Author Topic: Surrounds: Dipole, Bipole, or Full-range? (Read 11189 times)

ESi · « **on:** Aug 07, 2001 at 08:35 PM »

Hey everybody,
Need your comments on this issue. Post your comments. What works best for you?

robertj · « **Reply #1 on:** Aug 07, 2001 at 09:00 PM »

with my set-up i am using direct radiating sealed type speaker set to "small" in the speaker configuration set-up of my dsp-a1. yamaha suggest using these type of speaker(direct radiator) dahil yung dsp na nila ang nagdadala ng effects. as for the other types of speaker you've mentioned i don't have long listening experience so i can't comment on them. ang alam ko lang nung panahon ng pro logic recommended yung mga bipole or dipole speaker pero ngayong discreet na mas maganda kung direct radiating speaker ang gamit mo. yung kasing ibang type ng speaker di maganda ang localization pero maganda naman sa sound effects gaya ng ulan.

alfred · « **Reply #2 on:** Aug 08, 2001 at 04:08 AM »

Audition ka muna before buying. That way you'll find out kung ano ang taste mo either direct or indirect surround. Test mo din siya sa music with the advent of DTS concerts dapat pati sa music test mo din ang speakers. I use direct set to small sa AVR. Gaya ng sabi ni robertj mas alam mo kung saan mangagaling yun sound (localization).

rtsy · « **Reply #3 on:** Aug 09, 2001 at 01:11 AM »

Robertj and Alfred both gave very good advice.

I'd just like to add that aside from auditioning dipole/biploe vs. direct radiating, also make sure your room has a place along the side walls or ceiling where you can put dipoles/bipoles.

Personally, I went for direct radiating despite di/bis rears sounding more diffused on movies since multi-channel music specifies direct radiating.

Lastly, dipole/bipoles can be full-range speakers (look at the hgher models of the Atlantic Technology range). Direct radiating speakers can be full (you can set to large) or limited range (you must set to small). Personally, my Dynaudiuo Audince 40s at the rear are set to large on the receiver. Sounds fuller that way to me.

Compaq · « **Reply #4 on:** Aug 09, 2001 at 03:32 AM »

Quote

Lastly, dipole/bipoles can be full-range speakers (look at the hgher models of the Atlantic Technology range). Direct radiating speakers can be full (you can set to large) or limited range (you must set to small).

Hi rtsy,

Can you please enlight me on "full-range". What is the "range" should an speaker cover to be considered a
full-range speaker? And if it's not much trouble to you, what should be the freq range of a surround/rear speaker?

Thanks bro.

Compaq

manila · « **Reply #5 on:** Aug 09, 2001 at 04:55 AM »

esi,
Good question! Okay here is the catch. Will you use your surround setup mainly for home theater or audio or both? If it's mainly for home theater use, definitely Dipole or Bipole. If you will be using your setup for both HT Video and audio (music listening in 5 channels) take a direct radiating speaker of what you called FULL RANGE! If you are like me who only plays music in 2 channels and watch HT in surround, take the direct radiating or FULL RANGE. Just my 2 cents.

ESi · « **Reply #6 on:** Aug 09, 2001 at 07:23 AM »

Hello compaq,
Full Range simply means it can cover the whole frequency spectrum ( 20 hz to 20 khz ). But not all can cover the whole range larger can cover at least 30 - 40 hz and small about 50 - 60 Hz (These are bass frequencies). OK?
Thanks for your comments. RobertJ I also own a Yamaha the RXV-795a. I'll strongly consider your comment being an owner of Yamaha!. BTW what are your speakers?
PLease continue your comments. I'm dying to complete my set-up!
ESI

rtsy · « **Reply #7 on:** Aug 10, 2001 at 03:17 AM »

Thanks, Esi for answering the question on full-range frequency coverage.

I think the official THX cut-off is 80Hz to the fronts and surrounds but I am not sure.

Compaq · « **Reply #8 on:** Aug 10, 2001 at 03:55 AM »

esi & rtsy,

thanks guys....

