Monopole or Dipole surround speakers?

[StevenSurprenant]

First off, here is an article that is worth reading about this subject.

Face Off: Surround-Speaker-Configuration Wars | Home Theater (http://www.hometheater.com/content/face-surround-speaker-configuration-wars)

As for personal experience...

I use Magnepan wall mount speakers for my surround system. For those that don't know, they are thin dipole speakers that are made to hang on the wall. I'll attach a picture to clarify this.

Anyway, I've had these mounted directly on the back wall behind my seating position and I thought they sounded fairly good except that sometimes I could hear the sound coming directly from them. To me, it was somewhat distracting. I got the idea of hanging them in the corners of the back wall and raising them toward the ceiling. I angled them to a 45 degree angle so that they acted purely as dipoles. The result was a tremendous improvement. The surround sound was much more prevalent and the room had much less of effect on the sound.

Anybody experience the same thing? Or do you feel monopoles are better?

[Feanor]

First off, here is an article that is worth reading about this subject.

Face Off: Surround-Speaker-Configuration Wars | Home Theater (http://www.hometheater.com/content/face-surround-speaker-configuration-wars)

As for personal experience...

I use Magnepan wall mount speakers for my surround system. For those that don't know, they are thin dipole speakers that are made to hang on the wall. I'll attach a picture to clarify this.

Anyway, I've had these mounted directly on the back wall behind my seating position and I thought they sounded fairly good except that sometimes I could hear the sound coming directly from them. To me, it was somewhat distracting. I got the idea of hanging them in the corners of the back wall and raising them toward the ceiling. I angled them to a 45 degree angle so that they acted purely as dipoles. The result was a tremendous improvement. The surround sound was much more prevalent and the room had much less of effect on the sound.

Anybody experience the same thing? Or do you feel monopoles are better?
That article is a bit old, isn't it? I though since fully discrete 5.1 came along -- granted, its mentioned in the article -- the verdict had come down on the side of monopole, but maybe there is still debate.

[StevenSurprenant]

That article is a bit old, isn't it? I though since fully discrete 5.1 came along -- granted, its mentioned in the article -- the verdict had come down on the side of monopole, but maybe there is still debate.

It's new to me. That's what happens when you drop out for a while.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That article is a bit old, isn't it? I though since fully discrete 5.1 came along -- granted, its mentioned in the article -- the verdict had come down on the side of monopole, but maybe there is still debate.

No there is no longer a debate. You can see over the last few years that dipole speakers are no longer important when you have stereo signals in the rear. They are slowly disappearing off the market as their popularity wanes. I see more bipolar speakers out there than dipoles.

The latest thing propagated by Dr. Floyd Tool is the monopolar array of loudspeakers in the surrounds like I have in my system. The sense of space is there, the ability to localize and non localize as well is there, and there is no phase issues or timbre matching circuits needed. I been using an array of monopolar loudspeakers for my surrounds for more than a decade.

[StevenSurprenant]

I suppose monopole would work as long as you you don't sit too close to them. I don't have that option though.

[E-Stat]

I suppose monopole would work as long as you you don't sit too close to them. I don't have that option though.
Our resident expert tells us that you need to embrace certain THX standards and ignore others. When you go to the THX website for home theaters, you find the following guidelines (http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/surround-sound-speaker-set-up/). You'll note that the diagrams clearly use dipoles for the SL and SB speakers:

Pic with radiation pattern (http://www.thx.com/files/2009/12/5-1-speaker-setup-400x300.jpg)

"Place the SL & SR speakers between 90° to 110° to each side and 2 feet or higher above the listener. " (that's what you should ignore) and the center should be below or above your monitor (that's what you should follow). Except of course if you should have a perforated screen where you find the obvious suggestion:

"If you have a perforated projection screen, center this speaker both horizontally and vertically behind the screen."

That's probably another case where he would say "ignore" since he can't detect any difference using the 12" mains to center height differential mounting guideline. :)

rw

[StevenSurprenant]

Our resident expert tells us that you need to embrace certain THX standards and ignore others. When you go to the THX website for home theaters, you find the following guidelines (http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/surround-sound-speaker-set-up/). You'll note that the diagrams clearly use dipoles for the SL and SB speakers:

That's probably another case where he would say "ignore" since he can't detect any difference using the 12" mains to center height differential mounting guideline. :)

rw

Here's a nice explanation of the differences... A Guide to Bipolar, Dipolar, & Direct-Radiating Monopole Surround Speakers (PART I) - Blu-ray Forum (http://forum.blu-ray.com/speakers/66471-guide-bipolar-dipolar-direct-radiating-monopole-surround-speakers-part-i.html)

When I set my rears to act as dipoles, they made the room seem bigger and the sound was more diffuse and less distracting. In my case, the preferred setup.

It's a funny thing...

He talks about comb filtering and such when using more than one speaker for the center channel and how terrible it is, but he uses an array of mono speakers for each side of his back surround speakers and then speaks about the virtues of that set up. In addition, his set up violates, as he has repeatedly and profusely explained, what the recording engineer intended when he created the recording.

[E-Stat]

Here's a nice explanation of the differences..
I've used dipoles since '76.


When I set my rears to act as dipoles, they made the room seem bigger and the sound was more diffuse and less distracting. In my case, the preferred setup.
"Act" as dipoles? What does that mean? I'm thinking from the perspective that a speaker is either a monopole, dipole or omnidirectional. In any event, that is the THX home theatre standard. Take it - or leave it - based upon preference. Ideally yours over that of others. :)

rw

[Swish]

I think they provide an excellent 'wall of sound'.

[StevenSurprenant]

I've used dipoles since '76.


"Act" as dipoles? What does that mean? I'm thinking from the perspective that a speaker is either a monopole, dipole or omnidirectional. In any event, that is the THX home theatre standard. Take it - or leave it - based upon preference. Ideally yours over that of others. :)

rw

I know what I said didn't make much sense, but I'll try and explain.

