Monopole or Dipole surround speakers?

[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.

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. [in response to:"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:


rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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. [in response to:"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:


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 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]

[QUOTE=E-Stat;371862]I see the dictionary continues to confound you. [quote]

And you obviously

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 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.