Re: Dipole surrounds

[SA000584]

Dave Wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I see a number of the mid-range speaker setups (Jamo, Morandt) are
> using
> dipole surrounds thesedays...
>
> I'm not convinced that dipole is the way to go given that they (at
> least
> appear to) direct sound away from where it is supposed to be going.
>
> Are there any benefits to dipoles that I'm missing here?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave.


George Lucas THX specifications require dipole speakers for the
surround speakers.

These provide a better surround sound environment as the sound can be
generated going all directions from the two surround speakers eg behind
and side.

However now there are 6.1 and 7.1 receivers eg two side surround
speakers as well as 1(2) rear surround speakers, these dipole speakers
will become less important in the home theatre setup as these extra
speakers will result in the sound coming from all directions eg plane
fly overs etc.


--
SA000584

[Dave]

"SA000584" <SA000584.1lx5r3@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
news:SA000584.1lx5r3@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>
> Dave Wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I see a number of the mid-range speaker setups (Jamo, Morandt) are
>> using
>> dipole surrounds thesedays...
>>
>> I'm not convinced that dipole is the way to go given that they (at
>> least
>> appear to) direct sound away from where it is supposed to be going.
>>
>> Are there any benefits to dipoles that I'm missing here?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dave.
>
>
> George Lucas THX specifications require dipole speakers for the
> surround speakers.
>
> These provide a better surround sound environment as the sound can be
> generated going all directions from the two surround speakers eg behind
> and side.
>
> However now there are 6.1 and 7.1 receivers eg two side surround
> speakers as well as 1(2) rear surround speakers, these dipole speakers
> will become less important in the home theatre setup as these extra
> speakers will result in the sound coming from all directions eg plane
> fly overs etc.

I though that THX was the only format with 7.1 (ie: 8 separate channels as
opposed to Dolby Digital EX and friends which are only 6.1)?

In that instance wouldn't THX requiring dipoles imply that they are not
obsolete (or less important) with 7.1?

Sorry if this is a silly question.

Regards,
Dave.

[Chops]

Dave wrote:
> "SA000584" <SA000584.1lx5r3@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:SA000584.1lx5r3@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>
>>Dave Wrote:
>>
>>>Hi All,
>>>
>>>I see a number of the mid-range speaker setups (Jamo, Morandt) are
>>>using
>>>dipole surrounds thesedays...
>>>
>>>I'm not convinced that dipole is the way to go given that they (at
>>>least
>>>appear to) direct sound away from where it is supposed to be going.
>>>
>>>Are there any benefits to dipoles that I'm missing here?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Dave.
>>
>>
>>George Lucas THX specifications require dipole speakers for the
>>surround speakers.
>>
>>These provide a better surround sound environment as the sound can be
>>generated going all directions from the two surround speakers eg behind
>>and side.
>>
>>However now there are 6.1 and 7.1 receivers eg two side surround
>>speakers as well as 1(2) rear surround speakers, these dipole speakers
>>will become less important in the home theatre setup as these extra
>>speakers will result in the sound coming from all directions eg plane
>>fly overs etc.
>
>
> I though that THX was the only format with 7.1 (ie: 8 separate channels as
> opposed to Dolby Digital EX and friends which are only 6.1)?
>
> In that instance wouldn't THX requiring dipoles imply that they are not
> obsolete (or less important) with 7.1?
>
> Sorry if this is a silly question.
>
> Regards,
> Dave.
>
>
DTS ES is 7.1 (discrete)?

I know nothing about dipoles, but was looking into them in the hope I
could hook my 7.1 amp to one pair .... ie: SR SB(R) to one and SL SB(L)
to the other .... would mean less boxes hanging off the wall.

Is this (not) what they are for (I am genuinely asking)? or am I better
leaving the 4 surround speakers where they are (even though the wife
hates the look of 2 extra speakers).

