Bipole or Monopole for Rear Surround in 5.1

[3db]

There is no right nor wrong in choosing monopole over bipole. Its what best suits the listeners need. I to have monopoles and they create a diffuse enough sound that I don't notice the direction of sound unless done on purpose.

If people are happy with one or or the other, than so be it. But don't say monpoles are wrong and bipoles are right. Thats being audio nazi sorry to say.

 

[AJinFLA]

You didn't answer my question about what comparisons YOU have done, not what others have done. I've done my own comparisons and come to my own conclusion.

That is because my personal preference is as irrelevant as yours. If you must know, I've built several types of surrounds, including one which could be switched between monopole, bipole and dipole. For movies, I preferred the bipole/dipole mode. For the type of/way I listen to music, I also preferred a multipole surround channels, a setup almost identical to this http://www.linkwitzlab.com/surround_system.htm.

The EXACT reasons that you give for diffused sound are what I don't like about multipolar surrounds. The directionality is what makes it work.

Correct, which is why I addressed it in this thread already:

IMHO, It is better to have the surround channel less localizable, even for MCH music, as well as movies. Your focus should be forward, at the screen (movies) or front stage (band), with the surround effects ancillary, an enhancement of what is occurring in front of you. If there is a mix that requires localization, such as an instrument being played behind you, it's pure gimmick. That's why those things failed. The novelty wears of quickly and you realize that no concert or music event you went to had you sitting inside the band, unless you were playing, rather than observing.
Btw, bipoles add spaciousness and some diffusion, but on say a MCH music soundtrack, you can still localize them...if that is your desire.

When you place such a speaker in the corner like you have diagrammed, you get a direct sound from the driver set facing the couch (and a portion of a the 2nd set mixed in), as well as reflections from both sets off walls. With a monopole in the same position, you get the same mix of direct sound and reflections off the wall, it's just that the percentage of reflections is lower than the bipole. Both will be somewhat diffuse/less localizable because of the early reflections, especially behind you, where you don't hear as well as in front of you, but the bipole will be more diffuse and more spacious because of the higher percentage of reflected sound, having a larger area behind you of where the "effect" might be coming from. This tends to work better for movies, less so for MCH music. But who wants to hear a guitar or violin playing clearly behind you? What percentage of attended music events does that recreate for you?

Some folks, like yourself, need to have a localizable surround channel that you can pinpoint, for when that monster creeps up on you in some video game, or when a MCH music disc has someone playing guitar, drums or some other gimmick effect behind you. I have zero issue with that. But here is the OP's requirements (as opposed to say, yours):

Actually I'll use it for movies more than music listening maybe 80/20.

So I geared my response towards him..and his requirements. I made no guarantee as to what he might prefer.

Yes, for movies there are things that are going on back there that are supposed to be diffused sounding, and they ARE.

Right. Just much less so with the monopole than with the multipole...and less spacious and easier to pinpoint, localize, etc, etc. etc....all dictated by simple acoustics, not your/my preference.

For music, when they place an instrument in a particular speaker, that is where it should sound like it is coming from, not EVERYWHERE behind you. When things pan around the room, as man multichannel audio discs do, I want it to actually sound like it is moving around, not just blending in behind me. Audio discs off the top of my head that do this: Roxy Music's Avalon SACD, Steve Miller Band's Fly Like an Eagle, Pink Floyd's DSotM SACD. All have slow pans from speaker to speaker or audio that intentionally uses all speakers at the same time. On Avalon, the soundstage is broken up with the supporting singers in the rear and it works surprisingly well. Every Porcupine Tree DVD-A has sounds in specific speakers. Eagles Hell Freezes Over - Seven Bridges Road has one voice in each speaker and it sounds amazing. Do you think they intended that track to be listened to with the two voices in the surrounds diffused? For movies, when a bullet flies from the back of the room to the front or vice versa, should it go from "somewhere" to sounding crystal clear? Not all sound in the surrounds is supposed to be diffused.

AFAIK, when m/c tracks are engineered, they are engineered on monopoles in a treated room, not bi/dipoles.

