Speaker Characteristics and Why?

[E-Stat]

This statement relates only to low frequencies, not the mids or highs. This is quantified by the words "at low frequencies". At all other frequencies other than the low frequencies a dipole interacts more with the rooms acoustics than a monopole does.

You continue to lump a wide range of designs using completely different drivers into one case. Do you really not understand the difference?

By the very nature of a dipole(radiating 50% of its output towards the listener, and 50% rearward towards the front wall over its entire operating range) this is logically so.

Really. We're talking about side walls, remember? Apparently, you are unaware of room treatments and placement which affect the rear radiation. Makes perfect sense from a box guy.

A monopole only radiates omni directionally at low frequencies, but it is very directional at the mid and high frequencies, so by its very nature it would create fewer room born reflections than a speaker that radiates 50% of its output towards the front wall at all frequencies. .

You cannot be serious with this comment. Do you really think that the directivity of all driver designs mimics that of cone/dome drivers? It's fine by me that you prefer the sound of a box. Also taken from Linkwitz' text is the following:

The typical box speaker, whether vented, band-passed or closed, is omni-directional at low frequencies and becomes increasingly forward-directional towards higher frequencies. Even when flat on-axis, the total acoustic power radiated into the room drops typically 10 dB (10x) or more between low and high frequencies. The uneven power response and the associated strong excitation of low frequency room modes contributes to the familiar (and often desired :-( ) generic box loudspeaker sound. This cannot be the avenue to sound reproduction that is true to the original.

I, for one do not prefer the sound of the "familiar and often desired generic box loudspeaker sound".

This demands a large radiating surface area, because achievable excursions are usually small for electrostatic or magnetic panel drive. The obtained volume displacement limits the maximum bass output. Non-linear distortion, though, is often much lower than for dynamic drivers. Large radiating area means that the panel becomes multi-directional with increasing frequency which contributes to critical room placement and listening
position.

And more lifelike musical reproduction to these ears. Take your choices (and be honest about them)!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Ah. It would use one capacitor and inductor instead of two. THX certifies mediocre computer speakers. Does this have any relevance to the conversation?

THX certifies many types of speakers, not just computer speakers. A little context would be helpful.

I see. Your commentary has nothing at all to do with dipolar speakers. You don't like planars.

If they have the issues that were outlined in the link, you are right.

Speculate as you will. I follow empirical results confirmed by listening experience.

Your empirical results need context that you didn't include or missed.

Such is true using the typical monkey-coffin 45 degree models which have little in common with high resolution dipolars. Do you really not understand the difference?

The first THX dipoles were 180 degree designs not monkey coffin 45 degree models.

Sorry if you don't understand the Linkwitz data.

Oh I understand it perfectly now. The link defines a specific set of frequencies when it makes its claims, and that would be the bass frequencies, not the mids or the highs. This little tibit confirms exactly what I have stated.

Large radiating area means that the panel becomes multi-directional with increasing frequency which contributes to critical room placement and listening position.

A multi directional speaker WILL interact with the room acoustics more than mono directional speaker. That is a fact that cannot be disputed.

You asked for a definition of steering and were provided with such.

This not what I asked you. I asked you to show me a HT system with a "steered" image, can you give me an example of one? Panning in a soundtrack has no relationship to a HT system. So what you provided me with was a BS answer.

Certainly not by the standards of many, but I'm glad you're happy with your selections.

rw

I do not buy my equipment to serve the many, and the many does not buy my equipment.

If I used your standards to do what I wanted to do, it would only be half done at best.

[E-Stat]

THX certifies many types of speakers, not just computer speakers. A little context would be helpful.

THX certifies many mediocre speakers. Such can be found for $100 here. Is there some relevance to your comment?

If they have the issues that were outlined in the link, you are right.

By all means, argue that with Siggy's measurements.

Your empirical results need context that you didn't include or missed.

The link clearly talks about accurate musical reproduction, not home theatre tricks.

The first THX dipoles were 180 degree designs not monkey coffin 45 degree models.

So, since your commentary was for rear placement, how exactly would you place a true dipole in the back of the room? Obviously, it would not be on the back wall as THX placement dictates.

Oh I understand it perfectly now. The link defines a specific set of frequencies when it makes its claims, and that would be the bass frequencies, not the mids or the highs. This little tibit confirms exactly what I have stated.

I guess that explains why Linkwitz has produced only dipolar speakers for the past decade.

A multi directional speaker WILL interact with the room acoustics more than mono directional speaker. That is a fact that cannot be disputed.

Here again, you argue generics and fail to acknowledge the variance with dipolar speakers.

This not what I asked you. I asked you to show me a HT system with a "steered" image, can you give me an example of one? Panning in a soundtrack has no relationship to a HT system. So what you provided me with was a BS answer.