D75C · « **Reply #9 on:** Dec 10, 2002 at 06:46 AM »

Hmm, I'd say a combination of Bipole and Full Range.

Before the advent of discrete channels, Dipole speakers were the way to go because they offered a great deal of spaciousness to the surround channels.

Now, things are a bit different because of discrete channels. I agree that direct radiating speakers are the the solution. However, mounting a big full range speaker on the wall is quite an odd thing to do. Plus, the radiation pattern of direct radiating speaker is normally +/- 30 degrees. Therefore limiting the sweet spot to the main listening area.

Bipoles increase the dispertion pattern of your surrounds to as much as +/- 70 degrees. Thereby providing extra joy to the 9 other people in the listening area. The sad part is Bipole and Dipole speakers are just small speakers that don't have big woofers to produce bass.

The solution? Add a subwoofer to the bipolar rear channel by wiring them in a sattelite-sub configuration, with a subwoofer cutoff at 80Hz or less. Can you imagine it already?

Now the sub that you will place in your rear channels don't have to be as big and powerful as your LFE sub because your seating position will most likely be closer to the rear than it is to the front.

If your system has provisions for side speakers (not to be confused with the rear channels), you can swap the bipole for a monopole.

greatbop · « **Reply #10 on:** Dec 11, 2002 at 05:12 PM »

well there are those new bipole speakers than can be switched to direct radiating if needed be... that's a pretty ok solution. However, the best solution if you're into multichannel surround and movies at the same time, is that you get 2 pairs of speakers for your rear surrounds - most midend budget av receivers (like denon 2802, 3803) supports speaker switching sa left and right surrounds..

pero it's not exactly the most economic thing to do.. kaya if pressed to choose either, i'm getting direct radiating speakers..

mdsaint3 · « **Reply #11 on:** Feb 19, 2003 at 08:59 AM »

Hi what are the advantages of using bi-polar speakers like the wharfedale wh2 compared to normal 2 way speakers/ sattelites? What do you guys prefer? Any reason why one should use either or?

nerveblocker · « **Reply #12 on:** Feb 19, 2003 at 01:04 PM »

mdsaint3-

Dipolar refers to speakers with drivers that are fired in two different directions and are in reverse phase causing a cancellation of sound waves in front of the speaker. This is usually done in rear speakers that are wall mounted. The front of the speaker is aimed at the listening area, which causes all of the sound to bounce off the walls before it is heard. This makes it almost impossible to determine where the speaker is, creating a true surround effect.

Bi-polar refers to speakers with drivers that are fired in two different directions, but are in phase causing an increase in bass output. I this type of speaker the drivers can be in the front and back of the speaker, side firing, or at 90º angles from one another. There are also speakers which function as both bipolar and dipolar. This can be adjusted using a switch.

Monopole is a type of speaker with all drivers facing one direction. Used for precise placement of sounds. Usually used in front and center speakers.

IMHO, Bipolar speakers are better for surrounds compared to dipolar or monopolar ones. This is considering that the speakers (monopolar and bipolar) are of the same brand and quality and size of drivers when you compare them. I would prefer my surrounds to have body as much as my fronts. It spells the difference in surround sound.

Sound quality is another factor though for surrounds. I can be satisfied with monopolar speakers with clear and detailed audio quality as compared to muddled bipolar speakers.

Bottomline is, audition and audition and audition and let your ears decide.

Just my 2 cents.

greatbop · « **Reply #13 on:** Feb 19, 2003 at 02:51 PM »

I go with Direct Radiating speakers. dahil i want that panning sound.. now.. 7.1/ 6.1.. i definitely do not mind having dipoles for left and right surrounds. And a direct radiating speaker for the back.

listener · « **Reply #14 on:** Feb 27, 2003 at 02:19 AM »

it seems that a lot prefer the use of a direct radiating speakers for surround use. Personally I prefer the use of Dipolar speakers. I have been using the B&W THX DS6 as my rear surrounds of my family room HT set up for the longest time na and its performance never ceases to amaze me. When positioned correctly, the dipolars ability to "disappear" is its geatest asset over conventional speakers. Its ability to envelop and surround its listeners without calling attention to the speaker units greatly contributes to a more cinematic and filmlike surround sound presentation.

