Monopole or Dipole surround speakers?

[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.