Sorry if you don't understand the concept. I would have thought your experience with the Ionsono system would have illustrated the concept. Remember your comments?

"and is unique in that it is designed to work with 3D film(or video) to give the sound as much depth as the picture has. It can place sound in extremely specific places in the theater(and I mean any place), and can place a whisper right at your ear, or virtually 300ft away 360 degrees around the head, over the head, halfway down a side wall, slightly off screen, and anywhere in space...The thing that blew me away was I was able to track a ball of white noise from right in front of my head(I felt like I could grab it), around it, and it flew away over my shoulder behind my head to about what felt like a football field away. They did this with several different effects, with ambience playing out of the entire array. It felt like I was outdoors, all I needed was to feel the breeze. They played an orchestral piece, and one by one pulled out each instrument in its own space and highlighted it. It was spooky fantastic.
"

I do not buy my equipment to serve the many, and the many does not buy my equipment.

Nor do I. To each his own. Enjoy your HT.

rw

[Jack in Wilmington]

Whew..........................That was better than the "Thrilla in Manilla" Thanks Guys.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

THX certifies many mediocre speakers. Such can be found for $100 here. Is there some relevance to your comment?

You still are missing the mark, and I think you are doing it to be funny, for which you are not. If this is the breathe of knowledge you have concerning THX speakers, quit while you are ahead.

By all means, argue that with Siggy's measurements.

I don't argue with measurements, and I don't think anyone else does either. People argue with people.

The link clearly talks about accurate musical reproduction, not home theatre tricks.

I don't think this discussion is about home theater tricks, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up. Accurate musical reproduction can be achieved with many designs of speakers, not just one.

So, since your commentary was for rear placement, how exactly would you place a true dipole in the back of the room? Obviously, it would not be on the back wall as THX placement dictates.

You don't put THX dipoles in the back of the room, you put them to the sides of the room.

I guess that explains why Linkwitz has produced only dipolar speakers for the past decade.

That is his choice, and other speaker designers have made other choices. That does not make his choice the best, it is just another approach.

Here again, you argue generics and fail to acknowledge the variance with dipolar speakers.

The only variance occurs in four octaves, there is no variance when discussing the other six.

Sorry if you don't understand the concept. I would have thought your experience with the Ionsono system would have illustrated the concept. Remember your comments?

"and is unique in that it is designed to work with 3D film(or video) to give the sound as much depth as the picture has. It can place sound in extremely specific places in the theater(and I mean any place), and can place a whisper right at your ear, or virtually 300ft away 360 degrees around the head, over the head, halfway down a side wall, slightly off screen, and anywhere in space...The thing that blew me away was I was able to track a ball of white noise from right in front of my head(I felt like I could grab it), around it, and it flew away over my shoulder behind my head to about what felt like a football field away. They did this with several different effects, with ambience playing out of the entire array. It felt like I was outdoors, all I needed was to feel the breeze. They played an orchestral piece, and one by one pulled out each instrument in its own space and highlighted it. It was spooky fantastic.
"


Nor do I. To each his own. Enjoy your HT.

rw

This shows your poor understanding of anything related to soundtrack mixing. Wave synthesis has nothing to do with steering. Why don't you just admit that there is no such thing as "steering imaging" HT systems and get it over with.

I will enjoy my multichannel music as well as my HT. To each his own is correct.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You continue to lump a wide range of designs using completely different drivers into one case. Do you really not understand the difference?

A dipole is a dipole, no matter what drivers are used. Any speaker that radiates in a figure eight pattern is a dipole. Now you can slug your way through this with the same pile of BS you already have, but it does not change one thing

Definition of a dipole:

The term dipole derives from the fact that the polar response consists of two lobes, with equal radiation forwards and backwards, and none perpendicular to the axis. This can be useful in reducing the stimulation of resonant room modes at low frequencies. It also results in high frequencies being reflected from any rear wall, which can enhance the naturalness of the sound in typical listening rooms by creating more diffuse reverberation, though in theory it could detract from stereo localization.

This defintion stands regardless of the drivers that are used.

Really. We're talking about side walls, remember? Apparently, you are unaware of room treatments and placement which affect the rear radiation. Makes perfect sense from a box guy.

No, you were talking about the side walls, I was talking about the entire room. Once again if you deploy room treatments, the you mitigate the very thing that makes a dipole a dipole - and that is the spaciousness acheived by the rear wall reflections. So why bother? Don't assume what I know, and what I don't know. When it comes to making assumptions, you are the king of kings at it.