greatbop · « **Reply #15 on:** Feb 27, 2003 at 02:51 AM »

well.. if you set direct radiating speakers up properly rin, they also disappear. NOT LIKE dipoles. pero close enough. and you still get the advantage of that localized 'panning sound..'

gaol · « **Reply #16 on:** Feb 27, 2003 at 08:10 AM »

Quote from: greatbop on Feb 27, 2003 at 02:51 AM

well.. if you set direct radiating speakers up properly rin, they also disappear. NOT LIKE dipoles. pero close enough. and you still get the advantage of that localized 'panning sound..'

I guess the same can be said of bipoles WHEN it comes to localized 'panning' or steering and directional effects. Properly setup, you DO GET THESE EFFECTS and to me it's good enough:

- to hear the burst of flames go around you, in that oven scene in Chicken Run; ditto with the whirling mace in the the first arena battle in Gladiator.
- to hear the whizz of the pod racers from behind to front, and all around, and the ricochet of bullets in EP1's Pod Race
- the sound of doors opening/closing to the right and behind, water dripping in a cave, etc.

And you still get that advantage of being immersed and enveloped in the ambient sound:

- being in the middle of a snowstorm/hailstorm/rainstorm and you can't say where it's coming from.
- underwater effects
- being inside a cave with all the ambient echoing, and so on-
- being part of the screaming crowd in concerts, and so on

Since I use my HT setup primarily for movies and listen to music in a separate stereo only setup (as arnoldc puts it, nothing beats the imaging/soundstaging of a good stereo setup--now that's steering/panning/localized effects enough for me in music), I decided to get Mission's m7ds bipoles instead of the m71 or m72.

(Price can also be a consideration, since bipoles are generally more expensive than direct radiating options of the same brand/line. Direct radiating speakers too are more flexible, since they can serve/be sold as fronts if desired.)

So in the end, it comes down to preference. What does one prioritize and what will one be content with good enough?

GAOL

greatbop · « **Reply #17 on:** Feb 27, 2003 at 10:28 AM »

^ no matter how good you think you have your di poles set up. Any sound it plays is diffused. kaya it won't localize very well at all.. pero for 6.1/ 7.1 setup. i do like dipoles on the sides.

gaol · « **Reply #18 on:** Feb 27, 2003 at 11:00 AM »

Well, in my setup, I will let my ears be the judge of that. It's my setup (and my preferences anyway) anyway. Hence, the constant reminder to those seeking advice: after all is said, audition, audition, audition.

Hmm, Somehow I'm reminded of that of that Beatles song:

"You say Goodbye
I say Hello.
Hello, Hello.
I don't know why you say Goodbye
and I say Hello."

Cheers!

GAOL

P.S. But I agree, using a combo of direct-radiating and bipole speakers for 6.1 and higher setups would probably be a good idea. Cheers again.

don · « **Reply #19 on:** Feb 27, 2003 at 11:18 AM »

I'm using dipoles for my surrounds and direct-radiating for the rear-center. (m7ds,m7c1)

here's an article worth reading:

Face Off: Surround-Speaker-Configuration Wars
By Mike Wood, April 2000 (hometheatermag.com)

http://www.hometheatermag.com/showarchives.cgi?25:0

listener · « **Reply #20 on:** Feb 27, 2003 at 11:30 AM »

Quote from: greatbop on Feb 27, 2003 at 10:28 AM

^ no matter how good you think you have your di poles set up. Any sound it plays is diffused. kaya it won't localize very well at all..

greatbop

Diffused sound and non localization are certainly not negative factors for rear surround speakers. Those are precisely the characteristics that I like from my B&W THX DS6 dipolar speakers. Yes I do now that DD and DTS requires the use of direct radiating speakers as rear channels but as far as im concerned there are no hard rules in audio and in HT so my personal preference has the final say....not Dolby Labs and DTS.

greatbop · « **Reply #21 on:** Feb 27, 2003 at 11:53 AM »

^ YEAH... Yung likod mo (either dipoles or direct radiating) does depend sa preference mo... There is no rule that's written in stone na as to what speakers to use in your rears.