As you know Magnepan speakers are dipole, but the ones I have mount on the walls, which still make them dipole, but there isn't much room between them and the wall to get that spacious sound compared to the more traditional dipoles that sit out into the room. You can refer to the picture I posted to see what they look like.

The ones I used for the rears were pretty close to the seating position and away from the side walls so the listener got pretty much most of the direct radiation pattern from the panels.

What I did was to mount them in the corner of the room and angled them out at 45 degrees from each wall. That way, the sound level off of each wall was equal, but aimed at 90 degrees from each other due to the corner wall. I guess that you could say that it creates a dipole horn effect. From the seating position, the listener sees just the edges of the speakers and not the diaphragm. As you know, the radiation from at dipole at its sides (edge) is at it's minimum.

The radiation effect is a great deal more diffuse sounding and I no longer get the monopole effect which to me was very distracting.

This is total supposition on my part, but I think using the type of dipoles I have in this manner is better than using box speakers designed in a dipole configuration, (in my room) This would take a little experimentation to determine if my assumption is valid and then it would be a matter the personal taste of each individual. Room dimensions would factor into it too, as to which method is preferred. I don't think there is any right or wrong in a persons choice in this matter. Besides, I don't have the option of using side speakers because of windows.

Anyway, I like it and it works for the room it's in.

I hope that explains it.

[E-Stat]

As you know Magnepan speakers are dipole, but the ones I have mount on the walls, which still make them dipole, but there isn't much room between them and the wall to get that spacious sound compared to the more traditional dipoles that sit out into the room.
Got it. Wasn't sure if the surrounds were different than the pic of the fronts. They're definitely dipoles.

rw

[StevenSurprenant]

No officer, there is no blood in my alcohol system.

Now that's funny!

[bfalls]

I think they provide an excellent 'wall of sound'.

I thought side di-poles were supposed to do the opposite. With the sound radiating front and rear an ambient or surrounding effect should be the result.

I've use Klipsch RS-3 side surrounds in my 5.1 system. I also use them as side surrounds in my 7.1 system with monopole rear surrounds. A wall of sound has never come to mind when thinking or listening to the surround channels.

The RS-3s are specifically designed (as well as many other models) with the mid driver facing the listening area and two tweeters (horn-loaded in the case of the RS3s) facing front and back. The result is a null region facing the listening area with diffuse ambient sound front and rear. Diffuse, ambient, surround all sound to be more omnidirectional than a more specifically dimensional wall of sound.

[StevenSurprenant]

I thought side di-poles were supposed to do the opposite. With the sound radiating front and rear an ambient or surrounding effect should be the result.

I've use Klipsch RS-3 side surrounds in my 5.1 system. I also use them as side surrounds in my 7.1 system with monopole rear surrounds. A wall of sound has never come to mind when thinking or listening to the surround channels.

The RS-3s are specifically designed (as well as many other models) with the mid driver facing the listening area and two tweeters (horn-loaded in the case of the RS3s) facing front and back. The result is a null region facing the listening area with diffuse ambient sound front and rear. Diffuse, ambient, surround all sound to be more omnidirectional than a more specifically dimensional wall of sound.

I didn't consider that configuration, but it sounds like it should work well. I suppose it does considering that you like it. It shows that Klipsch was using their grey matter when they made those. BTW, they look nice too.

[StevenSurprenant]

Got it. Wasn't sure if the surrounds were different than the pic of the fronts. They're definitely dipoles.

rw

This is just a little bit of useless information.

Some people use dissimilar speakers for their rear surrounds compared to their fronts. I don't think it's a big issue and not worthy of any concern, but years ago when I first started messing around with surround sound, I had a mixture of different speakers on hand that I used. My mains were Quad ESL's, my center was Bose, and my rears were from Cambridge Sound Works. To say it sounded awful is an understatement. It was so bad that I gave up on surround sound till I finally bought matched speakers many years later.

What's interesting is the effect the rears had on the tonality of the fronts. The rears were at a reduced level so most of the time I wasn't even aware of them. However, I connected an EQ to the rear amp and when I would adjust them, it seemed like the sound of the mains were being adjusted. The point is that if the rears are too different, they will effect the apparent sound of the mains. For movie watching I don't think this is much of an issue at all, but I just found it interesting.

A system doesn't have to be perfect to enjoy it.

The most important thing I learned was how important the center channel was to the whole effect. Going from Quads for mains and a Bose for a center was like listening to two different systems at the same time. I know this all sounds rather ridiculous, but surround was just getting started and I liked to experiment. People didn't even have flat screens back then... Well there was one, but I think it was $20,000 dollars.

Anyway, I'm just rambling again...

[E-Stat]

This is just a little bit of useless information.
In the grand scheme of things, doesn't most of what we discuss fall into that category? :)


The most important thing I learned was how important the center channel was to the whole effect.
Amen, brother! I confess that as a coherency freak, it is most important to me. I recently upgraded the modest speakers in my HT up a notch. While I didn't change the surrounds, all three of the fronts use the same drivers. There is no mystery whatsoever to me as to why 100% of theatres use symmetric placement of center to mains.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Our resident expert tells us that you need to embrace certain THX standards and ignore others. When you go to the THX website for home theaters, you find the following guidelines (http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/surround-sound-speaker-set-up/). You'll note that the diagrams clearly use dipoles for the SL and SB speakers:

Pic with radiation pattern (http://www.thx.com/files/2009/12/5-1-speaker-setup-400x300.jpg)

THX standards are not quite the same as the THX speakers. Some folks understand the difference between the technical standards in regards to acoustics, speaker set up(as opposed to speaker design marketing), and visual immersion standards. The THX speaker setup works with dipoles, bipoles, and monopolar speakers.