You cannot be serious with this comment. Do you really think that the directivity of all driver designs mimics that of cone/dome drivers? It's fine by me that you prefer the sound of a box. Also taken from Linkwitz' text is the following:

The typical box speaker, whether vented, band-passed or closed, is omni-directional at low frequencies and becomes increasingly forward-directional towards higher frequencies. Even when flat on-axis, the total acoustic power radiated into the room drops typically 10 dB (10x) or more between low and high frequencies. The uneven power response and the associated strong excitation of low frequency room modes contributes to the familiar (and often desired :-( ) generic box loudspeaker sound. This cannot be the avenue to sound reproduction that is true to the original.

This is HIS opinion, and I am sure the designers of box speakers have another one.

You are still stuck in the low frequencies, what about the mids and highs? Once again, at low frequencies dipoles may interact less with the room, but at mid and high frequencies, it interacts more and more. Nothing you have linked disputes this at all. This is also supported by this

It also results in high frequencies being reflected from any rear wall, which can enhance the naturalness of the sound in typical listening rooms by creating more diffuse reverberation, though in theory it could detract from stereo localization.

A diffused reverberation is caused by multiple complex reflections interacting with each other.

I, for one do not prefer the sound of the "familiar and often desired generic box loudspeaker sound".

Your preferences play a no role in what we are discussing here.

This demands a large radiating surface area, because achievable excursions are usually small for electrostatic or magnetic panel drive. The obtained volume displacement limits the maximum bass output. Non-linear distortion, though, is often much lower than for dynamic drivers. Large radiating area means that the panel becomes multi-directional with increasing frequency which contributes to critical room placement and listening
position.

And more lifelike musical reproduction to these ears. Take your choices (and be honest about them)!

rw[/QUOTE]

It would be more life like if it were recorded in your room. Since it wasn't, your room's sonic signature (which is profound at mid and high frequencies) is all over the recording - which is not exactly what I would call an accurate, or even life like.

You need to follow your own advice. You made your choices, now YOU be honest about them.

[E-Stat]

You still are missing the mark, and I think you are doing it to be funny, for which you are not. If this is the breathe of knowledge you have concerning THX speakers, quit while you are ahead.

Do tell us the significance of wearing the "THX Certifiied" brand. Did they pay the appropriate fee?

I don't argue with measurements, and I don't think anyone else does either. People argue with people.

I understand completely. You were unable to maintain your original argument about monopoles vs. dipoles and changed mid-stream.

I don't think this discussion is about home theater tricks, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up. Accurate musical reproduction can be achieved with many designs of speakers, not just one.

I merely quote your reaction to the Ionsono system and the tricks with tracking white noise balls anywhere around your head. Geoff was right.

You don't put THX dipoles in the back of the room, you put them to the sides of the room.

So which is it? Here is what you stated earlier regarding rear speakers:

"This is counterintuitive to me, as the very purpose of THX using dipoles in the rear is for its diffusive effects which are driven by reflections generated off the rear, front and side walls. "

Should I completely ignore your previous comments? Which represents your current line of thinking?

That is his choice, and other speaker designers have made other choices. That does not make his choice the best, it is just another approach.

Absolutely. That is exactly what I was thinking when you made your pretentious claim about the superiority of monopoles over all dipoles. Obviously, that is pure BS and I understand why you abandoned that reasoning and decided to attack my speakers instead of discussing the topic.

This shows your poor understanding of anything related to soundtrack mixing. Wave synthesis has nothing to do with steering. Why don't you just admit that there is no such thing as "steering imaging" HT systems and get it over with.

Because you guys continue to steer the image (as you described in copious detail) ! Do you understand the Avatar reference? Have you heard that effect before? What term do YOU use to call that image movement?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Do tell us the significance of wearing the "THX Certifiied" brand. Did they pay the appropriate fee?

This is not relevant to the discussion at all, so I am not going to waste my time responding to this.

I understand completely. You were unable to maintain your original argument about monopoles vs. dipoles and changed mid-stream.

Likewise you posted a link that defined a point at certain frequencies, and tried to pass it off as applying to all frequencies.

I merely quote your reaction to the Ionsono system and the tricks with tracking white noise balls anywhere around your head. Geoff was right.

What relevance does that have to what we are discussing here. Stop trying to muddy the waters with useless BS.

So which is it? Here is what you stated earlier regarding rear speakers:

"This is counterintuitive to me, as the very purpose of THX using dipoles in the rear is for its diffusive effects which are driven by reflections generated off the rear, front and side walls. "

Should I completely ignore your previous comments? Which represents your current line of thinking?

Am I supposed to take you seriously here? You understand of HT language sucks big time. In HT when someone speaks of rear speakers(or surrounds), we are not talking their actual location. THX mandates placing the surrounds(or rear speakers as stated on the back of most receivers) on the sides of the listening space with its dipole "null" facing the listening seat. With this placement, the speaker will not only interact with the side wall itself, but the rear and front wall as well.

Absolutely. That is exactly what I was thinking when you made your pretentious claim about the superiority of monopoles over all dipoles. Obviously, that is pure BS and I understand why you abandoned that reasoning and decided to attack my speakers instead of discussing the topic.

