is they sound fantastic. I built a cabinet originally around a 55inch RPTV Now it is a massive wall unit with a place for everything including my subs. I even made turntable shelves last year when we moved int the rental. The cabinet even has two hidden shelves that hides 4 amps and a bunch of other stuff like adapters and usb hubs.


----------



## Infi-del

My room is a long rectangular shape. At the moment I'm only wired for 7 channel. The side surrounds are closer to the listening position than any one speakers. So I'm seriously looking at these as an option for my R&L side surrounds for an omnidirectional sound.









QS10HP Surround Speakers


Add a new dimension of sound in your home theater system by getting Axiom Audio's QS10 surround sound speakers. In stock and ready to ship. Shop now!




www.axiomaudio.com


----------



## khuram

In a bipole speaker, both sides of the speaker push air outward at the exact same time. They are in phase with each other. This can work if the speakers are not positioned to the exact sides of a listener. In a dipole speaker when one side pushes the air, the other side is pulling the air.that is the main difference in it .









Top 10 Speaker Forums, Discussions and Message Boards in 2022


List of the Speaker Forums. Keep up with the latest discussions and information and message boards on speakers from all around the world




blog.feedspot.com


----------



## T-Bone

Infi-del said:


> My room is a long rectangular shape. At the moment I'm only wired for 7 channel. The side surrounds are closer to the listening position than any one speakers. So I'm seriously looking at these as an option for my R&L side surrounds for an omnidirectional sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QS10HP Surround Speakers
> 
> 
> Add a new dimension of sound in your home theater system by getting Axiom Audio's QS10 surround sound speakers. In stock and ready to ship. Shop now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.axiomaudio.com


Ouch. $1600 per pair? Considering the side surrounds and rear surrounds don't really get that much action in movies, I wouldn't spend $1,600.

In my room I went with adaptive dipoles (only the tweeters fire out of phase) that sit on the wall. And they're about 7 in deep. So that's what I needed from my room because I had some constraints of people walking by those sides around speakers... So they had to be a bit higher than prescribed, and shallow.

I'm sure you can find something cheaper. That seems like a lot of money.

-T


----------



## Dr. Manhattan

T-Bone said:


> ...In my room I went with adaptive dipoles (only the tweeters fire out of phase) that sit on the wall. And they're about 7 in deep. So that's what I needed from my room because I had some constraints of people walking by those sides around speakers... So they had to be a bit higher than prescribed, and shallow...


In-walls are not an option?


----------



## T-Bone

Dr. Manhattan said:


> In-walls are not an option?


I purchased in 2004. At the time in-walls were not desireable... on-walls were part of many speaker sets back then. Mine were 600/pair... Comparable to bookshelf per pair.

But today, Ascend HTM-200 for $328 a pair would work well as on-wall... And certainly better than the axiom 1600 pair axiom.

-T

Edit:. For the member that was thinking of the $1,600 axioms, they might be interested in in-wall.


----------



## Naku

Phil Indeblanc said:


> Why have both subs in front? I find this to be least audible, the best visual of sub setup.


Not 100% true. When I first went with 2 subs, I put them both up front. I found that if I got up from my comfy ideal listening seat and walked through the dining room, I had better sound there but less visual appeal. Subs have been moved since, 1 at the front and 1 at the rear. Now the visual appeal has improved when viewing from the dining room.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Naku said:


> Not 100% true. When I first went with 2 subs, I put them both up front. I found that if I got up from my comfy ideal listening seat and walked through the dining room, I had better sound there but less visual appeal. Subs have been moved since, 1 at the front and 1 at the rear. Now the visual appeal has improved when viewing from the dining room.


Well, now ya did it!! Feel free to post a pic sometime . For s theater or mostly sound room, the visual is nice when you have such offset placement.


----------



## Naku

Phil Indeblanc said:


> Well, now ya did it!! Feel free to post a pic sometime . For s theater or mostly sound room, the visual is nice when you have such offset placement.


<snicker> I don't know that it actually improved the visual anywhere. Just trying to be funny. I wasn't kidding though about the audible sweet spot in the adjacent dining room when both subs were on the front. Moved one sub to a corner opposite the other. That moved the sweet spot to the listening area instead of the dining room.


----------



## ColdComfort

Probably a dumb question, but I’m scoping out surround speakers for a 5.1.2 system, and the surrounds are only going to have ~16 inches horizontal separation from the MLP (front to back. Real space, vector, separation will be greater). I’m concerned with the SPL from the surround speakers being overwhelming, even with YPAO calibration.

Based on the OP, it seems like dipole surrounds would be ideal for my situation. Do I have that right?

One of the surrounds on the back wall will be right next to the corner; from the description of dipole it sounds like reflections could be a problem when close to a corner. There won’t be audio treatments on the wall, how much does this matter?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ColdComfort said:


> Probably a dumb question, but I’m scoping out surround speakers for a 5.1.2 system, and the surrounds are only going to have ~16 inches horizontal separation from the MLP (front to back. Real space, vector, separation will be greater). I’m concerned with the SPL from the surround speakers being overwhelming, even with YPAO calibration.
> 
> Based on the OP, it seems like dipole surrounds would be ideal for my situation. Do I have that right?
> 
> One of the surrounds on the back wall will be right next to the corner; from the description of dipole it sounds like reflections could be a problem when close to a corner. There won’t be audio treatments on the wall, how much does this matter?