"Place the SL & SR speakers between 90° to 110° to each side and 2 feet or higher above the listener. " (that's what you should ignore) and the center should be below or above your monitor (that's what you should follow). Except of course if you should have a perforated screen where you find the obvious suggestion:

"If you have a perforated projection screen, center this speaker both horizontally and vertically behind the screen."

That's probably another case where he would say "ignore" since he can't detect any difference using the 12" mains to center height differential mounting guideline. :)

rw

Don't put words any my mouth( for the millionth time). You don't know what the hell I am going to say until I say it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It's a funny thing...

He talks about comb filtering and such when using more than one speaker for the center channel and how terrible it is, but he uses an array of mono speakers for each side of his back surround speakers and then speaks about the virtues of that set up. In addition, his set up violates, as he has repeatedly and profusely explained, what the recording engineer intended when he created the recording.

Steven, once again you are too stupid to understand that the goal for the front speakers is totally different than the goal for the surrounds. The front speakers should be directional in nature so that imaging is tight and well defined. The surround speakers should be capable of presenting diffusion/spaciousness and directness, something that dipoles cannot do. My surround speakers are capable of doing diffusion, spaciousness and directness, which is exactly what a surround speaker system should be able to do.

Since the speaker system in my signature is directly designed and calibrated like a dubbing stage, it accurately represents what you would expect from Sony, Paramount, Universal, and every other studio that ports its cinema soundtracks directly to home media. I have other sound systems design around the THX, DTS, Dolby model which is the common setup for made for hometheater mixes.

One again you are showing a profound ignorance when it comes to home theater.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I thought side di-poles were supposed to do the opposite. With the sound radiating front and rear an ambient or surrounding effect should be the result.

I've use Klipsch RS-3 side surrounds in my 5.1 system. I also use them as side surrounds in my 7.1 system with monopole rear surrounds. A wall of sound has never come to mind when thinking or listening to the surround channels.

The RS-3s are specifically designed (as well as many other models) with the mid driver facing the listening area and two tweeters (horn-loaded in the case of the RS3s) facing front and back. The result is a null region facing the listening area with diffuse ambient sound front and rear. Diffuse, ambient, surround all sound to be more omnidirectional than a more specifically dimensional wall of sound.

Bfalls,
The RS-3 are a bipolar design, not a dipolar. Their forwards and rearward tweeters are both in phase at all of the frequencies they cover. There is no null in their outputs, just 120 degrees of sound coverage over the operating range of the speaker.

[bfalls]

Bfalls,
The RS-3 are a bipolar design, not a dipolar. Their forwards and rearward tweeters are both in phase at all of the frequencies they cover. There is no null in their outputs, just 120 degrees of sound coverage over the operating range of the speaker.

Well, you learn something new everyday. I did some research and found an explanation of the surrounds on the Klipsch site. They've always performed very well. I can't say I've found any fault with them.

I thought about purchasing the Emotiva ERD-1 surrounds since they're on sale @ $249/pr, but can't see how they would make an improvement. I may purchase them anyway to complete a 5.1 system with my ERM-1 mains and center.

W.D.S.T.


1) Klipsch Wide Dispersion Surround Technology surround speakers take a different approach to surround coverage than dipole and bipole surrounds.

a) Dipole models place drivers out of polarity to create a null on one axis of the speaker. It is popular to sit in the null, thus the loudest sounds come from indirect radiation from the speaker. A dipole, used in this manner creates a diffuse and non-localized rear sound field.

i) Some drawbacks to dipole surrounds include that the rear sound field is not confined to the rear. As much radiation is radiated forward as rearward.

ii) A dipole also depends on other surfaces in the room to reflect the sound to the listener.

iii) A dipole can only create a diffuse rear sound field.

iv) Finally, a dipole is very inefficient at low frequencies, as the out of phase bass cancels.

b) Bipole models place drivers on several faces, with the idea that the radiation is equal in all directions, like a point source.

i) The problem is that the drivers interact, and actually radiate sound very erratically, with a different frequency response in each direction.

ii) The sound field created is not coherent and as a result is not very realistic.

c) Klipsch WDST surrounds are very much like a professional concert array. The high frequencies, made directional by the horn, are arrayed at the proper angles to provide even coverage, or with the same frequency response in all directions. The single woofer is crossed over where it is omni directional, thus creating a system which truly radiates sound equally in all directions.

i) WDST models provide balanced direct and reverberant sound field to listeners. Since the response is the same in all directions, the reverberant sound filed reaching the listeners from other directions, is balanced spectrally with the direct sound, creating a coherent, realistic rear sound field.
Trey Cannon
Klipsch Audio Technologies
Associate Engineer

I use these for the sides in one 7.1 system with monopole rear surrounds.

[E-Stat]

THX standards are not quite the same as the THX speakers.
Who said anything about THX speakers? The pic I linked to clearly is about setup, regardless of whether or not the speaker was a "THX Speaker".



The THX speaker setup works with dipoles, bipoles, and monopolar speakers.
Obviously.


You don't know what the hell I am going to say until I say it.
So, do you agree with the THX Home Theatre speaker recommendation for placing a center behind a perforated screen?

rw

[StevenSurprenant]

Steven, once again you are too stupid to understand that the goal for the front speakers is totally different than the goal for the surrounds. The front speakers should be directional in nature so that imaging is tight and well defined. The surround speakers should be capable of presenting diffusion/spaciousness and directness, something that dipoles cannot do. My surround speakers are capable of doing diffusion, spaciousness and directness, which is exactly what a surround speaker system should be able to do.

Since the speaker system in my signature is directly designed and calibrated like a dubbing stage, it accurately represents what you would expect from Sony, Paramount, Universal, and every other studio that ports its cinema soundtracks directly to home media. I have other sound systems design around the THX, DTS, Dolby model which is the common setup for made for hometheater mixes.

