Placement of bipole rear surround speakers??
Gareth Jones
I'm confused (nothing new there....)!
I've ordered (but not received yet) what I think is a pretty good deal
on a surround sound speaker package for home cinema use, comprising
Wharfedale:
Pacific Pi-10 fronts
Pacific centre
WH-2 rears which are bipole speakers.
We've just finished a self-build and when designing the house, I did as
much homework as I could in checking out dolby.com etc for details of
where was the optimum place to run the cables for speaker placement, so
the rears cables are just above head height and on the side walls just
behind you (very close to the corners in this case).
Now that its time to buy the AV gear, I'm finding out more and more
about dispersing sound fields and the like and am not certain now if the
bipole speakers should be placed in the same way as normal rears!?!
I've done quite a bit of trawling on the net, but I'm getting
conflicting advice.
Should they be on the rear wall?
Should they still be on the side walls so one 'half' of the speaker
projects inwards to the centre of the room and the other half bounces
off the rear wall?
How far from the corners of the room or the seating position should they
be???
Come to that - I'm assuming they would be wall mounted... is that
correct??
Good grief..... so much information... so little time..... (or should
that be brain....)
TIA
--
__________________________________________
<Gareth Jones> usenet@_ns_swansea.demon.co.uk
"Reality sucks - go watch a Star Trek"
To email, remove the '_ns_' from
usenet@_ns_swansea.demon.co.uk
__________________________________________
Nathan Marsh
Dipoles on the side.
Wallmount them if they are designed to. You want them a bit over your head.
As far as placement goes- experiment (use a couple of tall stools, until you
drill the holes)
"Gareth Jones" <gareth@_ns_swansea.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FWlSkZBU...@swansea.demon.co.uk...
Gary Lightfoot
news:FWlSkZBU...@swansea.demon.co.uk
> We've just finished a self-build and when designing the house, I
> did as much homework as I could in checking out dolby.com etc for
> details of where was the optimum place to run the cables for
> speaker placement, so the rears cables are just above head height
> and on the side walls just behind you (very close to the corners in
> this case).
[...]
I found that for 5.1 I preffered monopoles for rears in my lounge with
them placed a little over ear height either side of the listening
position (sofa) and pointing at each other. I tried some bi-poles but
they didn't offer any improvement due to them being in the corner of
the room each side of the sofa (sofa is against a wall).
For 6.1 in my loft I definately needed bi-poles for rear sound effects
placed on the back wall approx 4 feet apart and 5 feet behind. For
side surrounds, I finaly settled for a matching pair of bi-poles
placed at ear height, with the null of the speaker pointing at the
listening position. This was after experimenting with all combinations
of monopoles and bipoles.
Your room may produce different results, but ultimately, go for what
sounds better to you.
HTH
Gary.
--
please remove nosmeg from e-mail addy to reply.
www.g.lightfoot.btinternet.co.uk
Nathan Marsh
"Gary Lightfoot" <g.lig...@btnosmeginternet.com> wrote in message
news:yXKQ9.10813$xP4.73...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Gary Lightfoot
news:3e137d97$0$231$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com
> Gary, have you auditioned dipoles? I think they're much better than
> bipoles.
Hi Nathan,
Unfortunately no, though I believe they have better imaging and a
lesser bass response due to their phasing when compared with bi-poles.
The reputedly better imaging would probably make them a better choice
for 5.1 as you suggested, especialy as I seem prefer a point source
for 5.1
Did you find this to be the case?
The ones I have are the Eltax HT2s. I couldn't find any dipoles to
demo so settled with the bipoles which sounded fine to my ears.
I was thinking about tripoles for side surrounds at one time with a
matching pair for rears in bipole mode. The ones I looked at were
quite expensive though. Have you heard any in that configuration?
Nathan Marsh
more subtle soundfield. For tripoles you might need to switch the front
firing driver off, depending to what your listening to/preferred sound for
film/music dvd.
I've got the NHT HDP-2's. The think about dipoles (if you've never heard
them going) -say you have one dipole speaker in front of you- firing to the
left and right- it is quite hard to tell exactly where the sound is coming
from. This helps the rear soundstage immensly.
