Setting up dipole surrounds.

[Coldwater]

I just bought a pair of Paradigm cinema ADPs would like to know how to configure them in terms of distance and level settings. Do I set them up as if they were direct radiating?

[cam]

For a di-pole to work the way it is intended you must put them to your sides up on the wall 3 to 4 feet above your ears at your listening position. Use a sound pressure meter to match the volume with your center and mains or do the best you can with out one. For your distance setting, measure from the speaker box to your listening position. Some people have put di-poles in back corners or on back walls because of limitations for mounting them in the correct position, but the best position is directly to your sides that way you will be in the null. Remember, the forward facing speakers are in phase and the rearward facing speakers are out of phase. If not put in the correct spot you could get some undesireable results.

[RobotCzar]

I know you are not going to like this, but dipole speakers are not appropriate for multichannel setups. All (true multichannel) fomats I have heard about require direct radiators (and narrow ones at that). The old Dolby Pro Logic format had a diffuse single rear channel (often using two speakers) for which a dipole might make sense.

True multichannel systems rely on direct radiation from the speaker to form the ambient sound field, reflections will only muck up the plan. Does this stop people from using di and bipoles in multichannel setups? No. And don't expect dipole makers to admit their speakers are not ideal.

I suggest you consult the manual that came with your speakers. If a manual did not come with your speakers, then returning them might be the best plan.

[Woochifer]

I know you are not going to like this, but dipole speakers are not appropriate for multichannel setups. All (true multichannel) fomats I have heard about require direct radiators (and narrow ones at that). The old Dolby Pro Logic format had a diffuse single rear channel (often using two speakers) for which a dipole might make sense.

True multichannel systems rely on direct radiation from the speaker to form the ambient sound field, reflections will only muck up the plan. Does this stop people from using di and bipoles in multichannel setups? No. And don't expect dipole makers to admit their speakers are not ideal.

I suggest you consult the manual that came with your speakers. If a manual did not come with your speakers, then returning them might be the best plan.

Yes and no. The issue is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be. I agree with you about direct radiating speakers as the best option for discrete 5.1 setups, but it doesn't mean that dipoles are wholly without merit.

The viability of using dipoles depends on the source material, even if it's 5.1. In my listenings, dipoles can be the way to go if the sounds mixed into the original soundtrack are largely ambient in nature, and you don't have a lot of sounds that are mixed into both the front and surround channels at comparable levels. Even with directional cues, so long as you don't have sounds mixed between the main and surround channels to try and create a side imaging effect, they can work with dipoles.

The formats themselves do not require direct radiators. The ITU multichannel reference placement that specifies the positioning for direct radiating speakers in monitoring setups are applicable to how 5.1 music mixes are done, but not necessarily for how movies are mixed. Movies soundtracks are mixed on dubbing stages with large arrays of surround speakers. The type of positioning with direct radiators that gives you ideal imaging with multichannel music will leave noticeable holes in the soundfield with movie soundtracks that are mixed with a lot of ambient cues in the back.

This is why Dolby's placement guidelines recommend that direct radiators be raised at least two feet above ear level and pointed directly at one another. The whole purpose of this is to diffuse the sound with mostly ambient movie soundtracks, while retaining the strong imaging cues that you get with multichannel music and an increasing number of movie soundtracks that get repurposed for the DVD releases. The ambient movie soundtracks are actually better conveyed with dipoles, and direct radiators compromise this even when those compromises are minimized by using the Dolby recommended placement. However, those soundtracks with stronger imaging cues are more compromised by dipoles, and are ideally rendered using direct radiators.

Paradigm is one of the manufacturers that recommends dipolar surrounds. They even post a paper on their website written by Tomlinson Holman of THX that touts the reasons why dipoles are desirable for multichannel music. I don't agree with it (I own a set of Paradigm speakers, but I opted to use bookshelf speakers as surrounds), but that's coming straight from someone who's had a major role in creating the current multichannel standards. Basically, neither approach is ideal for all sources, so it all comes down to which set of compromises you're more willing to make. Given that more and more movie soundtracks are getting mixed with well defined side imaging cues created through the surround speakers, the viability of direct radiators has risen, but there's still a lot of material out there that does sound better with dipoles.

[RobotCzar]

Yes and no. The issue is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be. I agree with you about direct radiating speakers as the best option for discrete 5.1 setups, but it doesn't mean that dipoles are wholly without merit. .

I agree that encoding (= recording setup) can make a difference. If one intentionally tried to use some omnidirectional mikes to capture room ambience and put that on the rear channels, then one might get a reasonable result with dipole rear speakers. But that is a waste of true multichannel. The idea is to have the rear speaker directly recreate the sound field reflections that were recorded by the multichannel array of mikes. Trying the utilize the trick affect of dipoles to recreate sonic ambience is redundant and very likely to muck things up.

