Monopoles vs dipole/ bipolar rear surrounds?

2

2channel lover

Audioholic General
Bass can be better or worse on either. Just depends. Yeah, bi/dipoles will sound more diffused and less focused. That’s pretty much why I don’t like them. Monopoles however when too close can hotspot and be distracting. So in a small bedroom bipoles can be an ok choice.
FWIW surrounds and back/rear surrounds are two different things. Rear surrounds are used in a 7.1 system.
For me with a 5.1 system I was going to say that about the rear surrounds until I got to your post....when I saw the size of the room I was like oh...shoe horning that 7.1 in there...huh. It might just be a 5.1 system, just referring to the surrounds as "rear".
 
VonMagnum

VonMagnum

Senior Audioholic
I honestly don't see the point of rear speakers if they are going to be only a foot or two behind the side surrounds. You might as well just put the side surrounds a foot or two behind you and go 5.1.x as they sound exactly the same (to my ears anyway) other than perhaps the side fill isn't as good or forward of that point as directly to the side (depends on the speakers I suppose). I can set my theater to do almost anything between 11.1.6 and 5.1.4 (well really down to stereo, of course),but it's easy for me to compare 7.1 soundtracks as 5.1 and when I was first looking for the placement of the rears, I tried moving them around the room to compare and even 4 feet back they were only slightly deeper sounding (at 12 feet back they sound way back there, but not as much as you might imagine (not compared to 30-50' or more back in a real theater at least).

I sometimes think some of the "home" versions of soundtracks aren't orientated for rears the same way as a real cinema soundtrack (more like "helpers" for sides) but I think that varies by movie and more like studio. I think I've read that Paramount pretty much just does a straight conversion of their cinema soundtracks to the home Atmos format without screwing with levels and locations, etc. It does seem like their Atmos tracks tend to be more impressive (e.g. Mission Impossible Fallout),at least in some cases.

I've got a "fan" version of The Matrix that supposedly has a conversion of the original Cinema DTS (APX) track to home DTS 5.1 and synced to it (along with altered colors to be less "green" and what not) and it's night and day louder for sound effects relative to the dialog compared to even the new Warner Brothers Atmos soundtrack (which pretty much got rave reviews, but after comparing them myself directly with levels matched for dialog, I thin I prefer the 5.1 DTS track just because it's so darn explosive sounding by comparison at the same dialog levels. It seems they tone down the cinema tracks for the home versions in many cases (Disney being the worst offender lately) and maybe it's toned TOO far down. I'd like the option of the real cinema version on the disc (instead of say all those foreign language tracks; let them read subtitles like they should anyway so the real actors' voices are heard).
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Full Audioholic
I honestly don't see the point of rear speakers if they are going to be only a foot or two behind the side surrounds. You might as well just put the side surrounds a foot or two behind you and go 5.1.x as they sound exactly the same (to my ears anyway) other than perhaps the side fill isn't as good or forward of that point as directly to the side (depends on the speakers I suppose). I can set my theater to do almost anything between 11.1.6 and 5.1.4 (well really down to stereo, of course),but it's easy for me to compare 7.1 soundtracks as 5.1 and when I was first looking for the placement of the rears, I tried moving them around the room to compare and even 4 feet back they were only slightly deeper sounding (at 12 feet back they sound way back there, but not as much as you might imagine (not compared to 30-50' or more back in a real theater at least).

I sometimes think some of the "home" versions of soundtracks aren't orientated for rears the same way as a real cinema soundtrack (more like "helpers" for sides) but I think that varies by movie and more like studio. I think I've read that Paramount pretty much just does a straight conversion of their cinema soundtracks to the home Atmos format without screwing with levels and locations, etc. It does seem like their Atmos tracks tend to be more impressive (e.g. Mission Impossible Fallout),at least in some cases.

I've got a "fan" version of The Matrix that supposedly has a conversion of the original Cinema DTS (APX) track to home DTS 5.1 and synced to it (along with altered colors to be less "green" and what not) and it's night and day louder for sound effects relative to the dialog compared to even the new Warner Brothers Atmos soundtrack (which pretty much got rave reviews, but after comparing them myself directly with levels matched for dialog, I thin I prefer the 5.1 DTS track just because it's so darn explosive sounding by comparison at the same dialog levels. It seems they tone down the cinema tracks for the home versions in many cases (Disney being the worst offender lately) and maybe it's toned TOO far down. I'd like the option of the real cinema version on the disc (instead of say all those foreign language tracks; let them read subtitles like they should anyway so the real actors' voices are heard).
So your saying 7 ch makes it worse and 5.1 sounds more realistic ? Or should I switch to my klipsch bookshelves as rears ?
I have this pair also https://www.newegg.com/amp/p/N82E16886200006