I can only place the surround speakers on the side wall- that's why I got
dipoles- I cannot locate bipoles behind me -funny shaped room and
plasterboard on the back wall.
A mate has a pair of Celestion A5r's and they go quite low- not much of
difference between mine and his (mine have a 6/half inch woofer , fired in
normal phase-which helps dipole lack of LF)
I havn't gone over to 7.1 (I have enough amps, but no 7.1 processor)-
tripoles are quite expensive, esp the M&K's.
In fact you could convert your eltaxs to dipoles. you have to reverse the
wires on either the front facing side or rear facing side (have a look at
the HDP's on NHT's website and that should tell you)
regards
nathan
"Gary Lightfoot" <g.lig...@btnosmeginternet.com> wrote in message
news:NmMQ9.10907$NO5.73...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Nathan Marsh
could screw the sound up (in conjunction with rears). I think you'll might
need dipoles instead.
If I'm wrong then someone correct me.
"Nathan Marsh" <natha...@hortmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e139712$0$248$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Gareth Jones
Lightfoot <g.lig...@btnosmeginternet.com> writes
>For 6.1 in my loft I definately needed bi-poles for rear sound effects
>placed on the back wall approx 4 feet apart and 5 feet behind. For
>side surrounds, I finaly settled for a matching pair of bi-poles
>placed at ear height, with the null of the speaker pointing at the
>listening position.
I didn't think Bipoles had a null position. Only Dipoles.
Did you mean Dipole for the side? Or did you mean Bipole placed at the
position where you would get a null if you had used a dipole ?!? ;-)
My problem is that I have already ordered these bipole speakers and
haven't got the luxury of being able to try different speaker types (at
least not ones that tonally match). So I'm a bit stuck with what I've
got (or going to get when the bloody delivery van gets here....)
I have read literature that places bipoles at the side position where
you have described. However as my sofa is up against the rear wall,
these side speakers would then be _very_ close to the corner - not with
the space you have in your loft.
I don't know if this matters (as I sort of alluded to in my original
post - if it just bounces the rear pointing pole off the back wall after
a foot or so - that might be good for diffusing the sound ???)
BTW - the amp I've ordered is the Yamaha RXV530 which apparently does
have 6.1 decoding - only it 'virtualises' (good word eh?) the 6th
channel through the rear two..... so I guess I need to consider the
setup as a normal 5.1 system in terms of comparing your two setups yes??
I guess trying different positions using stools etc as suggested is
going to be essential.
Just one last question though - how much of a difference (sonically) is
it going to make having the speakers balanced on a stool, compared to
firmly bolted to a wall??
Gary Lightfoot
> In article <yXKQ9.10813$xP4.73...@news-text.cableinet.net>, Gary
> Lightfoot <g.lig...@btnosmeginternet.com> writes
> I didn't think Bipoles had a null position. Only Dipoles.
I was refering to the flat pointy bit inbetween the drivers. :O)
> Did you mean Dipole for the side? Or did you mean Bipole placed at
> the position where you would get a null if you had used a dipole
> ?!? ;-)
Yup - that's it!
> My problem is that I have already ordered these bipole speakers and
> haven't got the luxury of being able to try different speaker types
> (at least not ones that tonally match). So I'm a bit stuck with
> what I've got (or going to get when the bloody delivery van gets
> here....)
Still compare them with whatever monopole speaker you have, and see if
the soundfield sounds any better/worse. It's what I did with the
Missions I have. Like you, I also don't have the luxury to try all
types of equipment except in demo rooms, and they often sound very
different there than in my home, so you sometimes just have to go on
other peoples opinions and magazine reviews to help guide you. The
more you read, the more of a picture you'll build up. If most people
are saying bad things about something, there's a good chance it won't
be good. :O)
> I have read literature that places bipoles at the side position
> where you have described. However as my sofa is up against the rear
> wall, these side speakers would then be _very_ close to the corner -
> not with the space you have in your loft.