You DO NOT want dipole surrounds. They are too diffuse for immersive surround. You want a model with a BIPOLE design when being so close to the speakers.

It would be nice to know your room layout in some detail and what other speakers you are currently working with.


----------



## ColdComfort

Dan Hitchman said:


> You DO NOT want dipole surrounds. They are too diffuse for immersive surround. You want a model with a BIPOLE design when being so close to the speakers.
> 
> It would be nice to know your room layout in some detail and what other speakers you are currently working with.


I got you beau. FYI, I’m looking for in-wall. I’m trying to be generic in this thread though, so I understand the basic parameters of the speakers before I get to install specifics.









help with 5.1.2 placement in challenging room


Hi All, Another one of these threads. I've read through the Dolby guidance, and others' discussion of 5.1.2 speaker placement and I think I know what I need to do but I'd like some critical feedback / things to watch out for. I just got a 3.1 system going, and am planning take it to 5.1.2 with...




www.avsforum.com





keep in mind the front stage is temp, I’ll be moving it in-wall as well. Likely with whatever matches the surrounds I pick.


----------



## Toknowshita

Dan Hitchman said:


> You DO NOT want dipole surrounds. They are too diffuse for immersive surround. You want a model with a BIPOLE design when being so close to the speakers.
> 
> It would be nice to know your room layout in some detail and what other speakers you are currently working with.



Dolby no longer recommends bipolar designs either with Atmos since it widens the sound field. I still use bipolar on the side surrounds though since a previous theater in which I swapped out DT BP2Xs for in-wall RLSIII monopoles. Those speakers were close to the listener that basically screamed ‘here I am’ when content was playing through them. The previous BP2Xs were more like a big movie theater in that the sound was more spread out and didn’t call attention to the location/speaker. In my newer theater I switched back to bipolar with Def Tech SR8080s for the side surrounds.


----------



## darthray

Dan Hitchman said:


> You DO NOT want dipole surrounds. They are too diffuse for immersive surround. You want a model with a BIPOLE design when being so close to the speakers.
> 
> It would be nice to know your room layout in some detail and what other speakers you are currently working with.





Toknowshita said:


> Dolby no longer recommends bipolar designs either with Atmos since it widens the sound field. I still use bipolar on the side surrounds though since a previous theater in which I swapped out DT BP2Xs for in-wall RLSIII monopoles. Those speakers were close to the listener that basically screamed ‘here I am’ when content was playing through them. The previous BP2Xs were more like a big movie theater in that the sound was more spread out and didn’t call attention to the location/speaker. In my newer theater I switched back to bipolar with Def Tech SR8080s for the side surrounds.


+1

Having had both Dipole and Bipolar surrounds speakers, before Atmos. End-up changing all of them to normal bookshelf's type speakers, in my 7.1.4 (two subs) in my setup. For sounding better for me, been the cost of when new technology come along to have the latest toys.

Darth


----------



## sukumar

I am trying to setup atmos at home. For surrounds, I have adp 590. I was told that these are dipole and dolby does not recommend it. Appreciate anyone using dipolar for the rear and any issues.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sukumar said:


> I am trying to setup atmos at home. For surrounds, I have adp 590. I was told that these are dipole and dolby does not recommend it. Appreciate anyone using dipolar for the rear and any issues.


By their nature, dipole speakers smear the sound field too much for immersive surround. 3D audio works with more direct sound. Bipoles are a bit better if you sit close to your surround speakers.


----------



## T-Bone

sukumar said:


> I am trying to setup atmos at home. For surrounds, I have adp 590. I was told that these are dipole and dolby does not recommend it. Appreciate anyone using dipolar for the rear and any issues.


You did not mention if you have a 5.1 or 7.1 setup as of today.

Why don't you play some content with sounds panning to the sides. If you have Disney plus, the first cars movie is a great example in the first 5 minutes or so.

My point is that while dipoles are diffuse, if you can hear the sound coming from the side of you then it's good enough.

I have adaptive dipoles. Only the tweeters fire out of phase. And I have 7.1.4. But in practice, when a car is going by my seating in the side surrounds, I can clearly hear it panning and hear it directly to my sides.

So why change if you don't have to? Test it first.

-T


----------



## sukumar

T-Bone said:


> You did not mention if you have a 5.1 or 7.1 setup as of today.
> 
> Why don't you play some content with sounds panning to the sides. If you have Disney plus, the first cars movie is a great example in the first 5 minutes or so.
> 
> My point is that while dipoles are diffuse, if you can hear the sound coming from the side of you then it's good enough.
> 
> I have adaptive dipoles. Only the tweeters fire out of phase. And I have 7.1.4. But in practice, when a car is going by my seating in the side surrounds, I can clearly hear it panning and here it directly to my sides.
> 
> So why change if you don't have to? Test it first.
> 
> -T


Thanks for the detailed reply. I have Pardaigm studio 5.1 now (100,690, adp 590). I am adding 4 ceiling speakers listed here to get to 5.1.4. I moved to new house and did not setup yet. I will test car movie.