In a way, the whole idea of diploles (or bipoles) is for the non-direct sound to simulate recording venue ambience (reflected sound). They, of course, are not doing this based on any real plan or encoding, they just give a suggestion of 3D sonic space. (Note: I love how my dipoles sound.) Unfortunately, this effect is exactly what rear (and side) channels are trying to do, but they expect to do it (establish a 3D sound field) with direct sound (i.e., the direct sound carries the reflected sound of the recording venue). The reflections of your listening room are just going to mess up the intended (directly projected) reflections carried on the rear channels. Ideally, a multichannel system should be set up in an anechoic chamber. With multichannel, you want to MINIMIZE the reflections of your room. Needless to say, dipoles depend on reflections from your room for their effect. Hence, dipoles and multichannel don't mix.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

In a way, the whole idea of diploles (or bipoles) is for the non-direct sound to simulate recording venue ambience (reflected sound).

Dipoles are itilized to mimick the soundfield that is created in the theater using mulitple speakers in a array. They were not ment to simulate any type of ambience, but to create a larger picture with fewer speakers.

They, of course, are not doing this based on any real plan or encoding, they just give a suggestion of 3D sonic space. (Note: I love how my dipoles sound.) Unfortunately, this effect is exactly what rear (and side) channels are trying to do, but they expect to do it (establish a 3D sound field) with direct sound (i.e., the direct sound carries the reflected sound of the recording venue).

The concept is actually to create two zones in your listening room. One of controlled directivity in the front of the room(great for imaging and clarity) and another is a reverberant soundfield(one of space by reflections). This is what is found on the dubbing stage, but implemented quite differently.

The reflections of your listening room are just going to mess up the intended (directly projected) reflections carried on the rear channels.

Actually, they spread them out, as if mimicking a surround array. That doesn't necessarily destroy the effect, but it sure changes its proportions.

Ideally, a multichannel system should be set up in an anechoic chamber. With multichannel, you want to MINIMIZE the reflections of your room. Needless to say, dipoles depend on reflections from your room for their effect. Hence, dipoles and multichannel don't mix.

You don't every want to created a overdamped room, and it really isn't neccessary to minimize reflections as much as it is important to control them. Dipoles do a very effective job of creating a reverberant soundfield just like you would experience in a concert hall. The reality is instruments and voices were never ment to be projected from the rear, unless called for by the score(Berlioz wanted a brass and voice choir for his reqieum spl?). Were dipoles become unsuitable is when you mess with the phase of the signal and that is why I prefer bipolar speakers for the surrounds rather than dipoles. Bipolar speakers do not have phase mismatches with the fronts, but can project a very wide reverberant field. Side and Center rear phantom imaging is easily heard and stable(something not possible with dipoles). Even when instruments are mixed in them, its position can be audiblly perceived.

[RobotCzar]

Dipoles are itilized to mimick the soundfield that is created in the theater using mulitple speakers in a array. They were not ment to simulate any type of ambience, but to create a larger picture with fewer speakers.

I don't really want to debate, but your statement is not my understanding of dipoles nor my experience in listening to them. I don't know what a "larger picture" is other than acoustical abience unless one means that the sound of an instrument is coming from a particular postition which is probably the goal of HT multichannel and not really approriate for music.

The concept is actually to create two zones in your listening room. One of controlled directivity in the front of the room(great for imaging and clarity) and another is a reverberant soundfield(one of space by reflections). This is what is found on the dubbing stage, but implemented quite differently.

You are describing the older dolby pro logic approach, which, again, is appropriate for special effects in movies, not music. There are not two zones in the original location. I don't doubt that some recording "engineers" are attempting to do what you say. The attempt is simply a misuse of multichannel and one reason that I think the commercial audio biz will blow it with multicannel (in regard to music listening).

Dipoles do a very effective job of creating a reverberant soundfield just like you would experience in a concert hall. .

I also disagree with this statement. Dipoles use your room reflections to make what you hear sound more reverbant and more lifelike. The effect, however, is artificial in that it is NOT based on what you would hear at the recording venue. There is no way for bipoles to accurately decode what happened in the recording venue. So, ultimately, dipole effects are recreations or, if you prefer, illusions. I really like my dipoles because they give a more satisfying sound with the appearance of "realistic" sonic abience. But, I am not fooling myself that what I hear is accurate to the recording venue. True multichannel has the potential to recreate the ambience of the recording venue, but not if you create artificial zones or go for dramatic spatial effects.