> I don't know if this matters (as I sort of alluded to in my original
> post - if it just bounces the rear pointing pole off the back wall
> after a foot or so - that might be good for diffusing the sound ???)
That's exactly the situation I had in my lounge, and I found that the
speaker seemed to act just like the monopole it was replacing, so I
assume the sound was hitting the rear wall and traveling along it to
the seating position. I think they'll be better than monopoles if you
have other people sitting in the lounge ahead of you at the sides, as
they'll get sounds firing at them to give a better impression of a
rear soundfield.
> BTW - the amp I've ordered is the Yamaha RXV530 which apparently
> does have 6.1 decoding - only it 'virtualises' (good word eh?) the
> 6th channel through the rear two..... so I guess I need to consider
> the setup as a normal 5.1 system in terms of comparing your two
> setups yes??
I would think so. Have you got some ordinary (monopole) speakers you
could play with? At least you'll have something to compare with.
> I guess trying different positions using stools etc as suggested is
> going to be essential.
That was a good idea - fortunately I already had some speaker stands
so I could easily move them around. I chose stands so that I didn't
have to hide any cables in walls or have any loose wires which I think
can often look untidy.
> Just one last question though - how much of a difference
> (sonically) is it going to make having the speakers balanced on a
> stool, compared to firmly bolted to a wall??
I suppose that would depend on how firm the stool is - the more
movement the speaker has on the stool, the more the sound will deviate
from the wall mounted position. I would think that if the sound was
good on the stool in a certain position, then it should sound better
when solidly mounted on the wall. IMHO of course. ;O)
Gary Lightfoot
> Gary, noticed you said got bipoles for the sides. I'm not sure but
> this could screw the sound up (in conjunction with rears). I think
> you'll might need dipoles instead.
>
> If I'm wrong then someone correct me.
You may well be right, though I did find them a slight improvement
over the Acoustic Energy Aegis Ones that I had been using. My
dedicated HT room is a loft with sloping ceiling, so this might be
making a difference to what would normaly happen in an oblong room
with straight walls.
There is still plenty of sound steering going on so that you can
easily ascertain which side the sound is coming from. My girlfriend
and I watched XXX on New Years Day, and at one point the sound from
the right side surround made her jump and look over in that direction,
so it seems to work quite well.
The Matrix rooftop bullet sequence accurately depicts the movement of
the bullets as the camera pans etc. I honestly don't think a dipole
would make any real difference. If I could get some to try, then I
could compare, but as it is, it sounds pretty good to me.
I often use all four rear bi-poles for 5.1, with the rear speakers
mimicking their side equivalents (i.e. lss = lrs). This seems to
increase the sound field a little, so I rarely switch them of
nowadays.
Gary Lightfoot
> I tried various bipoles and dipoles- overall I found the dipoles
> created a more subtle soundfield. For tripoles you might need to
> switch the front firing driver off, depending to what your
> listening to/preferred sound for film/music dvd.
I forgot to mention that for the side surrounds, if I had tripoles, I
would leave all drivers working, but for the rears, I would switch off
the front firing driver.
As you also mention though, these speakers can be quite expensive, so
it's a route I'm unlikely to go to be honest.
huge...@hotmail.com
Without a doubt, somewhere behind you viewing position.
max christoffersen
They don't: you're right.
> I was refering to the flat pointy bit inbetween the drivers. :O)
Good grief.
Max Christoffersen
Ramases
They said to mount them on the side-walls a bit above listening height and
in-line with listeners' ears. If this were not possible, they suggested
rearwalls. Not to be used on stands though as they need the wall behind for
maximum effect. I fixed mine on the side walls and they work fine.
--
<<<Watch out for the spamtrap >>>
"max christoffersen" <max...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:av7o1p$853$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
max christoffersen
> They said to mount them on the side-walls a bit above listening height and
> in-line with listeners' ears. If this were not possible, they suggested
> rearwalls. Not to be used on stands though as they need the wall behind for
> maximum effect. I fixed mine on the side walls and they work fine.
What is your performance objective/reference for suggesting they work fine?
And what did Eltax suggest was the design/performance objective their
speakers were designed to achieve?
