Any consensus on dipoles for a 5.1 system?

[No Msg]

Current setup is made up with energy speakers and a quality 15" DIY powered sealed subwoofer. C-300 for the front 2 and AC-300 for the center (for now). Rears are a pair of Take 2.2 direct radiating.

Room setup: Room is a 15 x 22 foot rectangle with the short walls to the left and right of the seating area, the seating area on the left side of the rectangle and 2 feet from the rear wall. Rear speakers are in the rear wall with the left one 2 feet from the corner and the right one 5 feet from the right corner.

The Energy dipole C-R100's (5.5" mid + 2 x 1" Al tweeters) can be had for a pretty reasonable price now. It's been about 10 years since I looked into the dipole vs. bipole vs. direct issue, but back then the camps were pretty evenly split.

So...for my placement, any opinions on whether to switch from my Take 2.2's to the bipole Energies?

 

[mperfct]

I think unless you have a very large room, that dipoles are the way to go for surround speakers. You want your surrounds to project diffusely, and direct radiators tend to be a bit easier to localize. I think the best thing to do would be to borrow a pair of dipoles and try them out, since everyone's room is different. Even a comparable pair would work as well.

 

[lsiberian]

I agree with the previous response, but some prefer the sound of direct radiating. You should try it and then if you don't like it return the speakers.

 

[jostenmeat]

All of the ambient effects are already within the tracks themselves.

If you do dipoles, you must be sitting in the null. If there are a lot of viewers, or rows, etc, not everyone can sit there.

Bipoles have more coverage, but depend more on boundary interaction than monopoles.

Monopoles work perfectly fine.

Ear height is best.