One again you are showing a profound ignorance when it comes to home theater.


I really don't have time to get to you right now, but I will say that it's no surprise that if you would have some excuse. I'll be back, but do me a favor... My IQ is in the middle 130's and while that doesn't make me the next Nobel prize candidate, it indicates that I am not completely stupid. If you disagree with me, then fine, lets talk about that, but name calling is childish and lacks maturity. I have issues with you're "A" type personality and we can discuss that in more detail, but for now, let's act like adults. How about it!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So, do you agree with the THX Home Theatre speaker recommendation for placing a center behind a perforated screen?

rw

We don't use perforated screens, they don't work with digital projectors. I do agree with their recommendation if you have an acoustically transparent screen. THX also has recommendation if you don't.

[E-Stat]

I do agree with their recommendation if you have an acoustically transparent screen.
That wasn't painful, now was it?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I really don't have time to get to you right now, but I will say that it's no surprise that if you would have some excuse. I'll be back, but do me a favor... My IQ is in the middle 130's and while that doesn't make me the next Nobel prize candidate, it indicates that I am not completely stupid. If you disagree with me, then fine, lets talk about that, but name calling is childish and lacks maturity. I have issues with you're "A" type personality and we can discuss that in more detail, but for now, let's act like adults. How about it!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, you really are quite funny even if you are not trying to be.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That wasn't painful, now was it?

rw

I guess no more painful than your cherry picking my words. So what's the point Ralph?

[Mygaffer]

I have a set of dipole surround speakers and frankly I hate them. For me monopole makes the most sense.

[StevenSurprenant]

I have a set of dipole surround speakers and frankly I hate them. For me monopole makes the most sense.

I assume you've tried both, so I guess that there is no one shoe fits all setup. That's good to know.

[E-Stat]

I guess no more painful than your cherry picking my words.
Trying to clarify your position. In the thread about presence speakers you said that perforated screens are not used in home theaters. Since we see that the THX standards for HTs include them, I wanted to see if you agreed with those standards - or not.

If I were to invest heavily in an HT system, I would begin with such an arrangement for obvious reasons.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Trying to clarify your position. In the thread about presence speakers you said that perforated screens are not used in home theaters. Since we see that the THX standards for HTs include them, I wanted to see if you agreed with those standards - or not.

Those standards were written before digital projectors came on to the scene. While I do recommend placing the center speaker behind a acoustically transparent screen(woven), I do not recommend a perforated screen because it spreads the sound as it passes through the holes which dulls the highs, and scatters sound all over the front of the room. There is light loss issues, and moire patterns that also happen when combining digital projectors with microperf screens. So no, I do not recommend microperf screens, but I do recommend placing the center behind a acoustically transparent woven screen.


If I were to invest heavily in an HT system, I would begin with such an arrangement for obvious reasons.

rw

Since I have four hometheaters that use a acoustically transparent screen(not microperf), the question you pose seems just a bit strange.

[E-Stat]

Since I have four hometheaters that use a acoustically transparent screen(not microperf), the question you pose seems just a bit strange.
What question? So, you say you cannot hear the difference between a truly centered center and the more usual approach, yet you seem to embrace the concept anyway. I would also choose three identical speakers for the front.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What question? So, you say you cannot hear the difference between a truly centered center and the more usual approach, yet you seem to embrace the concept anyway.

This is correct, you can use both approaches successfully depending on whether you use a screen, or a panel. I also said that neither approaches supports a horizontally placed center speaker, which is the most common approach as well.



I would also choose three identical speakers for the front.

rw

I agree, and all of my system use three identical front speakers.

[E-Stat]

I agree, and all of my system use three identical front speakers.

"2 custom 4 way horn hybrid monitors
1 custom 2.5 way horn hybrid center monitor"

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"2 custom 4 way horn hybrid monitors
1 custom 2.5 way horn hybrid center monitor"

rw

And........what's your point?

[E-Stat]

And........what's your point?
Ok, then. Never mind. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Ok, then. Never mind. :)

rw

That's what I thought. Go down that path, and you will hit another brick wall.

[E-Stat]

That's what I thought. Go down that path, and you will hit another brick wall.
Apparently, the obvious contradiction in the quoted text and your statement went over your head. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Apparently, the obvious contradiction in the quoted text and your statement went over your head. :)

rw

Well rather than making ASSumptions, maybe you should ask some questions instead. My center speaker is identical to my left/right mains, I just removed the subwoofer module from it. Anything else you want to hint at?

[E-Stat]

Well rather than making ASSumptions, maybe you should ask some questions instead.
Ok. Do you really consider a two and a half way speaker identical to a four way speaker? Hint: read your signature line again. What does that have to do with subwoofers?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Ok. Do you really consider a two and a half way speaker identical to a four way speaker? Hint: read your signature line again. What does that have to do with subwoofers?

rw

2.5 way only describes the current configuration of the speaker. This speaker system has several configurations. Without the subwoofer modules, all of the speakers are full three way speakers. The center speaker has a HP filter applied at 160hz, which means it is only operating one octave of the two octaves it was designed for. This means it is behaving like a 2.5 way, not a full three way. The left right mains have no HP filter, so they are full three ways. The subwoofer modules makes them a 4 way speaker.

Is this clear?

[E-Stat]

The center speaker has a HP filter applied at 160hz, which means it is only operating one octave of the two octaves it was designed for. This means it is behaving like a 2.5 way, not a full three way...Is this clear?
I understand your description, but it certainly differs from the definition of 2.5 speakers used by everyone else. The key distinction used by other companies is the two lower drivers provide overlapped response with one extending higher than the other. The other advantage is that the crossovers are simpler. That is the way my current LSis work. There are two identical drivers at the bottom. Only one extends to the tweeter. Putting a high pass filter on the woofer to limit its lower response to 160 hz doesn't change the fact it uses a three way crossover. Most folks don't consider a woofer with an 80 hz cutoff to be a "subwoofer" either.