Max Christoffersen
max christoffersen
>>And what did Eltax suggest was the design/performance objective their
>>speakers were designed to achieve?
>
> his every word if he tells you.
>
> On another note... piss off Max
Errrr....there is a point here Kurt - what is the reference for rear
surround channel playback?
Do you have a technical observation to make here?
Max Christoffersen
max christoffersen
>
What has this got to do with surround sound performance from bipoles?
Max Christoffersen
David Longley
<Hugh_J...@scradge.moc> writes
>On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 08:39:13 +1200, "max christoffersen"
><max...@wave.co.nz> borrowed <ava5bm$r8o$1...@news.wave.co.nz> to say...
>
>>>>Do you have a technical observation to make here?
>>>
>>> Sorry you wanted it in technical terms? OK, micturate off Max.
>>
>>
>>What has this got to do with surround sound performance from bipoles?
>
>
>
Where is the best place to catch up on the technology/differences
between monopoles, dipoles and tripoles and their relative
merits/demerits over a set of identical speakers?
--
David Longley
Ramases
--
<<<Watch out for the spamtrap >>>
"David Longley" <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rz5IeCA4...@longley.demon.co.uk...
max christoffersen
> I found something on the Dolby website the other day. www.dolby.com ?
Dolby also has this to say taken from Mix Magazine on "Multichannel
Replay" as taken from the Dolby press conference in their booth
at the AES.
"Dolby has found by using Dipoles at home in a discrete digital
system give you too much diffusion on what is a completely
discrete signal . We have found that dipoles disperse the image
such that it is utterly directionless, seemingly everywhere at
once which is not desired because the mixer has control of the
signal placement when he does the mix.
The preferred surround speaker type, according to Dolby, is a direct
radiator (or monopole) placed on either side of and slightly
behind the engineer . Dolby feels that this is the best method
for "properly determining directional information." Next up were
dipole surrounds, although Dolby notes that these make it "more
difficult to determine directional cues." Tripole surround speakers
were suggested as a compromise between mono and dipoles, because
tripoles are less dependent on room layout and can provide decent
directional information . Equal amplifier power is recommended for all
channels."
In part the answer here lies in answering what you are trying to achieve
with your own HT system.
In short, a HT system is to a soundtrack, what an envelope is to a letter.
Once you start using speakers that detrimentally impact on the accurate
delivery of the soundtrack, and by nature of their dispersion alter the
directional cues on the soundtrack, you have a problem.
Dipoles, bipoles and tripoles are that problem.
Max Christoffersen
Nathan Marsh
Use what you like. Monopoles are too obvious, bipoles and dipoles spread
surround sound so rather than say "oh yeah I can hear crickets from that
speaker"- it just fills the back area with crickets. I prefer dipoles are
bipoles myself, I have never tried tripoles.
Nathan
Gareth Jones
<pharaoh...@ntlworld.com> writes
>I got some Eltax HT2s (bipolars) a few weeks ago and asked Eltax for advice.
>They said to mount them on the side-walls a bit above listening height and
>in-line with listeners' ears. If this were not possible, they suggested
>rearwalls. Not to be used on stands though as they need the wall behind for
>maximum effect. I fixed mine on the side walls and they work fine.
When I finally received my speakers, Wharfedale had kindly included an
instruction leaflet on where to position them.
It clearly stated they should be on the rear walls between a specified
distance.
Its funny that two big companies should not agree - but that's what I've
been finding everywhere.
However....
I've shoved them on top of moveable boxes at the moment where they
recommended, and they sound fine. I need to do some more listening
tests, but the sound certainly is so diffuse compared to the fronts,
that I'm guessing there might not be a lot in it where exactly you put
them.... the sound just sorts of envelopes you in a way that I guess
bipolars are supposed to achieve ?!?
max christoffersen
> Its funny that two big companies should not agree - but that's what I've
> been finding everywhere.
Actually it's not really.
It simply means the companies are using a different reference for their
performance objective.
That's why answering the question I asked earlier is so important: what are
*you* trying to achieve?
The answer to this question will determine what speaker type you should use.