Chops

[SA000584]

Dave Wrote:
> "SA000584" <SA000584.1lx5r3@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:SA000584.1lx5r3@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
> >
> > Dave Wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I see a number of the mid-range speaker setups (Jamo, Morandt) are
> >> using
> >> dipole surrounds thesedays...
> >>
> >> I'm not convinced that dipole is the way to go given that they (at
> >> least
> >> appear to) direct sound away from where it is supposed to be going.
> >>
> >> Are there any benefits to dipoles that I'm missing here?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Dave.
> >
> >
> > George Lucas THX specifications require dipole speakers for the
> > surround speakers.
> >
> > These provide a better surround sound environment as the sound can
> be
> > generated going all directions from the two surround speakers eg
> behind
> > and side.
> >
> > However now there are 6.1 and 7.1 receivers eg two side surround
> > speakers as well as 1(2) rear surround speakers, these dipole
> speakers
> > will become less important in the home theatre setup as these extra
> > speakers will result in the sound coming from all directions eg
> plane
> > fly overs etc.
>
> I though that THX was the only format with 7.1 (ie: 8 separate channels
> as
> opposed to Dolby Digital EX and friends which are only 6.1)?
>
> In that instance wouldn't THX requiring dipoles imply that they are
> not
> obsolete (or less important) with 7.1?
>
> Sorry if this is a silly question.
>
> Regards,
> Dave.


THX is not a sound format. THX certification is about the design and
quality of your overall home theatre set up eg quality speakers,
quality cables, quality receiver, quality dvd and then positioning of
all these components. The only sound formats available on DVD at the
moment of DD, DTS and their 6.1 offsprings. I wouldn't say the dipole
speakers are obselete, it is just that they wont be as important as
they used to be.


--
SA000584

[Dave]

"Chops" <Chops@nospam.supernerd.com.au> wrote in message
news:39o3vcF63lpt5U1@individual.net...
> Dave wrote:
>> "SA000584" <SA000584.1lx5r3@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:SA000584.1lx5r3@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>>
>>>Dave Wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi All,
>>>>
>>>>I see a number of the mid-range speaker setups (Jamo, Morandt) are
>>>>using
>>>>dipole surrounds thesedays...
>>>>
>>>>I'm not convinced that dipole is the way to go given that they (at
>>>>least
>>>>appear to) direct sound away from where it is supposed to be going.
>>>>
>>>>Are there any benefits to dipoles that I'm missing here?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Dave.
>>>
>>>
>>>George Lucas THX specifications require dipole speakers for the
>>>surround speakers.
>>>
>>>These provide a better surround sound environment as the sound can be
>>>generated going all directions from the two surround speakers eg behind
>>>and side.
>>>
>>>However now there are 6.1 and 7.1 receivers eg two side surround
>>>speakers as well as 1(2) rear surround speakers, these dipole speakers
>>>will become less important in the home theatre setup as these extra
>>>speakers will result in the sound coming from all directions eg plane
>>>fly overs etc.
>>
>>
>> I though that THX was the only format with 7.1 (ie: 8 separate channels
>> as opposed to Dolby Digital EX and friends which are only 6.1)?
>>
>> In that instance wouldn't THX requiring dipoles imply that they are not
>> obsolete (or less important) with 7.1?
>>
>> Sorry if this is a silly question.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave.
> DTS ES is 7.1 (discrete)?
>
> I know nothing about dipoles, but was looking into them in the hope I
> could hook my 7.1 amp to one pair .... ie: SR SB(R) to one and SL SB(L) to
> the other .... would mean less boxes hanging off the wall.
>
> Is this (not) what they are for (I am genuinely asking)? or am I better
> leaving the 4 surround speakers where they are (even though the wife hates
> the look of 2 extra speakers).

As far as I understand, the dipoles are essentially 2 speakers acting on the
same channel, but dispersing the sound over a wider area so its not as
localised - but this is a bit of a tradeoff as the surround channels are
meant to be localised.

Hence as I understand it 5.1 with dipoles will get you a more "fuller" sound
but will not be as accoustically accurate as a 7.1 with single speakers.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here!

Now, 7.1 with dipoles apparently sounds really good, but again at a cost of
accuracy... not having listened to a 7.1 dipole setup I can't comment
myself!

Dipoles in 5.1 can also apparently be positioned at the back - they don't
need to be on the side or in the corner if this is important in a given room
layout.

Regards,
Dave.

[Dave]

"SA000584" <SA000584.1lyg21@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
news:SA000584.1lyg21@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>
> THX is not a sound format. THX certification is about the design and
> quality of your overall home theatre set up eg quality speakers,
> quality cables, quality receiver, quality dvd and then positioning of
> all these components. The only sound formats available on DVD at the
> moment of DD, DTS and their 6.1 offsprings. I wouldn't say the dipole
> speakers are obselete, it is just that they wont be as important as
> they used to be.