I think you need your eyes checked. I never mentioned anything about the superiority of one thing over another anywhere. I said plain and simple that monopoles interact with a room less than a dipole does. I still believe this, and have proven it as well. A dipole may interact less with the room at low frequencies, but at mid and high frequencies it strongly interacts with the room via its rear reflection. Do you dispute this? A monopole may interact with the room more at low frequencies, but less at mid and high frequencies. Do you dispute this?

I didn't say a damn thing about your speakers, I was speaking of the technology. You take $hit much too personal for my taste.

Because you guys continue to steer the image (as you described in copious detail) !

rw

Steering a signal has zero to do with a HT system. I could "place" and object anywhere in a sound field without using a panning mechanism. That my friend is not steering as steering requires a joystick to move images from one place to another. If I place a sound effect in the left speaker, and another effect in the right speaker a second later, that is not steering anything. So cut the dumb $hit and admit there is no such thing as a "steering imaging" when we are talking about HT system. What if the sound track was never played back in a HT system, panning and all? Is it now called "steering imaging" theater system?

What you call "steering" is actually called panning. Steering is what the logic circuits in a matrix do in the pro logic format.

Give me a frickin break....

[E-Stat]

This is not relevant to the discussion at all, so I am not going to waste my time responding to this.

Fine. We'll ignore your earlier comments regarding THX compliance as they are irrelevant.

Likewise you posted a link that defined a point at certain frequencies, and tried to pass it off as applying to all frequencies.

You must have lingual problems with my posts. I quoted measurements and observations by Linkwitz. One might reasonably conclude, however, that the designer would evaluate the various pros and cons of the different designs. All of his designs are dipolar.

What relevance does that have to what we are discussing here. Stop trying to muddy the waters with useless BS.

I will follow your suggestion and consider all your previous comments as "useless BS".

Am I supposed to take you seriously here? You understand of HT language sucks big time. In HT when someone speaks of rear speakers(or surrounds), we are not talking their actual location. THX mandates placing the surrounds(or rear speakers as stated on the back of most receivers) on the sides of the listening space with its dipole "null" facing the listening seat. With this placement, the speaker will not only interact with the side wall itself, but the rear and front wall as well.

Take you seriously? Why would I do that when you have stated two different concepts in the space of a couple of hours. It would seem you have never visited the THX website found here.

Tell me again about using true dipoles. This is going to be quite amusing no doubt!

I think you need your eyes checked. I never mentioned anything about the superiority of one thing over another anywhere.

I will continue to ignore your previous commentary. Is there anything you've said previously that you stick with?

Bipolar speakers also engage a rooms modes and nodes much more efficiently than a front radiating speaker.

Some do and some do not. Ignorance won't help you here.

I said plain and simple that monopoles interact with a room less than a dipole does.

And completely unsupported by any proof you've presented - including discussions of single vs. double monopoles.

I still believe this, and have proven it as well. A dipole may interact less with the room at low frequencies, but at mid and high frequencies it strongly interacts with the room via its rear reflection. Do you dispute this?

Do you really think there is a single answer ffor dozens of different designs regardless of numerous variables? Really?

A monopole may interact with the room more at low frequencies, but less at mid and high frequencies. Do you dispute this?

Depends upon the model chosen.

I didn't say a damn thing about your speakers, I was speaking of the technology. You take $hit much too personal for my taste.

Your veiled insult was obvious in the absence of real content.

Steering a signal has zero to do with a HT system. I could "place" and object anywhere in a sound field without using a panning mechanism. That my friend is not steering as steering requires a joystick to move images from one place to another. If I place a sound effect in the left speaker, and another effect in the right speaker a second later, that is not steering anything. So cut the dumb $hit and admit there is no such thing as a "steering imaging" when we are talking about HT system. What if the sound track was never played back in a HT system, panning and all? Is it now called "steering imaging" theater system?

I will repeat the simple question wherein you presumably have a reasonable answer. What do you call image movement that runs in both X and Y planes? Is this another question you are going to duck?

Give me a frickin break....

That was exactly what I was thinking as you moved your argument!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Fine. We'll ignore your earlier comments regarding THX compliance as they are irrelevant.

You should have done that in the first place because THX compliance was never an issue in the first place.

You must have lingual problems with my posts. I quoted measurements and observations by Linkwitz. One might reasonably conclude, however, that the designer would evaluate the various pros and cons of the different designs. All of his designs are dipolar.

So damn what. All of John Dunlavy's speakers were sealed designs, does that make his speakers less capable than Linkwitz? No it does not, as I am sure he also has measurements and observation to support why he does what he does with sealed designs. Does this make all box speakers inferior to bass shy planars? No it doesn't, because not all box speakers sound boxy do they?. All speaker designs have strengths and weaknesses, and while a planar has no box, it also has no bass, fussy to place, and has too narrow of a sweet spot.