Max Christoffersen
Gareth Jones
<max...@wave.co.nz> writes
>That's why answering the question I asked earlier is so important: what are
>*you* trying to achieve?
A decent standard of living for my family and of course world peace!
But seriously, I'm trying to achieve a situation where the films sound
as close as possible to how the filmakers had intended - given the
constraints of budget, equipment, environment etc. Isn't that what all
the home cinema speaker manufacturers (and end users) should be trying
to achieve??
What else would I be trying to achieve?
max christoffersen
>>That's why answering the question I asked earlier is so important: what are
>>*you* trying to achieve?
>
> A decent standard of living for my family and of course world peace!
>
>
> But seriously, I'm trying to achieve a situation where the films sound
> as close as possible to how the filmakers had intended - given the
> constraints of budget, equipment, environment etc. Isn't that what all
> the home cinema speaker manufacturers (and end users) should be trying
> to achieve??
No.
> What else would I be trying to achieve?
As I have said elsewhere, there are essentially two mutually exclusive
schools of thought:
1) I want it to sound like a movie theatre
2) I want it to sound accurate to the soundtrack as produced
The two views *are* mutually exclusive.
Which do *you* prefer; and which school of thought do you subscribe to?
Answer that, and the rest is easy from there.
Max Christoffersen
max christoffersen
>
>>1) I want it to sound like a movie theatre
>>
>>2) I want it to sound accurate to the soundtrack as produced
>>
>>
>>The two views *are* mutually exclusive.
>
> mixed _for_ a movie theatre in the first place?
>
> So how can they be mutually exclusive?
Because film is not mixed to sound *like* a movie theatre Kurt.
You can either have a soundfield that emulates a movie theatre or a
soundfield that emulates reality.
Choose.
Max Christoffersen
Nathan Marsh
Why not make it sound "good"? Whether or not you have screwed up or not-
it's your system. For example- using dipoles for all speakers. It will
souund meessed up- some people might like it that way.
I personally prefer dipoles for rears- I don't care Dolby said you're
supposed to use monopoles. I like rear dipoles over monopoles and bipoles.
Nathan
max christoffersen
>>
>> You can either have a soundfield that emulates a movie theatre or a
>> soundfield that emulates reality.
>>
>> Choose.
>>
>>
>> Max Christoffersen
>
> Why not make it sound "good"? Whether or not you have screwed up or not-
> it's your system. For example- using dipoles for all speakers. It will
> souund meessed up- some people might like it that way.
>
> I personally prefer dipoles for rears- I don't care Dolby said you're
> supposed to use monopoles. I like rear dipoles over monopoles and bipoles.
>
> Nathan
You can like what you like Nathan. You've found something that works for you
and you like it: enjoy it.
My point here is to know what you're doing, why you're doing it and knowing
the compromises and trade-offs that apply.
But sounding 'good' is obviously subjective and to many, that remains their
sole reference.
Fair enough - but there are other reference points.
I've put forward a case here to say why careful understanding of speaker
types and their relevance to an objective performance standard is worth
considering.
And if accuracy to the soundtrack is your objective, that rules out dipoles
immediately.
As I said: a HT speaker system is to the soundtrack what an envelope is to a
letter: the less the speaker system impacts on the soundtrack the better. It
is simply a means of delivery: dipoles modify the signal and when a signal
is fundamentally and radically changed from input to output it is normally
described another way:
Distortion.
Max Christoffersen
max christoffersen
>>Because film is not mixed to sound *like* a movie theatre Kurt.
>
> cinema ergo if one replicates that environment then surely the sound mix
> should sound better.
Or surely, worse.
Which is why so many speaker designers and Dolby themselves say that dipoles
(which have traditionally been employed to mimic said cinematic enviroment)
don't work.
As I said elsewhere, what exactly is a dipole recreating *accurately*?
Many enthusiats are excited by the fact their systems outperform their local
cinemas Kurt - how can that be?
Max Christoffersen
max christoffersen
>
> Or at the very least closer to the sound designer's 'vision' (couldn't
> think of an audio related synonym <g>)
The sound engineer's vision is reality.