Correct. Which is why the SACD/DVDA surround formats failed. Once the gimmicky nature of someone playing instruments behind you wears off, you end up trying something better.
Btw, I don't listen to 70's rock (my stomach can only take so much), my systems are geared towards the fidelity requirements of classical and jazz, etc....and of course, movies. In this scenario, the action takes place in front of you (just like it would live) and the surround "effects" are ambiance and venue late reflections like in nature...maybe even a cough or two....not someone playing a horn...or an approaching armed monster .

cheers,

AJ

 

[darien87]

Correct. Which is why the SACD/DVDA surround formats failed. Once the gimmicky nature of someone playing instruments behind you wears off, you end up trying something better.
Btw, I don't listen to 70's rock (my stomach can only take so much), my systems are geared towards the fidelity requirements of classical and jazz, etc....and of course, movies. In this scenario, the action takes place in front of you (just like it would live) and the surround "effects" are ambiance and venue late reflections like in nature...maybe even a cough or two....not someone playing a horn...or an approaching armed monster .

cheers,

AJ

Geez, condescend much? How about we try NOT being a pompous, arrogant prick?

 

[j_garcia]

Correct. Which is why the SACD/DVDA surround formats failed. Once the gimmicky nature of someone playing instruments behind you wears off, you end up trying something better.
Btw, I don't listen to 70's rock (my stomach can only take so much), my systems are geared towards the fidelity requirements of classical and jazz, etc....and of course, movies. In this scenario, the action takes place in front of you (just like it would live) and the surround "effects" are ambiance and venue late reflections like in nature...maybe even a cough or two....not someone playing a horn...or an approaching armed monster

I listen to a lot of different stuff including jazz. You asked for specific examples and I gave them to you. Roxy Music is pretty far removed from classic rock

In what scenario? You didn't give one. To me, it sounds like you haven't listened to enough multichannel audio to even comment or you wouldn't use the term gimmick, because not all SACD/DVD-As do this, per my examples. I do own some discs where the engineer simply didn't know what they were doing and the m/c results are less than stellar and on those I listen to the 2ch tracks. There are plenty of excellent m/c discs out there and the formats didn't die because of this, they died because the average consumer is clueless and doesn't have a setup to handle them.

 

[AJinFLA]

I listen to a lot of different stuff including jazz.

So where was you example of a jazz disc better served by a more localizable, less spacious rear channel? Classical? Anything acoustic, instead of artificial electronica??

You asked for specific examples and I gave them to you.

Right. All confirming the gimmicky nature of why you want to localize the rear channels. Slow pans from speaker to speaker? How much drugs would you have to be on at a Floyd concert for this to be an accurate "reproduction"? I've never been to one. Is this what happens? Ditto for Steve Miller? They have localizable monopoles behind you and pan around during performances?
Well, if that music wasn't bad enough, that type of effect would surely do it for my stomach .

Roxy Music is pretty far removed from classic rock

Roxy Music "Formed in 1971 by Bryan Ferry....". That's 70's Rock to me. But call it "Art Rock" or whatever you want, because I suppose they have later stuff too. Also from Wiki:

In 2003, Virgin reissued Avalon on Hybrid Super Audio CD with a new 5.1-channel surround sound remix....For "India," the stereo mix is panned clockwise a few times as the piece is being played, which ends nicely in the rear right channel.....Guitar, saxophone, synthesizer, and percussion parts are often placed in the rear part of the sound field

That's not gimmicky??
This as an accurate reproduction of what happens at their performances? Really?

In what scenario? You didn't give one.

My apologies, I assumed incorrectly.
Were you ever to attend a Jazz or Classical performance for the first time, you will see that the performers are in front of you, perhaps on a stage. You sit in the audience observing them, not inside them, where instruments are behind/all around you. You might perceive sounds coming from around you in the form of reflections/reverberation, but the performance is in front of you.
There are no instruments behind you to clearly localize. There are no "pans" between speakers....because there are no speakers.

To me, it sounds like you haven't listened to enough multichannel audio to even comment or you wouldn't use the term gimmick, because not all SACD/DVD-As do this, per my examples. I do own some discs where the engineer simply didn't know what they were doing and the m/c results are less than stellar and on those I listen to the 2ch tracks. There are plenty of excellent m/c discs out there and the formats didn't die because of this, they died because the average consumer is clueless and doesn't have a setup to handle them.