Ultimate bass lover !! si ht15 dvc.
Free the reptile aliens
 
VonMagnum

VonMagnum

Senior Audioholic
So your saying 7 ch makes it worse and 5.1 sounds more realistic ? Or should I switch to my klipsch bookshelves as rears ?
I have this pair also https://www.newegg.com/amp/p/N82E16886200006


Ultimate bass lover !! si ht15 dvc.
Free the reptile aliens
No, I'm saying I think rear speakers need some distance from the sides to sound much different than sides mounted at 110 degrees (say first ascii diagram with sides mounted halfway between side and rear "x" location). Further away creates a big real fill. 5.1 already images to the sides and just behind by moving the speakers slightly. Now you could do something else and move the sides forward and put the rears just behind you. That would extend the side surround image forward (kind of like having front wides),but still create larger surround image. I basically get that presentation if I sit in my second row of seats.

. x.x.x. .
.
x MLP x
. x __ x

vs.
.. x.x.x. .
.
x. MLP x
.
. x ___ x

vs

..x.x.x. .
x ..... x
..MLP
x ___ x
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Full Audioholic
No, I'm saying I think rear speakers need some distance from the sides to sound much different than sides mounted at 110 degrees (say first ascii diagram with sides mounted halfway between side and rear "x" location). Further away creates a big real fill. 5.1 already images to the sides and just behind by moving the speakers slightly. Now you could do something else and move the sides forward and put the rears just behind you. That would extend the side surround image forward (kind of like having front wides),but still create larger surround image. I basically get that presentation if I sit in my second row of seats.

. x.x.x. .
.
x MLP x
. x __ x

vs.
.. x.x.x. .
.
x. MLP x
.
. x ___ x

vs

..x.x.x. .
x ..... x
..MLP
x ___ x
Thanks my side surrounds are actually in the middle of the room 6 feet or so away from the back surrounds.
Is there a spot to post systems ? I can get pictures sometime .

Ultimate bass lover !! si ht15 dvc.
Free the reptile aliens
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Full Audioholic
No, I'm saying I think rear speakers need some distance from the sides to sound much different than sides mounted at 110 degrees (say first ascii diagram with sides mounted halfway between side and rear "x" location). Further away creates a big real fill. 5.1 already images to the sides and just behind by moving the speakers slightly. Now you could do something else and move the sides forward and put the rears just behind you. That would extend the side surround image forward (kind of like having front wides),but still create larger surround image. I basically get that presentation if I sit in my second row of seats.

. x.x.x. .
.
x MLP x
. x __ x

vs.
.. x.x.x. .
.
x. MLP x
.
. x ___ x

vs

..x.x.x. .
x ..... x
..MLP
x ___ x
Any links to info on this ?
The best I can do is try monopoles for a few days and see how it goes . Or a week, see if I like them or dipoles better .
No one else have any helpful information ??


Ultimate bass lover !! si ht15 dvc.
Free the reptile aliens
 
VonMagnum

VonMagnum

Senior Audioholic
What kind of information?

Dipole surrounds, when you sit in the "null" (between the two drivers with the sides of the speaker facing your head) creates a "nebulous" like (where is the speaker at?) kind of sound. These were considered more or less ideal for Dolby Pro Logic type sound and a fair way of simulating a large array of surrounds for 5.1 (as if your entire side wall had a few rows of surround speakers) for 5.1, but some prefer the monopole or bipole sound for 5.1 as it images sharper. For Atmos/X, dipoles aren't typically recommended, but some people still prefer that type of sound and not every movie you watch will be Atmos/X (although you can use an upmixer to approximate a more immersive sound). I personally wouldn't recommended dipoles for an Atmos/X setup.

Bipoles (which with some speakers can be one and the same as some speakers, like some models PSB makes have a switch on the speaker to select dipole or bipole operation) in the same position sound much more easy to locate/pinpoint sounds, but I think still more spacious than a monopole pointed right at you. These can work OK for Atmos/X and if you're in a tight space, they might work better than a monopole (I used to use Def Tech BP2s about three feet back from the rear wall with the null facing the couch area in my previous house and they sounded pretty good for 5.1 there, I think (couch was against the back wall). You don't want to put them right up against the back wall, though as the rear driver still needs at least 12 inches to sound OK, IMO.

Monopoles can typically go against the back wall and you can angle them towards the listener. They can "hot spot" if they are too close, however. The only way to be sure, since the room/setup affects things and it's still subjective to some extent as to which sounds best is to compare them, really.

Also, if you put angled bipoles behind you or in front of you (where the null mounts on the wall and the drivers face angled towards the listener front/back, they kind of act like a dual set (array) of monopoles (e.g. I use PSB S50 speakers between my first and second row for top middle height speakers with angled drivers facing the front and mid/back rows. These then (more or less) image similar to having two sets of monopoles, one for each row (as if you had two sets of surround speakers playing the same thing beside each row). The main reason for this in my room is I already had a pair and I then only needed one pair to cover all three rows for top middle height speakers. A single pair of monopoles with good off-axis dispersion would sound similar, IMO (e.g. I use two sets of side facing monopoles for the "bed" side surround speakers, one between each row and front wides between the mains and front row (surround #1 between side surround and rear surrounds). Both methods can give good coverage for multiple rows.