Alot of people swear by dipoles. alot of people also swear by direct radiating....

don · « **Reply #22 on:** Feb 27, 2003 at 01:19 PM »

from the article:

"Movie nuts who watch mostly action films with predominantly discrete surround or rear-channel effects or music fans who like 5.1 recordings that place discrete instruments in the rear channels should definitely audition direct-radiating loudspeakers for the surround channels. Film and music buffs who like the rear channel to be more ambient in nature and want to focus on the action or soundstage up front should look more toward dipole speakers."

boi801 · « **Reply #23 on:** Mar 05, 2003 at 11:32 PM »

HI IM NEW HERE,BETTER USE MONOPOLE OR DIRECT RADIATING FULL RANGE SPEAKERS,BEFORE I PREFER DIPOLE BUT SOUND BECOMES LOCALIZED IN IF I CAN REMEMBER AT60HZ,AND MONOPOLES ARE BETTER FOR MULTI CH.

boi801 · « **Reply #24 on:** Mar 05, 2003 at 11:37 PM »

HI IM NEW HERE,BETTER USE MONOPOLE OR DIRECT RADIATING FULL RANGE SPEAKERS,BEFORE I PREFER DIPOLE BUT SOUND BECOMES LOCALIZED IN IF I CAN REMEMBER AT60HZ,AND MONOPOLES ARE BETTER FOR MULTI CH.

GC · « **Reply #25 on:** Aug 18, 2003 at 06:14 PM »

Does anyone know why dipole surround speakers are expensive? I asked an HT store guy and they told me their cheapest is around 23k pesos. Is it because dipoles are commonly used for THX? AFAIK, the only thing that makes it different is that it is internally wired to make the two drivers out-of-phase with one another. Is there any available DIY procedure for a dipole surround speakers?

D75C · « **Reply #26 on:** Aug 19, 2003 at 08:28 AM »

Dipoles are much more expensive because you pay for the extra pair of drivers used, not to mention the crossover network.

Also, in the laws of supply and demand. There is less demand for dipoles, bipoles, and tripoles. Because you can never use them as a stereo pair.

Hello people! I miss the audio forums. It's good to be back.

Philander · « **Reply #27 on:** Aug 19, 2003 at 09:53 AM »

Hi D75C,

Welcome back.

Sent you PM.

Thanks.

01SYNCTS · « **Reply #28 on:** Aug 20, 2003 at 05:37 PM »

Quote from: D75C on Aug 19, 2003 at 08:28 AM

Also, in the laws of supply and demand. There is less demand for dipoles, bipoles, and tripoles. Because you can never use them as a stereo pair.

Hi sir, whats the reason why you cant use the dipoles, bipoles, and tripoles for stereo output? Any valid reason?

D75C · « **Reply #29 on:** Aug 20, 2003 at 09:54 PM »

Actually, you can actually use bipolar and dipolar speakers as stereo speakers. I just don't know if your ears can tolerate it long enough, coz me myself can't.

The bipolar and dipolar surround speakers were designed primarily to placed on the sides of the listener and at the same time achieve these sonic objectives: Greater ambience and spaciousness; and non-localizable sound. For the regular filipino joe, the translation is "kalat ang tunog".

You may have heard of these bipolar speaker manufacturers, Mirage and Definitive Technology. They manufacture bipolar speakers for stereo use. Martin Logan and Apogee Acoustics sell electrostatic speakers that are by design dipolar.

So why should I buy their friggin expensive speakers if they sound "kalat"? Actually they don't sell "kalat" sounding speakers.

Their speaker designs are for greater accuracy and imaging. Their ideal placement is to the front of the listener. Greater ambience and spaciousness come in as a huge bonus.

To summarize, dipolar and bipolar surround speakers are designed to be placed on sides of the listener to provide greater ambience and non-localizable sound.

With regards to tripoles, this is a design gimmick of M&K Speakers wherein they combine the benefits of a monopole and dipole surround. Ideal placement for them is still to the sides of the listener.