Thanks for the info - the sales droid I was talking to the other day proudly
proclaimed that Gladiator was the only film to be made to date with 7.1
THX.... guess I should know be know not to pass on things I haven't checked
out...

Regards,
Dave.

[SA000584]

John Wrote:
> "Dave" <jb99999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39peqtF61e6vlU1@individual.net...
> >
> > "Chops" <Chops@nospam.supernerd.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:39o3vcF63lpt5U1@individual.net...
> >> Dave wrote:
> >>> "SA000584" <SA000584.1lx5r3@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in
> message
> >>> news:SA000584.1lx5r3@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
> >>>
> >>>>Dave Wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Hi All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I see a number of the mid-range speaker setups (Jamo, Morandt)
> are
> >>>>>using
> >>>>>dipole surrounds thesedays...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'm not convinced that dipole is the way to go given that they
> (at
> >>>>>least
> >>>>>appear to) direct sound away from where it is supposed to be
> going.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Are there any benefits to dipoles that I'm missing here?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thanks,
> >>>>>Dave.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>George Lucas THX specifications require dipole speakers for the
> >>>>surround speakers.
> >>>>
> >>>>These provide a better surround sound environment as the sound can
> be
> >>>>generated going all directions from the two surround speakers eg
> behind
> >>>>and side.
> >>>>
> >>>>However now there are 6.1 and 7.1 receivers eg two side surround
> >>>>speakers as well as 1(2) rear surround speakers, these dipole
> speakers
> >>>>will become less important in the home theatre setup as these
> extra
> >>>>speakers will result in the sound coming from all directions eg
> plane
> >>>>fly overs etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I though that THX was the only format with 7.1 (ie: 8 separate
> channels
> >>> as opposed to Dolby Digital EX and friends which are only 6.1)?
> >>>
> >>> In that instance wouldn't THX requiring dipoles imply that they are
> not
> >>> obsolete (or less important) with 7.1?
> >>>
> >>> Sorry if this is a silly question.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Dave.
> >> DTS ES is 7.1 (discrete)?
> >>
> >> I know nothing about dipoles, but was looking into them in the hope
> I
> >> could hook my 7.1 amp to one pair .... ie: SR SB(R) to one and SL
> SB(L)
> >> to the other .... would mean less boxes hanging off the wall.
> >>
> >> Is this (not) what they are for (I am genuinely asking)? or am I
> better
> >> leaving the 4 surround speakers where they are (even though the
> wife
> >> hates the look of 2 extra speakers).
> >
> > As far as I understand, the dipoles are essentially 2 speakers acting
> on
> > the same channel, but dispersing the sound over a wider area so its
> not as
> > localised - but this is a bit of a tradeoff as the surround channels
> are
> > meant to be localised.
> >
> > Hence as I understand it 5.1 with dipoles will get you a more
> "fuller"
> > sound but will not be as accoustically accurate as a 7.1 with single
> > speakers. Please correct me if I'm wrong here!
> >
> > Now, 7.1 with dipoles apparently sounds really good, but again at a
> cost
> > of accuracy... not having listened to a 7.1 dipole setup I can't
> comment
> > myself!
> >
> > Dipoles in 5.1 can also apparently be positioned at the back - they
> don't
> > need to be on the side or in the corner if this is important in a
> given
> > room layout.
>
> I prefer dipoles and it seems so do others:
>
> http://www.hometheatermag.com/loudspeakers/25/index2.html
>
> P.S. surround channels should be enveloping, rather than localised.
> This of
> course depends on the amp and how it handles delay etc., but after all
> we
> are trying to replicate a cinema here... :-)

Good artilcle John. Thanks. I read the THX website. It says the
specifications for a 5.1 setup is to use dipole speakers for the two
surround speakers, however when it talks about 7.1 speakers it is
silent. Difficult to tell whether dipole speakers are part of the thx
specifications in a 7.1 setup. Have you come across any articles
discussing this. BTW what speakers have you decided on buying ???


--
SA000584

[Trevor_S]

"John" <nospam@afp.gov.au> wrote in
news:4237d529$1@mail.netspeed.com.au:

<snip>

> I prefer dipoles and it seems so do others:

Pretty much disagree with that :)

> P.S. surround channels should be enveloping, rather than localised.

definetly disagree with that :)

> This of course depends on the amp and how it handles delay etc., but

and that :)

> after all we are trying to replicate a cinema here... :-)

and that !

