current opinion on bipolar - dipolar rear speakers?

[Tarheel_]

Back in the early to mid 2000s it seems these type speakers were the way to go. Over the last few years i've not seen or heard much about them.

Anyone have a comment/opinion?

I ask because a rear speaker upgrade is in the works for 2011. I now have 2 side & 2 rear direct firing speakers and I may reduce that number for 2 bipolar speakers which match my front 3 array.

[Geoffcin]

My last three systems have used either dipole or bipole surrounds. Currently I'm using Magnepan MC1's on the side walls and it's working very well. I've used both the Cambridge Soundworks S300's, and the Axiom QS8's with great results too.

[Feanor]

Back in the early to mid 2000s it seems these type speakers were the way to go. Over the last few years i've not seen or heard much about them.

Anyone have a comment/opinion?

I ask because a rear speaker upgrade is in the works for 2011. I now have 2 side & 2 rear direct firing speakers and I may reduce that number for 2 bipolar speakers which match my front 3 array.

Just my thought, but I think that with latest digital formats you are likely to get closer to what the producer and engineers want you to hear with direct-radiating, controlled dispersion speakers, than you are with dipoles.

At one time, I read some acoustic engineer recommending diapole speakers for rears (or sides), but this was probably back in the day of Dolby ProLogic surround. Also, it applied only to HT application, not SACD or DVD-A.

[Tarheel_]

Just my thought, but I think that with latest digital formats you are likely to get closer to what the producer and engineers want you to hear with direct-radiating, controlled dispersion speakers, than you are with dipoles.

At one time, I read some acoustic engineer recommending diapole speakers for rears (or sides), but this was probably back in the day of Dolby ProLogic surround. Also, it applied only to HT application, not SACD or DVD-A.

You bring up a good point, maybe with the lossless audio codecs now, there are no needs for bi or dipolar speakers. No wonder they have come down in price.

[pixelthis]

Back in the early to mid 2000s it seems these type speakers were the way to go. Over the last few years i've not seen or heard much about them.

Anyone have a comment/opinion?

I ask because a rear speaker upgrade is in the works for 2011. I now have 2 side & 2 rear direct firing speakers and I may reduce that number for 2 bipolar speakers which match my front 3 array.

They worked great when a more diffuse sound was called for, and I still see some
recommending them, but their day is passed, really. With precise sound going to all channels, why would you want to diffuse it? If the sound mixer wants that he can put in on
the disc, so their day has passed, really. Most prefer sharp accurate sound from all speakers these days.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Back in the early to mid 2000s it seems these type speakers were the way to go. Over the last few years i've not seen or heard much about them.

Anyone have a comment/opinion?

I ask because a rear speaker upgrade is in the works for 2011. I now have 2 side & 2 rear direct firing speakers and I may reduce that number for 2 bipolar speakers which match my front 3 array.

Personally, I don't think there is any place for dipolars anymore(this is just my personal opinion). I think there is a place for bipolar speakers, as there is no phase shifting of the front and back panels of the speakers. These days I believe that all speakers should remain in phase, especially those systems that serve the dual purpose of multichannel music and soundtracks. The bipolar speakers in my listed system will be replaced as soon as the designer of the speaker package finishes a matching design. I have decided to move away from non direct speaker designs because I think the surrounds sound better with an array of multiple direct radiators as opposed to bipolar speakers. From an equalization perspective direct radiators are easier to equalize than even bipolar speakers.

Dipolars were great when the surround channel was mono, and you wanted to avoid the "in the head" HRT effects of having a mono signal from two speaker blowing straight into your ears. Now decorrolation can be used at the studio level to eliminate that effect, and we can get a more direct or diffused sound from the surround channels without the dipolar dispersion pattern betraying us when played back.

[dwayne.aycock]

I have been happy with Bi-Polar speakers for years because they are so versitile. They are great for 2 channel sound as well as HT. They fill up the room without having to be played loud. They are subtle and IMO very transparent. Yes placement is a concern, but if you have the space, (like a man cave) and a Wife that won't complain about speaker placement, Bi-Polars are awesome! I have been very happy with the Mirage M-Si series, and have come across very little that surpasses them.
D.

[Tarheel_]

I have been happy with Bi-Polar speakers for years because they are so versitile. They are great for 2 channel sound as well as HT. They fill up the room without having to be played loud. They are subtle and IMO very transparent. Yes placement is a concern, but if you have the space, (like a man cave) and a Wife that won't complain about speaker placement, Bi-Polars are awesome! I have been very happy with the Mirage M-Si series, and have come across very little that surpasses them.
D.

I have the space and now run a 7.1 setup, but most (if not all) blu-rays come in a 5.1 mix. So it seems unnecessary to carry the extra rear speakers for blu. However, the AVR does a nice job applying the extra sound mix on HD channels to the legacy Dolby Digital.

Sounds like bipolar may be right for folks unable to mount the extra rear surrounds.