Thanks for the clarification.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I understand your description, but it certainly differs from the definition of 2.5 speakers used by everyone else.

Unfortunately everyone else didn't design this speaker, and if the designer says it is operating as a 2.5 way, you, everyone else, and I don't have the right to dispute it. It is HIS design.



The key distinction used by other companies is the two lower drivers provide overlapped response with one extending higher than the other. The other advantage is that the crossovers are simpler. That is the way my current LSis work. There are two identical drivers at the bottom. Only one extends to the tweeter. Putting a high pass filter on the woofer to limit its lower response to 160 hz doesn't change the fact it uses a three way crossover.

Other companies didn't make this speaker, so how they make their distinctions with THEIR speakers cannot be applied to this speaker.



Most folks don't consider a woofer with an 80 hz cutoff to be a "subwoofer" either.

The 80hz cutoff is the transition frequency between the midbass driver and the subwoofer. Is that clear?


Thanks for the clarification.

rw

No problem.

[E-Stat]

Other companies didn't make this speaker, so how they make their distinctions with THEIR speakers cannot be applied to this speaker.
Ok. It employs a three way crossover additionally filtered to reduce the coverage of the woofer.


The 80hz cutoff is the transition frequency between the midbass driver and the subwoofer. Is that clear?
Interesting. You supplement the "subwoofers" on the mains with four H-PAS subwoofers. You must really like subs. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Ok. It employs a three way crossover additionally filtered to reduce the coverage of the woofer.

That is your interpretation. You didn't design the speaker. The designer has a different interpretation, and he designed the speaker.



Interesting. You supplement the "subwoofers" on the mains with four H-PAS subwoofers. You must really like subs. :)

rw


The four H-PAS subs handle the LFE only. The front two speakers handle their own bass, and the bass from the center channel from 160hz down to 20hz. I like to keep the bass in the channel it is supposed to be when I can. In the center, I could not do it

I like clean sound and plenty of headroom.

[E-Stat]

That is your interpretation.
That is your interpretation!

"Without the subwoofer modules, all of the speakers are full three way speakers...The subwoofer modules makes them a 4 way speaker. "

No one disputes that 3 + 1 = 4!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That is your interpretation!


Wrong again, it is the designers interpretation. I didn't design the speaker.


"Without the subwoofer modules, all of the speakers are full three way speakers...The subwoofer modules makes them a 4 way speaker. "

No one disputes that 3 + 1 = 4!

rw

You have a penchant for stating the obvious......

[E-Stat]

Wrong again, it is the designers interpretation.
Since it is now the designer's interpretation to call a three-way speaker a three-way speaker, then we're all agreed. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Since it is now the designer's interpretation to call a three-way speaker a three-way speaker, then we're all agreed. :)

rw

It is also his interpretation that his center channel configured as it is in my system is a 2.5 way. I have no argument with that, and neither should you - you neither own the speaker, nor have you designed it.

[E-Stat]

It is also his interpretation ...
Also his interpretation? How many more answers are there?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Also his interpretation? How many more answers are there?

rw

Whatever....move along. Your stupid one liners are becoming boring as hell.

[E-Stat]

Whatever...
Never a single answer from you. It's black - except of course when it's white. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Never a single answer from you. It's black - except of course when it's white. :)

rw

Plenty of assumptions from you(should be your middle name) to fill in the blanks of your ignorance.

[E-Stat]

Plenty of assumptions from you(should be your middle name) to fill in the blanks of your ignorance.
Assumptions? Just attempting to follow your stream of contradictory responses. :crazy:

1. It's a two and a half way
2. It's identical to the 4 way speakers just without the subwoofer
3. Without the subwoofer modules, all of the speakers are full three way speakers.
4. if the designer says it is operating as a 2.5 way, you, everyone else, and I don't have the right to dispute it.
5. "Ok. It employs a three way crossover additionally filtered to reduce the coverage of the woofer."] Wrong again, it is the designers interpretation.
6. It is also his interpretation that his center channel configured as it is in my system is a 2.5 way.

Ever considered comedy? Reminds me of:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wfmvkO5x6Ng" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Assumptions? Just attempting to follow your stream of contradictory responses. :crazy:

1. It's a two and a half way
2. It's identical to the 4 way speakers just without the subwoofer
3. Without the subwoofer modules, all of the speakers are full three way speakers.
4. if the designer says it is operating as a 2.5 way, you, everyone else, and I don't have the right to dispute it.
5. "Ok. It employs a three way crossover additionally filtered to reduce the coverage of the woofer."] Wrong again, it is the designers interpretation.
6. It is also his interpretation that his center channel configured as it is in my system is a 2.5 way.

Ever considered comedy? Reminds me of:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wfmvkO5x6Ng" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
rw

Ralph, if you don't like any of the points your raise, tough shyte. As I have told you before, I don't give a damn about anything you post, don't give a damn about you, and don't give damn about trying to prove anything to you. If you don't like his 2.5 way distinction because it does not fit your narrow minded idea of a 2.5 way, fine - no sweat off my back or the speaker designer. Now...KMBA and DD.

[E-Stat]

Ralph, if you don't like any of the points your raise, tough shyte.
It has been your vaccillating between two different answers to a single question that has been amusing. Readers wonder: "what is the answer now?"

Back to the original question. There are no differences among things that are identical. Identical means "similar in ever detail".

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It has been your vaccillating between two different answers to a single question that has been amusing. Readers wonder: "what is the answer now?"

Back to the original question. There are no differences among things that are identical. Identical means "similar in ever detail".

rw

Ralph,

Readers wonder "what's the answer now?". My BS meter is off the chart, and you are comical.