>>Which is why so many speaker designers and Dolby themselves say that dipoles
>>(which have traditionally been employed to mimic said cinematic enviroment)
>>don't work.
>
> The fact that there are so many different theories means that nobody
> really knows. Dolby may know the theory behind their system but even
> they don't know what any particular sound designer has in his head when
> he designs a films soundfield.
Yes they do: reality.
>>As I said elsewhere, what exactly is a dipole recreating *accurately*?
>
> A soundfield effect?
...and which soundfield effect would this be that has no direct localised
information?..
>>Many enthusiats are excited by the fact their systems outperform their local
>>cinemas Kurt - how can that be?
(More Kurt backpeddling snipped)
> I rather doubt that there is a correct answer to this dilemma.
I don't.
Dipoles were designed to provide a non-localised surround soundfield from a
mono source: they were never intended for discrete soundtracks.
Dilemma solved.
Max Christoffersen
max christoffersen
>
> Bolleaux, there is no such thing as reality when it comes to the movies.
Of course there is - you think sound engineers want the soundtrack to sound
fake?
It's called suspension of disbelief Kurt.
The aim is to fool the listener into thinking they are passive spectators to
a real sonic event.
Reality is that reference: from simple dialogue to gun shots: the aim is to
create an illusion that is based on real sound performance.
>>>>As I said elsewhere, what exactly is a dipole recreating *accurately*?
>>>
>>> A soundfield effect?
>>
>>...and which soundfield effect would this be that has no direct localised
>>information?..
>
> It depends on the environment the speakers were fitted in.
The effect is always the same: non-localised sound with no direct sound at
thew seated position: PLEASE show me *ANY* movie theatre in the world with a
surround plot like that.
Game over son. Dipoles can't deliver a soundtrack accurately (see industry
comments below).
> As a fount of all audio knowledge I didn't think you would agree.
I don't agree because my hands-on experiments and research has led me to a
logical conclusion: that conclusion is consistent with both DD and DTS: let
the soundtrack engineer have control of the soundtrack cues: not your
surround speakers.
>>Dipoles were designed to provide a non-localised surround soundfield from a
>>mono source: they were never intended for discrete soundtracks.
>
> Teflon was never designed to go on saucepans, but it works quite
> effectively.
I see, so dipoles are now made of Teflon are they?..
Kurt - get some experience with HT issues and *then* comment on them.
You haven't heard dipoles at any length any more than you've seen a grey
screen.
> Personally I'm a great believer in the 'surround' bit of surround sound.
Personally, I'm a great beleiver in allowing the soundtrack producer to use
my system to put the sounds where they intended them to be. Balance is the
key.
> I currently have monopoles and I find them too directional. A lot of
> soundtracks include lots of ambient type sounds, these were never
> designed to be directional. They were designed to wrap around the
> listener.
Wrong: they were meant to be where the soundtrack producer intended them to
be.
You have no way of knowing where that is because your speakers inherently
distort the signal
>>Dilemma solved.
>
> In your household maybe...
Yep.
It's easy when you know what you're doing and why.
Here's some more food for thought - I'm done.
Some Quotes from Industry Sound Equipment Designers from
interviews done in Widescreen Reviews .
Meet the Designer Series
Cary Christy ( President of Acoustic Research )
( Christy Statement ) The sounds from both Bipole and Dipole
designs can be impressive but are not accurate in the areas of
intelligibility and specificity of the image .
(Q) Should rear surround speakers be different from their front
counterparts?
(A) No , again I believe that all of these speakers should be
blank canvases ,they should be neutral transducers and they
should represent what the recording engineer wants to put through
them accurately .Then if the recording engineer wants to change
the signal that is coming from the rear channels he can do so in
the recording . Having the rear speakers different
from the front speakers puts limitations on the capability of the
whole system .So I do not subscribe to having different rear
speakers from the fronts.
WSR V6 No1 Issue 23
Mr Jim Fosgate ( Fosgate Electronics Founder) (Designer for the
Harman Group ( Surround Decoders) )
(Q) How do you see an ideally balanced , integrated four or five
channel home theatre system ?