I will follow your suggestion and consider all your previous comments as "useless BS".

I will do the same with yours.

Take you seriously? Why would I do that when you have stated two different concepts in the space of a couple of hours. It would seem you have never visited the THX website found here.

So what the hell is your point here. I cannot see where my statements are in conflict with anything on the THX website. It is obvious to me that you are having trouble with HT language and that is all.

Tell me again about using true dipoles. This is going to be quite amusing no doubt!

I have already covered it already. Are you so blind that you did not see it? I guess it would be no more amusing than you trying to pass off link that addressed bass frequencies only, and tried to pass it off as meaning the full 20-20khz spectrum.

I will continue to ignore your previous commentary. Is there anything you've said previously that you stick with?

I don't give a flying fxxx what you do, and you should know that by now. You can go and drown yourself, and I wouldn't give a damn.

Some do and some do not. Ignorance won't help you here.

Whatever. I suppose you are going to use the driver difference argument again. All bipoles operate in the same fashion just like all dipoles or they would not be called dipoles or bipoles. It is that clear cut.

And completely unsupported by any proof you've presented - including discussions of single vs. double monopoles.

The proof was there, you just ignored it like you do with other things you don't agree with.

Do you really think there is a single answer ffor dozens of different designs regardless of numerous variables? Really?

A dipole is called a dipole because of its radiation pattern, and because the front wave of the speaker is out of phase with the rear wave.. There is no variable in that, and it remains that way no matter what kind of drivers you use. .

Like a bipole speaker, a dipole speaker outputs sound from both sides of the cabinet. The difference is dipole speakers are ‘out of phase’, which means that one speaker is outputting sound while the other is not, and vice-versa.

A bipole is called a bipole because of its radiation pattern and the front and rear waves are in phase. There is no variable to that, no matter what drivers are used.

bipole speaker are ‘in phase’, meaning that both speakers output sound simultaneously. Bipole speakers create a diffuse surround effect so the location of the speaker cannot be pinpointed

A monopole is called monopole because of its forward firing radiation pattern and there is no variable to that no matter what drivers you use.

A direct radiating speaker outputs sound directly into the room towards the listeners.

http://stereos.about.com/od/advanced...ssspeakers.htm

None of this has anything to do with drivers, or numerous designs. It is given its distinction based on its characteristic. It is just that simple, and when one makes it more complex, they are just BS'ing period.

Depends upon the model chosen.

Bull$hit, and you know it.

Your veiled insult was obvious in the absence of real content.

I don't do veiled insults. Either you are an a$$hole, or you are not. If you are, I just call you an a$$hole directly. No veil needed. The content was right in the link you posted, and are now choosing to ignore it. How convenient.

My comments were directed at speakers that are bass challenged, fussy to place, and have a constricted sweet spot. It made no distinction to who owned that design because I don't care about that. Now if you took it personally, that is your damn problem, not mine.

I will repeat the simple question wherein you presumably have a reasonable answer. What do you call image movement that runs in both X and Y planes? Is this another question you are going to duck?

Since there is nothing in any mixing tool box that is currently used that can move images in the Y plane, I call it nothing. In the X plane it is called panning, not steering. Steering is used in an active matrix format like Dolby Pro logic. We don't steer anything, we pan it. If you are referring to Iosono sound, it hasn't been used in the theater, so it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Even if it was, it would still be called panning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panning_(audio)

So, since your commentary was for rear placement, how exactly would you place a true dipole in the back of the room? Obviously, it would not be on the back wall as THX placement dictates.

Put on the glasses and look again.

THX placement does not recommend dipoles on the back walls, they are recommended for the side walls only. They recommend direct radiators for the back wall. Look at the speaker illustration again, you are totally confused.
I can't believe you could not see the difference between the side speaker illustration, and the center rear speaker illustration. You can't see that the center rear illustration looks like the L/R fronts? This is a "duh" moment for sure.
Once again (since it is obvious you didn't get it the first time) the term "rear speakers" in HT speak refers to the surround speakers that are placed to the sides of the listening position. If you look on the back of your receiver where you connect the speaker cables for the surround speakers, it is labeled "rear speakers". The label for the back speakers is called "center back" speakers not rear speakers. While this may not be clear to you, it is pretty well known in HT circles. I don't think I moved my position at all. I think you just do not understand HT language.

In a home theater, they are generally placed to the side of the main listening area with the poles firing to the front and back of the room, never directly at the listener. The result is that the sound bounces off the walls of the room, successfully emulating the speaker arrays of the movie theater.

http://www.dvdsurround.ch/berichte/t...ification.html

That was exactly what I was thinking as you moved your argument!

rw

Don't think I moved my argument as much as you tried to mislead with yours.