Or perhaps it's because I know what live music actually sounds like and can therefore recognize the gimmicky nature of pot pans and synthesizers behind me? Nor have monsters stalking me from behind in virtual reality video games?
Who knows?

cheers,

AJ

 

[jeffsg4mac]

WRT to the dipoles(?) not sounding right when you switched to true 5.1, was it radiation pattern per se, or the system setup, that caused the perceived deficiency?
cheers,

AJ

Yes Bose are poor for many reasons and not a good example to use for bi/dipole except maybe for the 901's. Let me explain further. At the time( 97/98) I had Mirage towers for the front and mirage SB somethings in the rear. The towers were a dual 6.5 bipoles and the rears were a dual 5 1/4's bipoles. Center channel was a all Focal part design I built and sub was a velodyne 12. Most concerts sounded great with the dipoles. Newer 5.1 movies with lots of pans did not. Older movies remixed for 5.1 sounded fine. Multi-channel music sucked with dipoles. I was not happy at all. I now have Paradigms mono's 7.1 all the way around and it sounds great with everything. I don't need anymore convincing on which is best for a home theater. Listen to whatever makes you happy.

 

[j_garcia]

Roxy Music "Formed in 1971 by Bryan Ferry....". That's 70's Rock to me. But call it "Art Rock" or whatever you want, because I suppose they have later stuff too. Also from Wiki:

That's not gimmicky??
This as an accurate reproduction of what happens at their performances? Really?

I am not sure why you are comparing LIVE to a studio mix? Maybe you didn't notice, but THEY AREN'T THE SAME THING. Again, HAVE YOU LISTENED TO ANY OF THE DISCS MENTIONED? YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT ROCK IS if you are saying Roxy music is classic rock? I am happy for you that you are safe in your little world. So you miss out; not my loss.

My apologies, I assumed incorrectly.
Were you ever to attend a Jazz or Classical performance for the first time, you will see that the performers are in front of you, perhaps on a stage. You sit in the audience observing them, not inside them, where instruments are behind/all around you. You might perceive sounds coming from around you in the form of reflections/reverberation, but the performance is in front of you.
There are no instruments behind you to clearly localize. There are no "pans" between speakers....because there are no speakers.

I've been to plenty of concerts. I know how music sounds. I played an instrument for years. I also know how to setup a home system. I presume you aren't giving first hand examples because you don't have any.

Your system is not live, is it? Does all music need to sound like it is live? Does that mean that all the 2ch media out there sucks because they are only 2ch and just a few were produced in a [god forbid] studio? This is along the lines of what you are suggesting and it is idiotic.

Or perhaps it's because I know what live music actually sounds like and can therefore recognize the gimmicky nature of pot pans and synthesizers behind me? Nor have monsters stalking me from behind in virtual reality video games?
Who knows?

I would like to say something nasty about your high horse attitude but it isn't even worth it.

 

[darien87]

I would like to say something nasty about your high horse attitude but it isn't even worth it.

I already did that for you.

 

[AJinFLA]

At the time( 97/98) I had Mirage towers for the front and mirage SB somethings in the rear.

I liked some of old Mirage bipolars, like the M1. Properly positioned, they could give an excellent and precise 3D spatial presentation. Lived with some Paradigm Eclipses around that time myself.

Most concerts sounded great with the dipoles. Newer 5.1 movies with lots of pans did not. Older movies remixed for 5.1 sounded fine. Multi-channel music sucked with dipoles. I was not happy at all. I now have Paradigms mono's 7.1 all the way around and it sounds great with everything. I don't need anymore convincing on which is best for a home theater. Listen to whatever makes you happy.

Agreed. Like I said repeatedly, hard to say what the OP might prefer. He could read this thread and articles like these to get info independent of my/your/ j_garcia's preferences
http://www.hometheatermag.com/bootcamp/25/index.html
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/2002/01/poles-apart
where it explained why multipoles were found to be preferable for movies (incidentally, the OP's primary concern), or he could see the benefit of monopoles - that j garcia says he prefers them, as a reason to go that way.
Who knows, maybe he also likes 70's rock, localizing synthesizers, horns and other such gimmicks from behind on music and may find value in precisely locating a video game monster behind him. These things may indeed be important to him..and now I think we have provided him with enough info to decide for himself.

cheers,

AJ

 

[echoesian]

Haha seriously the more I read, the more that I get confused.