All three speakers are the same speaker - THE SAME SPEAKER. As I have said before, he calls it a 2.5 way because of the way the speaker is tuned. If you don't like that so the hell what. All you have to do is remove the filter, and the speakers all have the same frequency response. I have explained this to you already, are you stupid? Wait....never mind...that question has obviously been answered. Why don't you go play with your fuses, and pretend you hear an improvement or something.....

[E-Stat]

Ralph,
All three speakers are the same speaker - THE SAME SPEAKER.
Except of course for:

1. The lack of subwoofer (3 way vs. 4 way)
2. The one octave high pass filter on the woofer.

Those differences (across a two octave range) render them not identical. Is the concept of "similar in every detail" really that difficult for you to understand?

Arrogance and ignorance don't mix well. Lighten up, dude!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Except of course for:

1. The lack of subwoofer (3 way vs. 4 way)
2. The one octave high pass filter on the woofer.

Those differences render them not identical. Is the concept of "similar in every detail" really that difficult for you to understand?

The system is a module based system, and the bass from the center is sent to the L.R mains = same frequency response of that channel even with the filter in place. While I could not physically place a subwoofer in the center position, it has exactly the same frequency response and timbre as the L/R mains. Same timbre, same overall frequency response, same speaker = equals identical


Arrogance and ignorance don't mix well. Lighten up, dude!

rw

Since you are the epitome of both, you should know by experience. And please, don't tell me what to do, deal with yourself.

[E-Stat]

While I could not physically place a subwoofer in the center position, it has exactly the same frequency response and timbre as the L/R mains. Same timbre, same overall frequency response, same speaker = equals identical
I see the dictionary continues to confound you. The obvious questions then become:

1. Why bother adding subwoofers on two of the three if the response is the same?
2. Why bother first filtering the bottom octave - then necessarily equalizing the three way center speaker (if the response is identical) to restore the response that you just filtered plus another two octaves to that of the four ways?

You're not making sense.

rw

[StevenSurprenant]

I'm not trying to get into this fray, but there is a difference and a reason for a 2.5 way versus a 2 way with the same drivers (2 woofers – 1 tweeter/horn). The main difference is that the 2.5 way is designed to maintain the same lower frequency output as a similar design with 2 identical woofers, but at the same time, have a clearer midrange. They sound different and that's why it's done. Another way to look at this is that the second woofer (the .5) is crossed over where the primary woofer begins to drop in output. If done properly, this extends the low frequency extension compared to using only one woofer. This method also reduces the lobing effect of using two woofers outputting the same frequencies and also changes the dispersion characteristics.

People who bought Newform speakers which had dual woofers and a ribbon tweeter complained about the woofer and tweeter not integrating. It sounded like you could hear the woofer and the tweeter as two distinct things. I have listened to these speakers and effect was very apparent. Their solution (mod) was to create a 2.5 way by crossing the second woofer at a lower frequency. They kept the crossover point on the upper woofer the same as it was designed.

Keep in mind that generally the difference between a 3 way and 2.5 way is that in a 2.5 way the woofers are identical.

Personally, and this is just an opinion, to me 2.5 way TMM speakers sound better than 2 way TMM, even with the same drivers. speakers. (TMM = tweeter-mid -mid)

If you think about it, there has to be a reason why the designer decided on a 2.5 way for the center. In all probability, he knows that a 2.5 way sounds better for clarity. Even though the center and the mains have the same timbre and the same overall frequency response, they don't sound the same. The center sounds better.

I was considering this design on my next speaker build since I have the additional woofers needed.

[E-Stat]

The main difference is that the 2.5 way is designed to maintain the same lower frequency output as a similar design with 2 identical woofers, but at the same time, have a clearer midrange.
Only recently have I replaced the front three speakers in the HT with Polk LSi 2.5 ways. As you indicated, only one of the two otherwise identical "woofers" is asked to perform midrange duty. The other is low passed at 200 hz. Bigger effective woofer with small driver midrange dispersion. The concept seems to work great in a compact package using 5.25" woofer/midrange drivers.

rw

[Hyfi]

I just love a good Ping Pong match

[StevenSurprenant]

Only recently have I replaced the front three speakers in the HT with Polk LSi 2.5 ways. As you indicated, only one of the two otherwise identical "woofers" is asked to perform midrange duty. The other is low passed at 200 hz. Bigger effective woofer with small driver midrange dispersion. The concept seems to work great in a compact package using 5.25" woofer/midrange drivers.

rw

I'm sure you already knew this stuff, but it just had to be said, that's all.

[E-Stat]

I'm sure you already knew this stuff, but it just had to be said, that's all.
Its certainly ok by me if anyone wants to call a three-way with a high passed woofer a 2.5 way. For all the distinctions noted, however, the center is not identical to the mains. That has been my point all along. It's just that for some reason, the resident expert is resistant to recognize such a basic fact. Everyone, except for this guy (http://www.queen-of-theme-party-games.com/images/scarecrow-wizard-of-oz.jpg) understands that the following two statements cannot both be true:

"The center speaker has a HP filter applied at 160hz, which means it is only operating one octave of the two octaves it was designed for..."

"it [the center]has exactly the same frequency response and timbre as the [four way] L/R mains."

I would have just acknowledged the obvious. "Ok, so they are not identical because the bass response is obviously different, but they share the same timbre" Why that is impossible for him to say is beyond me.

rw

[StevenSurprenant]

Its certainly ok by me if anyone wants to call a three-way with a high passed woofer a 2.5 way. For all the distinctions noted, however, the center is not identical to the mains. That has been my point all along. rw

It's odd how attitude or belief can affect what people say in light of what's obvious.