[Geoffcin]

Have a point to make? Make it!

But please guys, NO name calling.

[theaudiohobby]

A monopole may interact with the room more at low frequencies, but less at mid and high frequencies. Do you dispute this?

Depends upon the model chosen.

Not so, dipoles always interact more with the room at mid and high frequencies in comparison to monopoles. At low frequencies, dipoles interact less with room due to dipole cancellation but the side-effect is probably worse, decreased bass power as the wave and the anti-wave increasingly cancel each other out. A curved pane reduces the anti-wave radiation towards the rear boundary at the expense of increased radiation toward the side boundaries, there is no free lunch.

Those interested in a graphical illustration please open this link

[E-Stat]

So what the hell is your point here. I cannot see where my statements are in conflict with anything on the THX website.

Hmmm. First you say:

"In HT, bipolar speaker belong in the rear..."

Yet, later you say:

"You don't put THX dipoles in the back of the room..."

So, which answer is it?

Whatever. I suppose you are going to use the driver difference argument again. All bipoles operate in the same fashion just like all dipoles or they would not be called dipoles or bipoles. It is that clear cut.

Only to those who have no understanding of dispersion. Forget dipoles for a moment. Do all monopoles, regardless of driver design radiate the same ? Obviously not!

The proof was there, you just ignored it like you do with other things you don't agree with.

Using single vs. double monopoles to prove the difference between monopoles and dipoles? That is hilarious!

]Bull$hit, and you know it.

What I know is that you ignore dispersion. Do you understand that concept? Ever heard of beaming? Ever notice that the sound of dome tweeters sounds pretty much the same even off axis? Are these observations beyond your comprehension?

My comments were directed at speakers that are bass challenged, fussy to place, and have a constricted sweet spot.

What does any of that have to do with the alleged room interaction of monopoles vs. dipoles?

We don't steer anything, we pan it.

Choose whatever term you wish to identify the movement of a sound source within the field. Such happens frequently in movies and never in music (short of theatrical tricks). Do you understand the difference?

THX placement does not recommend dipoles on the back walls

Exactly my point which conflicts with your statement:


"In HT, bipolar speaker belong in the rear..."

They do NOT belong in the rear. They belong on the sides. You remain confused about your rear.

This is a "duh" moment for sure.
Once again (since it is obvious you didn't get it the first time) the term "rear speakers" in HT speak refers to the surround speakers that are placed to the sides of the listening position. If you look on the back of your receiver where you connect the speaker cables for the surround speakers, it is labeled "rear speakers".

Indeed, it is! Your assertion is not supported by fact. When I look at the back of my receiver, the jacks are referred to as "left and right surround". The THX website concurs with NAD's usage and the word "rear" is completely absent. Look here. You really should research your answers before responding. Does this panel look familiar?




rw

[theaudiohobby]

..Only to those who have no understanding of dispersion. Forget dipoles for a moment. Do all monopoles, regardless of driver design radiate the same ? Obviously not!..

Could you elaborate on your comments, for example, the dispersion pattern of the Magneplaner 3.6R and the Quad 989 are not exactly the same however the patttern is dipolar for both speakers?

What I know is that you ignore dispersion. Do you understand that concept? Ever heard of beaming? Ever notice that the sound of dome tweeters sounds pretty much the same even off axis?

A dome tweeter radiation get's more directional as the operating frequency increases therefore could you elaborate on "dome tweeters sounds pretty much the same even off axis"?

[E-Stat]

Could you elaborate on your comments, for example, the dispersion pattern of the Magneplaner 3.6R and the Quad 989 are not exactly the same however the radiation patttern of both is dipolar?

Your question goes to the heart of my observation. Given Sir T's sweeping statement regarding ALL dipoles, a better example would be to contrast the radiation of the Quad vs. the Linkwitz Orion. Both are dipole radiators - yet the polar response and dispersion of the flat electrostatic panels is very different from that of the front and rear facing dome tweeters. The Orion, like most dynamic speakers has far wider dispersion which requires more in the way of absorbing its lateral radiation at the first reflection points. Side wall interaction is far greater. Tom Danley, a speaker designer of high directivity sound reinforcement horns, summarizes the point here.

"If one measured two speaker systems that had an identical amplitude response (and all other things equal) BUT one was a wide dispersion speaker and the other narrow, they would measure identically outdoors. Once in the room however, the response curve taken at the listening position (a place that actually matters more than at one meter) will be much worse for the wide dispersion speaker as it contains much more room sound. With a narrow speaker, in a living room, one can measure a variance of say + -3dB greater than the one meter curve while a dome /cone system in the same location is more like + - 10-20dB. "

A dome tweeter radiation get's more directional as the operating frequency increases therefore could you elaborate on "dome tweeters sounds pretty much the same even off axis"?