Initially I was about to decide on bipole, however after I know that my speakers can do multi channel music as well and Pink Floyd is my idol especially the legend Dark Side of the Moon album!! I think I need to rethink again. But actually I haven't listen to any SACD and DVD-A before...just to know is my POHD (A.C Ryan Playon) can play the multi channel musics via FLAC???

 

[3db]

Haha seriously the more I read, the more that I get confused.

Initially I was about to decide on bipole, however after I know that my speakers can do multi channel music as well and Pink Floyd is my idol especially the legend Dark Side of the Moon album!! I think I need to rethink again. But actually I haven't listen to any SACD and DVD-A before...just to know is my POHD (A.C Ryan Playon) can play the multi channel musics via FLAC???

You have two choices as far as I'm concerned. You can talk about it until the cows come home or take my suggestion and either go to a friends house or better yet to an audio dealer (avoid the Best Buy's and the like) and listen to a setup with both monopoles and bipoles to decides whats best for you. Nobody hears through your ears so nobody can judge whats best for you. You can read all you want but the ultimate test will be an audition. Thats when you'll decide what's best for you.

 

[markw]

In case you haven't noticed, it's more of a preference, not right or wrong.

Haha seriously the more I read, the more that I get confused.

Initially I was about to decide on bipole, however after I know that my speakers can do multi channel music as well and Pink Floyd is my idol especially the legend Dark Side of the Moon album!! I think I need to rethink again. But actually I haven't listen to any SACD and DVD-A before...just to know is my POHD (A.C Ryan Playon) can play the multi channel musics via FLAC???

Would you ask the forum whether you should want a blonde, brunette, or redhead, or could you make that decision yourself. How do we know which is "better" for you.

So, it all boils down to you pays yer money and you takes your choice.

Go listen for yourself, or order from the net from places with libral exchange/reurn policies.

 

[3db]

Would you ask the forum whether you should want a blonde, brunette, or redhead, or could you make that decision yourself. How do we know which is "better" for you.

So, it all boils down to you pays yer money and you takes your choice.

Go listen for yourself, or order from the net from places with libral exchange/reurn policies.

Gee, I thought I said that already However, I do like the gender slant you put on it.

 

[markw]

You did.

Gee, I thought I said that already However, I do like the gender slant you put on it.

I sometimes find that throwing in an example that most are familiar with makes the concept a bit more relatable.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Haha seriously the more I read, the more that I get confused.

Okay, seriously, I will save you from any more confusion.

Surround speakers are not that big of a deal, especially for movies.

Think about it. About 50% of the movie soundtrack is in the Center speaker. Then about 40% goes to the Front Left & Right speakers. That leaves you 10% for the surround speakers.

Save some money, and just get whatever looks the best and cost less.

 

[AJinFLA]

Surround speakers are not that big of a deal, especially for movies.

And so easy to confirm. Simply put on a couple movies (or music) and listen to the front 3 channels at a comfortable volume setting on the receiver (TV off if you like, no need for video). Turn off receiver, and switch the front LR wires to the surround (back) LR channel terminals. Disconnect the center. Power back up, to the same volume and listen to (just) the surround content. Should be enlightening .

Haha seriously the more I read, the more that I get confused.

Then, after trying the above experiment to see exactly what type of "fidelity" you actually need back there, get both formats. For around $140/pr shipped, these can be configured either way, monopole or bipole. You can then decide which works best for you. Maybe both .

cheers,

AJ

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Wait, so what kind of speakers do you have now for your front 3 speakers?

 

[AJinFLA]

I don't think echo ever said what he had

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I don't think echo ever said what he had

What if he has the Bose cubes?

Then your recommendation would be OVERKILL.

 

[echoesian]

Wait, so what kind of speakers do you have now for your front 3 speakers?

I already have the PSB T5 for the left & right and PSB C5 for the center. Now is going to decide either the bookshelf B5 or the bipole S5.