(A) If we are talking about the ideal home theatre system , in
my opinion it would have equal power in all channels and equally
matched loudspeakers with equal dispersion and equal frequency
response .
WSR V3 No3 Issue 9
Mr Matthew Polk ( Chairman & Chief Designer Polk Audio )
(Q) Do you advocate using identical speakers at each position in
a multichannel system ?
(A) Well , now that we have discrete digital this changes the
game. Our experience indicates that having identical speakers all
the way around is a tremendous advantage .Better control over
directivity becomes much more critical and I think with discrete
multichannel it is going to make this much more important.
WSR V5 No2 Issue19
Mr Jim Thiel ( Thiel Coherent President and Designer )
(Q) Do you subscribe to the home THX specifications for
dissimilar speakers using direct radiators in the front
hemisphere of the room and dipoles in the rear hemisphere of a
multichannel system ?
(A) No ,I do not subscribe to that ! By using dipoles in the rear
you tend t make all the energy coming from the rear speakers
diffused and non localized regardless of what the movie producer
intended .Since the movie producer can make the sound non
localize able on the soundtrack , you don't need the
speaker to impose that characteristic onto everything it
reproduces .So I think the speakers should be point sources for
all playback channels .
WSR V5 No2 Issue 19
Albert von Schweikert ( Designer Von Schweikert Research )
(Q) Do you subscribe to the idea that the rear speakers should
be different to the front, as THX states, to counteract the
different head related transfer functions the listener
experiences ?
(A) Yes I do , but only under the condition that we are listening
to the old pro logic monaural method . I would not use a THX
dipole system with the new 5.1 discrete digital system whether
AC-3 or DTS digital surround. The new 5.1 technology will allow
rear sounds to be panned from side to side.
(Q) So what you are saying is that to maximize the experience the
speakers should all be identical ?
(A) Yes , but that is with digital soundtracks, the new 5.1
formats WSR V6 No1 Issue23
Mr Bob Stuart ( Meridian Audio Chairman )
(Q) In your view what is the highest performance quality
multichannel discrete playback system ?
(A) What we recommend for the highest quality system is that in
our view, the speakers should all be direct radiators and phase
matched so they sound the same . We recommend equal time
alignment and placement in a discrete system .We mention this in
the introductory part of our owners manual " How to choose
Speakers " , it is all there. The answer is , for the ultimate
you choose the same speaker everywhere , but then we tell you how
to "compromise it ". WSR V5 No1 Issue 18
Do you get it yet Kurt?
Max Christoffersen
Nathan Marsh
tube system and still looking around for the "ultimate" av system?
Nathan
Gareth Jones
<Hugh_J...@scradge.moc> writes
>>Yes they do: reality.
>
>Bolleaux, there is no such thing as reality when it comes to the movies.
I'd agree. Some movies are designed to capture reality. Most are
designed to take you as far away from reality as possible!
>
>>>>As I said elsewhere, what exactly is a dipole recreating *accurately*?
>>>
>>> A soundfield effect?
>>
>>...and which soundfield effect would this be that has no direct localised
>>information?..
>
>It depends on the environment the speakers were fitted in. I've had on
>loan some MS 903 (admittedly not dipole) bipoles which diffused the
>soundfield plenty but I was still able to localise effects. My room is
>only 4m x 4m so I am close enough to the boxes to tell from where a
>point source type sound effect (eg a gunshot) comes from whilst at the
>same time a more ambient 'enviromental' effect surrounds me more
>effectively.
Again, my setup would tend to reinforce this view. The Bipoles certainly
seem to wrap the room in sound far more than monopoles, but I can still
distinctly hear where gunshots or arrows are being shot from.
Funnily enough, I sometimes don't like the pin point accuracy of the
front speakers - two days ago I had to buy a new widescreen telly...
the old one wasn't big enough to do the new large sound justice ;-)
It also wasn't big enough to allow me to balance the large centre
speaker on top of it, so I temporarily had it to the side - It
completely spoiled my enjoyment of films as the dialogue was noticeably
off centre :-(