Personally, I think either monopoles or bipoles to the sides or just behind you listening couch would work best in your room from what you've said thus far. You'd probably have to compare and angle them around a bit to see which you like best.
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Full Audioholic
What kind of information?

Dipole surrounds, when you sit in the "null" (between the two drivers with the sides of the speaker facing your head) creates a "nebulous" like (where is the speaker at?) kind of sound. These were considered more or less ideal for Dolby Pro Logic type sound and a fair way of simulating a large array of surrounds for 5.1 (as if your entire side wall had a few rows of surround speakers) for 5.1, but some prefer the monopole or bipole sound for 5.1 as it images sharper. For Atmos/X, dipoles aren't typically recommended, but some people still prefer that type of sound and not every movie you watch will be Atmos/X (although you can use an upmixer to approximate a more immersive sound). I personally wouldn't recommended dipoles for an Atmos/X setup.

Bipoles (which with some speakers can be one and the same as some speakers, like some models PSB makes have a switch on the speaker to select dipole or bipole operation) in the same position sound much more easy to locate/pinpoint sounds, but I think still more spacious than a monopole pointed right at you. These can work OK for Atmos/X and if you're in a tight space, they might work better than a monopole (I used to use Def Tech BP2s about three feet back from the rear wall with the null facing the couch area in my previous house and they sounded pretty good for 5.1 there, I think (couch was against the back wall). You don't want to put them right up against the back wall, though as the rear driver still needs at least 12 inches to sound OK, IMO.

Monopoles can typically go against the back wall and you can angle them towards the listener. They can "hot spot" if they are too close, however. The only way to be sure, since the room/setup affects things and it's still subjective to some extent as to which sounds best is to compare them, really.

Also, if you put angled bipoles behind you or in front of you (where the null mounts on the wall and the drivers face angled towards the listener front/back, they kind of act like a dual set (array) of monopoles (e.g. I use PSB S50 speakers between my first and second row for top middle height speakers with angled drivers facing the front and mid/back rows. These then (more or less) image similar to having two sets of monopoles, one for each row (as if you had two sets of surround speakers playing the same thing beside each row). The main reason for this in my room is I already had a pair and I then only needed one pair to cover all three rows for top middle height speakers. A single pair of monopoles with good off-axis dispersion would sound similar, IMO (e.g. I use two sets of side facing monopoles for the "bed" side surround speakers, one between each row and front wides between the mains and front row (surround #1 between side surround and rear surrounds). Both methods can give good coverage for multiple rows.

Personally, I think either monopoles or bipoles to the sides or just behind you listening couch would work best in your room from what you've said thus far. You'd probably have to compare and angle them around a bit to see which you like best.
Which type are these? I also have monopoles of the same trim line



Ultimate bass lover !! si ht15 dvc.
Free the reptile aliens
 
VonMagnum

VonMagnum

Senior Audioholic
Klipsch advertises them as a wide dispersion surround speaker. They appear to have three sides. Technically, that would make them more of a tripole. I'm sure the sides are in-phase with each other (similar to a bipole in that regard). They appear to be designed to sit close to or directly on the wall. You could try them to the sides of the couch (or sides and just behind it) or the wall behind it and see which sounds better.
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Full Audioholic
Klipsch advertises them as a wide dispersion surround speaker. They appear to have three sides. Technically, that would make them more of a tripole. I'm sure the sides are in-phase with each other (similar to a bipole in that regard). They appear to be designed to sit close to or directly on the wall. You could try them to the sides of the couch (or sides and just behind it) or the wall behind it and see which sounds better.
Had no idea tripole were a speaker type . Not sure they may be better for movies then bookshelve monopoles ?


Ultimate bass lover !! si ht15 dvc.
Free the reptile aliens
 
VonMagnum

VonMagnum

Senior Audioholic
Had no idea tripole were a speaker type . Not sure they may be better for movies then bookshelve monopoles ?
A tripole is essentially a bipole with another driver in the "null" area (i.e. sound comes out in three directions instead of two). I've never heard that speaker so I have no idea, but the reviews I read sounded promising for surround use.
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Full Audioholic
A tripole is essentially a bipole with another driver in the "null" area (i.e. sound comes out in three directions instead of two). I've never heard that speaker so I have no idea, but the reviews I read sounded promising for surround use.
Yeah I see , I Guess klipsch one of brands that use Tripoli’s shame that they like killed energy brand and have not added anything good in energy line up since they bought the brand .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top