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Dave]

"John" <nospam@afp.gov.au> wrote in message
news:4237d529$1@mail.netspeed.com.au...
> "Dave" <jb99999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39peqtF61e6vlU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Chops" <Chops@nospam.supernerd.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:39o3vcF63lpt5U1@individual.net...
>>> Dave wrote:
>>>> "SA000584" <SA000584.1lx5r3@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:SA000584.1lx5r3@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>>>>
>>>>>Dave Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see a number of the mid-range speaker setups (Jamo, Morandt) are
>>>>>>using
>>>>>>dipole surrounds thesedays...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not convinced that dipole is the way to go given that they (at
>>>>>>least
>>>>>>appear to) direct sound away from where it is supposed to be going.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are there any benefits to dipoles that I'm missing here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>Dave.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>George Lucas THX specifications require dipole speakers for the
>>>>>surround speakers.
>>>>>
>>>>>These provide a better surround sound environment as the sound can be
>>>>>generated going all directions from the two surround speakers eg behind
>>>>>and side.
>>>>>
>>>>>However now there are 6.1 and 7.1 receivers eg two side surround
>>>>>speakers as well as 1(2) rear surround speakers, these dipole speakers
>>>>>will become less important in the home theatre setup as these extra
>>>>>speakers will result in the sound coming from all directions eg plane
>>>>>fly overs etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I though that THX was the only format with 7.1 (ie: 8 separate channels
>>>> as opposed to Dolby Digital EX and friends which are only 6.1)?
>>>>
>>>> In that instance wouldn't THX requiring dipoles imply that they are not
>>>> obsolete (or less important) with 7.1?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry if this is a silly question.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave.
>>> DTS ES is 7.1 (discrete)?
>>>
>>> I know nothing about dipoles, but was looking into them in the hope I
>>> could hook my 7.1 amp to one pair .... ie: SR SB(R) to one and SL SB(L)
>>> to the other .... would mean less boxes hanging off the wall.
>>>
>>> Is this (not) what they are for (I am genuinely asking)? or am I better
>>> leaving the 4 surround speakers where they are (even though the wife
>>> hates the look of 2 extra speakers).
>>
>> As far as I understand, the dipoles are essentially 2 speakers acting on
>> the same channel, but dispersing the sound over a wider area so its not
>> as localised - but this is a bit of a tradeoff as the surround channels
>> are meant to be localised.
>>
>> Hence as I understand it 5.1 with dipoles will get you a more "fuller"
>> sound but will not be as accoustically accurate as a 7.1 with single
>> speakers. Please correct me if I'm wrong here!
>>
>> Now, 7.1 with dipoles apparently sounds really good, but again at a cost
>> of accuracy... not having listened to a 7.1 dipole setup I can't comment
>> myself!
>>
>> Dipoles in 5.1 can also apparently be positioned at the back - they don't
>> need to be on the side or in the corner if this is important in a given
>> room layout.
>
> I prefer dipoles and it seems so do others:
>
> http://www.hometheatermag.com/loudspeakers/25/index2.html
>
> P.S. surround channels should be enveloping, rather than localised. This
> of course depends on the amp and how it handles delay etc., but after all
> we are trying to replicate a cinema here... :-)

Thats a great arcticle John!

I'm pretty much convinced I'll go with the dipoles now as I'll be using them
mostly for HT.

Thanks for the help.
Regards,
Dave.

[Dave]