Off the wall... (read it at your own risk)

Many years ago I was discussing fate with a religious person and I made the comment that... since God knows all things, he knows what choices we will make in the future and so our lives are already mapped out and there is nothing we can do to change it. They argued that they have free will and that they could change their destiny, but I countered with, “ even with free will and God not controlling the choices we make, God still knows what our choices will be, thus our destiny remains locked...” yada yada yada...(in a circle)

No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get them to understand.

I even tried to explain it from a scientific aspect. I told him that everything in the universe obeys that laws of nature/physics. There is no randomness. No matter how simple or complex a system of particles and energies are, knowing the states of all the matter and energies, at any point in time, and the laws that govern them, we can accurately predict its state at any time in the future. I even went so far as to state that the human mind is, in a sense, a computer with finite computational abilities that will act predictably to any defined external stimuli. Because of all this, the future is predictable and hence... our fates. I lost him on this concept.

BTW, theoretical physicists have stated the above as obvious and of concern. We all feel that we have free choice and that we can change the outcome of any situation, but the logic of what I said above dictates that our actions and futures are already defined. Anyway, it wasn't until quantum mechanics indicated that there is a certain amount of uncertainty at the quantum level that there was hope that our futures are not defined and that our free will can allow us to direct the course of our future. I'm not sure if that's true. It might be that we just don't understand all the laws at that level.

Many people use weather as an example of the chaos theory, but it might be that we don't have enough data points or the computational power to predict accurately, so what we call chaos is actually the lack of data and/or accuracy of our computations.

I realize that what I wrote above seems strange in context with the initial subject, but it does show that all/most people have the ability to ignore the obvious, at least at some level. I suppose that if someone had the inclination, they could write a “Large” book detailing all the beliefs of humanity that defy the obvious.

As for saying that two differently designed speakers are identical, well that's just stubbornness. The speakers may be identical in every way, but changing the crossover in one changes a great many things.

I apologize, a head of time, if anyone thinks I'm speaking out of left field. I realize that my comments here are obtuse and in many ways irrelevant to the subject, but there is a certain amount of connectivity to the human issue of this discussion.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I see the dictionary continues to confound you. [quote]

And you obviously


[quote] The obvious questions then become:

1. Why bother adding subwoofers on two of the three if the response is the same?
2. Why bother first filtering the bottom octave - then necessarily equalizing the three way center speaker (if the response is identical) to restore the response that you just filtered plus another two octaves to that of the four ways?

You're not making sense.

rw

At this point it does not matter now. When the designer installed the H-PAS subwoofer system, he removed the filter from the center speaker so all three channels have the same frequency response of 80-50khz. You could not do this unless all of the speakers were the same, filter inserted or not. All frequencies below that are directed to the subwoofer systems below the left and right mains to give all three front channels a 20-50khz frequency response. There is no room to add a subwoofer below the center speaker or else there would have been one - the H-PAS subwoofers that handle the LFE are positioned there.

Before this change, the old 18" sub I had did not have a steep enough low pass filter(12db per octave), so there was some audible overlapping going on between the center speaker, and that sub which sat directly beneath it -hence the too much bass down the center of the room. This is why I used bass management to move the midbass from the center to the left/right mains. The H-PAS subs use a 48db per octave low pass filter, which allowed the designer to remove the bass management filter from the center speaker.

Since the configuration of the system has changed, that will be reflected in my signature. This should give you nothing else petty to argue about. Anyone that argues that the design of the speaker suddenly changes when you add a filter that limits its midbass capabilities is a different speaker(regardless if the designer gives it a different distinction based on its BEHAVIOR), they are majoring in minors.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Its certainly ok by me if anyone wants to call a three-way with a high passed woofer a 2.5 way. For all the distinctions noted, however, the center is not identical to the mains. That has been my point all along. It's just that for some reason, the resident expert is resistant to recognize such a basic fact. Everyone, except for this guy (http://www.queen-of-theme-party-games.com/images/scarecrow-wizard-of-oz.jpg) understands that the following two statements cannot both be true:

Ralph, any idiot knows that when three speakers look alike, are designed alike, have the same drivers, same everything, it is and identical speaker. Bass management does not change that fact.


"The center speaker has a HP filter applied at 160hz, which means it is only operating one octave of the two octaves it was designed for..."

"it [the center]has exactly the same frequency response and timbre as the [four way] L/R mains."

I would have just acknowledged the obvious. "Ok, so they are not identical because the bass response is obviously different, but they share the same timbre" Why that is impossible for him to say is beyond me.

rw

Wow, you are really stupid when it comes to how bass management works. If I use bass management at 160hz on the center speaker, and re-direct the output to the left/right mains(and their subs), all of the bass in the center channel will "see" the same bass drivers and sub woofers as the left/right mains. That means if you do a frequency sweep on the center alone, it will extend all the way down to 20hz just like the L/R mains do.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?.....wait never mind, the reason is pretty obvious.

[E-Stat]

Since the configuration of the system has changed, that will be reflected in my signature. This should give you nothing else petty to argue about.
I'm delighted that you now understand the meaning of the word "identical".

rw

[E-Stat]

Ralph, any idiot knows that when three speakers look alike, are designed alike, have the same drivers, same everything, it is and identical speaker. Bass management does not change that fact.
Except of course when one is a high passed three way and the other two are unfiltered four ways with an additional driver and cabinet. Don't you drive the subwoofers of the two of the three with a separate amp? Does the obvious still elude your awareness?


Wow, you are really stupid when it comes to how bass management works. If I use bass management at 160hz on the center speaker, and re-direct the output to the left/right mains(and their subs), all of the bass in the center channel will "see" the same bass drivers and sub woofers as the left/right mains.
Which for everyone who has a brain (except perhaps for the Scarecrow) understands renders the speakers NOT identical. I suggest you consult the dictionary again since you continue to struggle with the concept. Here, I'll repeat the definition again as I had in post 55: Identical means "similar in ever detail". Is that too complex a concept for you to grasp?