Using the same speakers for comparison, which one do you think will sound closer at say 45 degrees off axis as compared with its on axis response- the Orion or the Quad?

rw

[PeruvianSkies]

Your question goes to the heart of my observation. Given Sir T's sweeping statement regarding ALL dipoles, a better example would be to contrast the radiation of the Quad vs. the Linkwitz Orion. Both are dipole radiators - yet the polar response and dispersion of the flat electrostatic panels is very different from that of the front and rear facing dome tweeters. The Orion, like most dynamic speakers has far wider dispersion which requires more in the way of absorbing its lateral radiation at the first reflection points. Side wall interaction is far greater. Tom Danley, a speaker designer of high directivity sound reinforcement horns, summarizes the point here.

"If one measured two speaker systems that had an identical amplitude response (and all other things equal) BUT one was a wide dispersion speaker and the other narrow, they would measure identically outdoors. Once in the room however, the response curve taken at the listening position (a place that actually matters more than at one meter) will be much worse for the wide dispersion speaker as it contains much more room sound. With a narrow speaker, in a living room, one can measure a variance of say + -3dB greater than the one meter curve while a dome /cone system in the same location is more like + - 10-20dB. "


Using the same speakers for comparison, which one do you think will sound closer at say 45 degrees off axis as compared with its on axis response- the Orion or the Quad?

rw

Awesome. Thank you e-stat for bringing your wealth of real experience to this thread regarding electrostats! I am looking forward to more discussion on this topic...

[PeruvianSkies]

There are a couple of people here that are much more qualified than I am to interpret speaker measurements. However, I have looked at various versions of NRC measurements published in magazines for over 30 years and think I have learned something from them.

I think the first one to look at is Chart 2, the Listening Window response. You will notice that it is almost astonishingly flat for a speaker. This gives a good idea of how good the speaker can sound if well set up. It has a slight downward slope, which means that though the highs are there, the speaker probably will not sound bright.

One may compare with the Paradigm Signature S8. It shows a very flat Listening Window response where it counts most with a slight downward slope, too.

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me..._signature_s8/

Since RGA hates my Signature S2 speakers, let's take a glance at its NRC measurements, too. The are quite even, too, though they have some small variations. The chief anomaly in the Listening Window curve is the very narrow dip about 800 Hz, which shows up in all the curves. It has little audible significance, although John Atkinson thinks he heard a minor effect on some note on the clarinet and on test tones.

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me..._signature_s2/

You may want to look at How We Test Speakers, which is linked from every set of speaker measurements Soundstage publishes:

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/mea...udspeakers.htm

Chart 1 shows the horizontal dispersion, which is very good. The top curves for the T6 track each other very closely all the way to 20 kHz. They show a very slight rise between 1.5 and 3 kHz or so, which probably makes them sound slightly more forward than the Paradigm Signature, but still very neutral. Also, with good curves that track each other closely, one would expect that the speaker would not call attention to itself.

The bottom curves track each other quite closely, too. The measurements also give some idea as to the useful bass response in a normal room in a house. The bass is down about 10 dB around 30 Hz. Paradigm gives a DIN specification for LF extension but PSB just gives the -10 dB point, which has accords with my own experience.

It looks like the T6 would image very well. All in all, the measurements are very, very good. I heard the larger T8 and think I could easily live with them.

The best explanation for the layperson I know as to how the dispersion will affect the performance in a normal room is found in an interview John Atkinson of Stereophile did with Paul Barton in 1997:

http://stereophile.com/interviews/231/

The distortion curves indicate it will play quite loudly without distress. The impedance curve indicates that it should be used with an amplifier that will handle 4 ohm loads, but other than that, it does not look like a difficult load.

I would say your analysis is spot-on with regards to the graphs and what I have experienced listening to these speakers for the past 4 years. Thanks for your input.

[frenchmon]

Sorry, but I'm not understanding the gist of your comments. You are contrasting monopoles with dipoles and describe a comparison using a configuration that I use in the garage: double (inverted) Advents? I'm missing something.




The degree to which dipoles interact with the side walls vary greatly, based upon the driver design and the room treatments employed. When you speak of conventional cones 'n domes dipoles, then you are using wide dispersion (and high interaction) drivers. Quite a few planar designs, on the other hand, inherently exhibit more directivity with less room interaction.

rw

Nice Bike....dont care about the dipoles but the bike is nice.

[E-Stat]

Nice Bike....dont care about the dipoles but the bike is nice.