"SA000584" <SA000584.1lzduc@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
news:SA000584.1lzduc@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>
> John Wrote:
>> "Dave" <jb99999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:39peqtF61e6vlU1@individual.net...
>> >
>> > "Chops" <Chops@nospam.supernerd.com.au> wrote in message
>> > news:39o3vcF63lpt5U1@individual.net...
>> >> Dave wrote:
>> >>> "SA000584" <SA000584.1lx5r3@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in
>> message
>> >>> news:SA000584.1lx5r3@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>> >>>
>> >>>>Dave Wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Hi All,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>I see a number of the mid-range speaker setups (Jamo, Morandt)
>> are
>> >>>>>using
>> >>>>>dipole surrounds thesedays...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>I'm not convinced that dipole is the way to go given that they
>> (at
>> >>>>>least
>> >>>>>appear to) direct sound away from where it is supposed to be
>> going.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Are there any benefits to dipoles that I'm missing here?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Thanks,
>> >>>>>Dave.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>George Lucas THX specifications require dipole speakers for the
>> >>>>surround speakers.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>These provide a better surround sound environment as the sound can
>> be
>> >>>>generated going all directions from the two surround speakers eg
>> behind
>> >>>>and side.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>However now there are 6.1 and 7.1 receivers eg two side surround
>> >>>>speakers as well as 1(2) rear surround speakers, these dipole
>> speakers
>> >>>>will become less important in the home theatre setup as these
>> extra
>> >>>>speakers will result in the sound coming from all directions eg
>> plane
>> >>>>fly overs etc.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I though that THX was the only format with 7.1 (ie: 8 separate
>> channels
>> >>> as opposed to Dolby Digital EX and friends which are only 6.1)?
>> >>>
>> >>> In that instance wouldn't THX requiring dipoles imply that they are
>> not
>> >>> obsolete (or less important) with 7.1?
>> >>>
>> >>> Sorry if this is a silly question.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Dave.
>> >> DTS ES is 7.1 (discrete)?
>> >>
>> >> I know nothing about dipoles, but was looking into them in the hope
>> I
>> >> could hook my 7.1 amp to one pair .... ie: SR SB(R) to one and SL
>> SB(L)
>> >> to the other .... would mean less boxes hanging off the wall.
>> >>
>> >> Is this (not) what they are for (I am genuinely asking)? or am I
>> better
>> >> leaving the 4 surround speakers where they are (even though the
>> wife
>> >> hates the look of 2 extra speakers).
>> >
>> > As far as I understand, the dipoles are essentially 2 speakers acting
>> on
>> > the same channel, but dispersing the sound over a wider area so its
>> not as
>> > localised - but this is a bit of a tradeoff as the surround channels
>> are
>> > meant to be localised.
>> >
>> > Hence as I understand it 5.1 with dipoles will get you a more
>> "fuller"
>> > sound but will not be as accoustically accurate as a 7.1 with single
>> > speakers. Please correct me if I'm wrong here!
>> >
>> > Now, 7.1 with dipoles apparently sounds really good, but again at a
>> cost
>> > of accuracy... not having listened to a 7.1 dipole setup I can't
>> comment
>> > myself!
>> >
>> > Dipoles in 5.1 can also apparently be positioned at the back - they
>> don't
>> > need to be on the side or in the corner if this is important in a
>> given
>> > room layout.
>>
>> I prefer dipoles and it seems so do others:
>>
>> http://www.hometheatermag.com/loudspeakers/25/index2.html
>>
>> P.S. surround channels should be enveloping, rather than localised.
>> This of
>> course depends on the amp and how it handles delay etc., but after all
>> we
>> are trying to replicate a cinema here... :-)
>
> Good artilcle John. Thanks. I read the THX website. It says the
> specifications for a 5.1 setup is to use dipole speakers for the two
> surround speakers, however when it talks about 7.1 speakers it is
> silent. Difficult to tell whether dipole speakers are part of the thx
> specifications in a 7.1 setup. Have you come across any articles
> discussing this. BTW what speakers have you decided on buying ???

Probably going with the DB Dynamics Vega F45's.

Two reasons primarily - the dipole surrounds are quite small compared to the
Accusound ES-60's and the wife likes the look of them better!

I can't really tell the difference in sound between the two but I also
haven't had a side-by-side test either as no-one retailer had both sets of
speakers available.

Regards,
Dave.

[John]

"Trevor_S" <bill@gates.com> wrote in message
news:1110969049.5cc17ff2e1face1e0fa302119d08edde@t eranews...
> "John" <nospam@afp.gov.au> wrote in
> news:4237d529$1@mail.netspeed.com.au:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I prefer dipoles and it seems so do others:
>
> Pretty much disagree with that :)
>
>> P.S. surround channels should be enveloping, rather than localised.
>
> definetly disagree with that :)
>
>> This of course depends on the amp and how it handles delay etc., but
>
> and that :)
>
>> after all we are trying to replicate a cinema here... :-)
>
> and that !

At least I score a 100% disagreement ratio! :-)

I guess disagreement drives variation, which drives choice, which gives us
innovation. And that, has to be a good thing! :-)

(I used to have, and promote, point source rears untill I'd heard some
really good setups using dipoles. Then I was sold...)