CI Pro P80-R v2


The Custom Installer’s Smarter Choice.The CI PRO Series is manufactured in Canada and takes performance to the next level with patented technology, step-up components, and hallmark Paradigm sound quality.




www.paradigm.com


----------



## bassage

Any opinion on the Klipsch surrounds, which they call "Wide Dispersion Surround Technology (WDST™) ?" They say these are not monopole, and not bi-pole/dipole either.

From the Klipsch website, "This coverage gives excellent ambiance without having to use the walls to reflect sound. The controlled pattern of each horn (what we call "controlled directivity") leads to excellent localization of sounds because there is sound directed at the listening position, regardless of where in the room you are seated. " 

Anyone have experience with these as sides and rears for an Atmos setup?


----------



## kblackburn101

bassage said:


> Any opinion on the Klipsch surrounds, which they call "Wide Dispersion Surround Technology (WDST™) ?" They say these are not monopole, and not bi-pole/dipole either.
> 
> From the Klipsch website, "This coverage gives excellent ambiance without having to use the walls to reflect sound. The controlled pattern of each horn (what we call "controlled directivity") leads to excellent localization of sounds because there is sound directed at the listening position, regardless of where in the room you are seated. "
> 
> Anyone have experience with these as sides and rears for an Atmos setup?


Not for Atmos but I use them as surrounds and they work perfectly to disperse the sound , not sure if newer Klipch still do this . Mine has one 4” woofer , two tweeters icon line . I set x over to 120 not sure tho for a baby 4” woofer.


----------



## darthray

kblackburn101 said:


> Not for Atmos but I use them as surrounds and they work perfectly to disperse the sound , not sure if newer Klipch still do this . Mine has one 4” woofer , two tweeters icon line . I set x over to 120 not sure tho for a baby 4” woofer.
> View attachment 3380411


A proper setting for that small woofer, been more a mid bass driver.



bassage said:


> Any opinion on the Klipsch surrounds, which they call "Wide Dispersion Surround Technology (WDST™) ?" They say these are not monopole, and not bi-pole/dipole either.
> 
> From the Klipsch website, "This coverage gives excellent ambiance without having to use the walls to reflect sound. The controlled pattern of each horn (what we call "controlled directivity") leads to excellent localization of sounds because there is sound directed at the listening position, regardless of where in the room you are seated. "
> 
> Anyone have experience with these as sides and rears for an Atmos setup?


Honestly, when I had a 5.1 setup having a pair of bi-pole/dipole for my side surrounds did work great . After moving to 7.1 and then 7.1.4, I found having direct bookshelf's for the ceiling/side and rear surrounds work best for the way they are recorded now a day. 

Darth


----------



## sukumar

I bought very good quality Paradigm Founder 30b book shelf for surrounds. I also have ADP Paradigm that I had bought 10 years ago. I don't want to throw them off.

If I use these two pairs, which one is better suited for side surrounds vs back surrounds? I am using in Dolby Atmos 11.2 setup. Appreciate it.


----------



## T-Bone

sukumar said:


> I bought very good quality Paradigm Founder 30b book shelf for surrounds. I also have ADP Paradigm that I had bought 10 years ago. I don't want to throw them off.
> 
> If I use these two pairs, which one is better suited for side surrounds vs back surrounds? I am using in Dolby Atmos 11.2 setup. Appreciate it.


Based on testing I did in 2004, seeing if I could put my adaptive dipoles on the real wall, The answer was no. 

If you're going to have adaptive dipoles and bookshelves, adaptive dipoles to the sides of the seating, and then monopoles behind MLP.

-T


----------



## kblackburn101

darthray said:


> A proper setting for that small woofer, been more a mid bass driver.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, when I had a 5.1 setup having a pair of bi-pole/dipole for my side surrounds did work great . After moving to 7.1 and then 7.1.4, I found having direct bookshelf's for the ceiling/side and rear surrounds work best for the way they are recorded now a day.
> 
> Darth


Yeah I had a hard time deciding between 120-150 hz for those surrounds . I Can’t really tell a difference between the two but 4”woofers/mid is tiny .


----------



## darthray

kblackburn101 said:


> Yeah I had a hard time deciding between 120-150 hz for those surrounds . I Can’t really tell a difference between the two but 4”woofers/mid is tiny .


I think you will be fine with the 120Hz setting, and more likely using 100Hz should also be fine. Since I use 90Hz on my ceiling speakers, where my mid driver is only 4.5" on them;








Prime Elevation


Best sounding home audio elevation speaker for Dolby Atmos, DTS:X and Auro-3D. Endless versatility as front, surround, center and/or LCR home theater speaker.




www.svsound.com





While all my LCR and 4 surrounds are set at 80Hz, to let my two subs taking care of any frequencies below that. 

Darth


----------