Why is this so difficult for you to understand?.....wait never mind, the reason is pretty obvious.
I have no difficulty at ALL understanding why a 2.5 way is NOT identical to a 4 way. Based upon your last post, I thought you had finally grasped the concept of "identical". I confess that I was mistaken. It certainly wouldn't be the first time!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm delighted that you now understand the meaning of the word "identical".

rw

Sorry Ralphy, but a filter does not physically change a speaker from one thing to another. The speaker was always an identical speaker, even if the frequency response of the speaker was altered.

If you are going to make the retarded argument(and pitifully petty) that you have three identical speakers, two run full range, and the center run as small somehow changes the physical nature of the speaker, then you are far more stupid than I originally thought.

[E-Stat]

The speaker was always an identical speaker, even if the frequency response of the speaker was altered.
Clearly the biggest reason why they are not similar in every detail has to do with the powered subs added to two of the three.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Except of course when one is a high passed three way and the other two are unfiltered four ways with an additional driver and cabinet. Don't you drive the subwoofers of the two of the three with a separate amp? Does the obvious still elude your awareness?

Once again, you don't understand the concept of a modular system, or bass management. All three speakers see the same subwoofer, and the center channel see's the midbass drivers of the left/right mains as well.



Which for everyone who has a brain (except perhaps for the Scarecrow) understands renders the speakers NOT identical. I suggest you consult the dictionary again since you continue to struggle with the concept. Here, I'll repeat the definition again as I had in post 55: Identical means "similar in ever detail". Is that too complex a concept for you to grasp?

What is too hard for you to grasp is a filter DOES NOT change the physical nature of a speaker, especially if it is inserted BEFORE the sound hits the speaker. A Dunlavy SC-V is still a Dunlavy SC-V even if its bass output is sent to another main speaker, or a subwoofer.




I have no difficulty at ALL understanding why a 2.5 way is NOT identical to a 4 way. Based upon your last post, I thought you had finally grasped the concept of "identical". I confess that I was mistaken. It certainly wouldn't be the first time!

rw

Yes, you are mistaken. Just like you are with so many things in this thread. 2.5 way only describes the behavior of the speaker as it is configured, not its physical description. I have stated that before, and still it manages not to penetrate your thick skull.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Clearly the biggest reason why they are not similar in every detail has to do with the powered subs added to two of the three.

rw

The powered sub is not integral to the physical design of the main speaker. It is an addition that sits under it. It has a separate cabinet, and separate amps from the main speakers that sit above it. All three main speakers output passes through them.

[E-Stat]

All three main speakers output passes through them.
You've mentioned that particular compromise before:

"I like to keep the bass in the channel it is supposed to be when I can. In the center, I could not do it"

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You've mentioned that particular compromise before:

"I like to keep the bass in the channel it is supposed to be when I can. In the center, I could not do it"

rw

Sorry, but I did not compromise anything. The overall frequency response of all three channels measure identically. That's the magic of bass management, and something that seems to escape you.

[E-Stat]

The overall frequency response of all three channels measure identically.
For the three speakers to be truly identical, the response of each would have to be the same. Summing doesn't count.

The dictionary continues to confound you. Again.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

For the three speakers to be truly identical, the response of each would have to be the same. Summing doesn't count.

The dictionary continues to confound you. Again.

rw

So, just because a SC-V has it output summed to another SC-V, it suddenly is no longer a SC-V? That is the most stupid shyte I have ever heard. I am done with this. I do not like dealing with people who are purposefully being stupid.

[E-Stat]

So, just because a SC-V has it output summed to another SC-V, it suddenly is no longer a SC-V?
I continue to refer to frequency response, not cosmetics. You know - that which we hear. Clearly, they have different response! Therefore, the response of two is NOT identical to the third! They are NOT similar in EVERY way and are therefore NOT identical.

In your new example using Dunlavy's, it would be like having two SC-Vs and one SC-IV. Similar to be sure, but not identical. More drivers and amplifiers = differences.

rw

[Woochifer]

I guess no better time than now to get my $.00002 in, right?

The problem with this whole topic is that the article dates back to 2000, when home theaters were in the middle of transitioning from Pro Logic to discrete 5.1. The THX standards at that time still mandated dipolar speakers for the surrounds. The dipolar requirement made sense when the surround speakers were trying to mimic a matrixed monophonic surround track played through wall-to-wall surround speaker arrays at movie theaters.

With 5.1 discrete, that requirement no longer made any sense whatsoever, and THX did wind up amending their specs a few years later to allow for THX-approved direct firing surround speakers. But, if you look at the list of THX-approved surround speakers on their website, you got a whole lot of discontinued and ancient products on there. Some of the speaker models on the THX approved list date back to 2000, before direct firing surround speakers could even be approved. Basically, manufacturers that participate in the THX program have to pay a royalty, and speakers have always been the spot where participation among manufacturers was relatively low. Paradigm, for example, has always made dipolar surround speakers that would easily make it through the THX approval process. But, like most other higher end speaker manufacturers, they don't participate in the program.

If you look at the list of THX participating manufacturers, the vast majority of them make amplification, processors, and/or displays, where the standards are more current and relevant. Speakers are where THX has languished. Their alignment recommendations simply follow industry practice. Generally, the 90 degree surround speaker alignment is recommended for 7.1 speaker sets, and 110 degree alignment should be used in a 5.1 setup, as that follows the ITU reference alignment that mixing studios use.

My issue with dipolar surround speakers is precisely because they diffuse sound tracks that might have been purposely mixed for split surround effects and depth in conjunction with the front speakers. With most modern movie soundtracks and multichannel music, dipolar surround speakers muddy up the precise surround placement in favor of a diffused non-localized sound. With older movies that have less directionality and with 2.0 matrix surround tracks designed for more diffused playback, then the dipolar surrounds make more sense.