[Trevor_S]

"John" <nospam@afp.gov.au> wrote in
news:42394e78$1@mail.netspeed.com.au:

<snip>

> At least I score a 100% disagreement ratio! :-)

Indeed ! :)

> I guess disagreement drives variation, which drives choice, which
> gives us innovation. And that, has to be a good thing! :-)

To a point.. as long as those that read things like this realise the
glaring "errors" in the assumptions made (all IMO of course) and then use
that to make the decision.

It all comes down to what you want to do, the point of sound in home
theatre for me is to replicate the sound track faithfully, 50% of the
experience is the sound, on this I agreew with George Lucas, try watching
it with the Amp off, I do not want to replicate the shitty sound found in
a cinema.

The entire point is you CAN'T replicate the sound track with dipoles,
once you except that, you can move on and ignore dipoles as an option :)

The quality of ths sound in my HT is significantly better then any cinema
I have been in (that being said, I have not been in ALL cinemas), I have
no intention of replicating their medocrity.

> (I used to have, and promote, point source rears untill I'd heard some
> really good setups using dipoles. Then I was sold...)

I have never heard a decent set of dipoles for HT, the concept is
oxymoronic, all they do is muddy the sound and try and compensate for a
poor setup, they should have died when when analogue sourround sound
faded from being :)

but to some extent it's a religious debate, one I normally don't get
involved in as it turns into a "bitch fest". People should use what they
want, in this instance I thought I would pop my head into this to provide
a contrarian viewpoint in case those not in the know thought this was the
"way to go".

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Peter Allen]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:18:07 GMT, "Trevor_S" <bill@gates.com> wrote:

>
>I have never heard a decent set of dipoles for HT, the concept is
>oxymoronic, all they do is muddy the sound and try and compensate for a
>poor setup, they should have died when when analogue sourround sound
>faded from being :)
>
>but to some extent it's a religious debate, one I normally don't get
>involved in as it turns into a "bitch fest". People should use what they
>want, in this instance I thought I would pop my head into this to provide
>a contrarian viewpoint in case those not in the know thought this was the
>"way to go".

I wasn't going to contribute to this thread, but I'll make the comment
that all my reading, which includes high end HT publications like the
US Widescreen Review, and various audio magazines has lead me to
believe that the following is the consensus view and one that makes
sense to me:

###
1. The aim is not to reproduce the way audio is generated in cinemas;
it is to generate as closely as possible the sound originally wanted
by the sound engineer.

The two clash in that it is impossible for everyone in a cinema to be
in the sweet spot - some are at the front, the back and the sides. A
cinema sound setup has to try and make the sound "good enough" for
everyone, not just those few at any space's "sweet spot". By contrast
the home setup can generally be more geared to optimization of and for
the sweet spot, generally assuming there is usually only one, perhaps
two, people in any household who care a hoot about such matters (there
will be exceptions!).

2. A home surround system, as well as film sound, has to reproduce
music and other "straight" audio (principally DVD-V, but also, for
some, pure sources [ie w/o video] such as SACD or DVD-A). THX
specifications are only for films, and are not regarded as gospel,
whatever the virtues of THX's admirable and successful attempt to
standardize and improve sound in cinemas.

The recommendations for music reproduction are unambiguous; all
speakers should ideally be identical, and directional. The reasoning
for the rear speakers is the same as for the front speakers. A dipole
pair may please by their diffusing effect, but for the exact same
reason they are inaccurate, and mess with the stereo effect intended.

My magazine sources argue that directional speakers should be used for
both film and music surround, and that this does not damage the sense
of diffused ambience if that is how the surround has been engineered.
Dipole speakers, I assume, would emphasize that diffused sound, and in
that context this is no great fault. OTOH, if precise directional
effects are engineered into the recording, then rear dipoles have a
deleterious effect.
###

I emphasize that the above is a distillation of my reading on this
subject, presented without sources because I can't be bothered looking
them out, although they are there in the house somewhere :-)

My own experience is that I wanted a surround sound setup optimized
for audio, so I have directional rear speakers, fairly well matched to
the front L/R speakers (same manufacturer and series, but one model
down).

On films (or music) with predominantly ambient surround, this system
gives no sense of the presence of two directional speakers providing
the diffused effect, unless one gets out of the sweet spot and too
close to one rear speaker (which you shouldn't do anyway). I imagine
that's a problem with dipole speakers as well, except perhaps the
sweet spot is somewhat larger (?).

Cheers,
Peter