It gets me where I want to go rather quickly.

ps: Those are monopole Advents.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

Your question goes to the heart of my observation. Given Sir T's sweeping statement regarding ALL dipoles, a better example would be to contrast the radiation of the Quad vs. the Linkwitz Orion. Both are dipole radiators - yet the polar response and dispersion of the flat electrostatic panels is very different from that of the front and rear facing dome tweeters. The Orion, like most dynamic speakers has far wider dispersion which requires more in the way of absorbing its lateral radiation at the first reflection points. Side wall interaction is far greater. Tom Danley, a speaker designer of high directivity sound reinforcement horns, summarizes the point here.

"If one measured two speaker systems that had an identical amplitude response (and all other things equal) BUT one was a wide dispersion speaker and the other narrow, they would measure identically outdoors. Once in the room however, the response curve taken at the listening position (a place that actually matters more than at one meter) will be much worse for the wide dispersion speaker as it contains much more room sound. With a narrow speaker, in a living room, one can measure a variance of say + -3dB greater than the one meter curve while a dome /cone system in the same location is more like + - 10-20dB. "

Your elaboration missed a very pertinent point (see link), a box speaker is a monopole only at low frequencies, The deviation above only relate that region. Above that its only forward radiating. A dipole is always radiating front and rear at all frequencies

Using the same speakers for comparison, which one do you think will sound closer at say 45 degrees off axis as compared with its on axis response- the Orion or the Quad?

Difficult without looking at the design or polar plot, it may well have lower room interaction as it narrower design therefore dipole cancellation starts higher up. secondly the tweeter and woofer are placed in waveguides.

[Pat D]

I would say your analysis is spot-on with regards to the graphs and what I have experienced listening to these speakers for the past 4 years. Thanks for your input.

You're very welcome!

[E-Stat]

Your elaboration missed a very pertinent point (see link), a box speaker is a monopole only at low frequencies

So my Advents and Polks are dipoles because they are in a box? Is that what you mean?

A dipole is always radiating front and rear at all frequencies

Exactly. That's why the Orion+ has two woofers and two tweeters, one of each facing forward and one of each facing rearwards and uses an open backed midrange. I'm not sure why you chose to state the obvious.

Difficult without looking at the design or polar plot

Sorry, somehow I thought you had actually heard a Quad and any speaker using a dome tweeter and understand the difference.

it may well have lower room interaction as it narrower design therefore dipole cancellation starts higher up. secondly the tweeter and woofer are placed in waveguides.

You've lost me again. Neither the Quad nor the Orion are placed in waveguides. The Orion + uses Seas tweeters mounted on either side of a flat baffle.

rw

[poppachubby]

Hey Ralph, please come and look at my Bozak thread. I was hoping you would have some input for me. It's an amazing design and layout inside, you would like it.

[Pat D]

Your elaboration missed a very pertinent point (see link), a box speaker is a monopole only at low frequencies, The deviation above only relate that region. Above that its only forward radiating. A dipole is always radiating front and rear at all frequencies



Difficult without looking at the design or polar plot, it may well have lower room interaction as it narrower design therefore dipole cancellation starts higher up. secondly the tweeter and woofer are placed in waveguides.

I think one thing missing from this discussion is the size and shape of the room. Linkwitz thinks ideally the room should be 20' X 15' X 8' or larger. As it happens, E-stat's room is larger than that: 25' x 16' x 8'

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/966.html

In my experience, it is a lot easier to get good overall results with an electrostatic dipole in a large room. And E-stat's room is quite large.

When one of my Quad ELS-63s developed a problem with its power supply, we considered repairing it or even getting one of the newer Quad electrostats, maybe a 2905. However, our house really does not seem to have enough space to get the best out of them. So, I decided to look mostly at forward radiating speakers, and ended up getting some very fine monitor speakers. They are very neutral sounding, more so than the Quads, and they are much less particular about placement. They sound quite good even when my wife moves them back out of the way. Moreover, the balance seems not to change sharply when one moves even to the side and away in the dining room or kitchen areas, which is one thing that wide and even horizontal dispersion gives us. Much as I enjoyed a lot of things with the Quads, in our present house, I am even happier with my current monitors.

[theaudiohobby]

So my Advents and Polks are dipoles because they are in a box? Is that what you mean?

err no...however.both are forward radiators in mid and high frequencies, by definition they have less room interaction than dipoles at those frequencies.

Exactly. That's why the Orion+ has two woofers and two tweeters, one of each facing forward and one of each facing rearwards and uses an open backed midrange. I'm not sure why you chose to state the obvious.

I was discussing forward radiators in this case

Sorry, somehow I thought you had actually heard a Quad and any speaker using a dome tweeter and understand the difference.

Yes, I have and understand the difference but on the whole in the my current listening space I prefer the balance of strengths and weakness of a forward radiator.

You've lost me again. Neither the Quad nor the Orion are placed in waveguides. The Orion + uses Seas tweeters mounted on either side of a flat baffle.

You may want to look more closely at the Orion design and linkwitz site, the woofers/tweeters are recessed into the baffle for good reason.