Bipolar or Dipolar (1 Viewer)

[continental]

Hello
Here is my 7.1 System

Fonts Klipsh Rf-63
Center Klipsch RF-62
Sub Boston Acoustics PV1000
L and R suround Boston Acoustics VRMX
BLS and BRS???
Receiver Denon 3806

Here is my question my left and right surround are the Bipolar BA VRMX but after installing and reading the manual for my receiver they say it will be better if my Back L & R surround would be Dipolar?
Is this correct? And can someone explain what is the main diference between BIpolar and Dipolar? BTW the main usage for this system is Movies and sports.

 

[JohnRice]

With bipolar, the two sides of the speaker are "in phase", basically just like two speakers back to back or at an angle to each other. I suspect that is the best type to use for the back surrounds, just like the manual says. Dipolar speakers have the two sides out of phase, which means basically no sound comes directly from the speaker, since the two sides cancel each other out, then the sound gradually starts to appear as it moves away from the speaker. Dipolars are often considered best for the side surrounds, particularly when they are basically direct to the sides of the listening area.

 

[continental]

THANK YOU.
Is amazing how reading tons of material i read a paragraph in this forum and UNDERSTAND the concept.
AGAIN THANK YOU.

Alonso

 

[Arthur S]

Hi Alonso

With all due respect to my friend John Rice...I prefer dipole surrounds for the sides and bipoles or direct radiators for the rear surrounds...I have a Boston Acoustics center and a Klipsch center, and some Cambridge Surround Works switchable dipole/bipoles that I use...and with an 80Hz crossover they work pretty well...please keep in touch with me.

 

[JohnRice]

Well, my "friend" Arthur S could make a living out of disagreeing with me. I try not to express my own opinion as the best way to go as much as possible, which is why I said "Bipolars are often considered best for the side surrounds", because bipoles "are often considered best for the side surrounds."

In the end, I think the real point of the original post was to get an explanation of the difference between dipolar and bipolar.

EDIT: once again, I got the two styles of surround backwards, which I constantly do. Dipolar is out of phase and is typically considered best for side surrounds.

 

[Alon Goldberg]

With all due respect to my friends Arthur and John... It's all a matter of preference, there is no "correct" answer. See this face-off for dipole speaker placement:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/bootcamp/25/index.html

 

[MikeH1]

And as an owner of bipoles, I prefer them over dipoles

 

[SethH]

I believe there is some confusion in this thread.

Dipoles are actually out of phase, with one driver pushing while the other is pulling.

Bipoles are in phase.

References:
http://www.htexplained.com/more/speakers.htm
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/.../t-127940.html
http://tech.yahoo.com/gd/understandi...peakers/153102

I prefer the out-of-phase speakers to the sides personlly.

FYI - with dipole speakers you should not be able to pinpoint where the sound iis coming from. It should be very diffuse. Bipoles should be somewhat diffuse, but should still allow you to pinpoint where the sound is originating.

I have a pair of Cambridge Soundworks surrounds that have a switch on them allowing them to be used as bipoles, dipoles or monopoles. They are currently on my back wall where I prefer to use them as bipoles.

 

[Arthur S]

Thanks AG

I will check out that link later on...how do you like your new speakers and Krell amp?

 

[JohnRice]

Seth is right. I constantly get the two styles switched. Something is always telling me Bipolar speakers should be out of phase, as in Bipolar disorder, with two constrasting moods. So, I prefer to think of them as "in phase" and "out of phase". "out of phase" is often considered best for side surrounds, and "in phase" for back. A good thing to do is choose a model which is switchable.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Here is what I think...

I have all bipoles for the sides and rears. I tried monopoles (direct radiators), and I found them way too localizable. Great for multichannel music, not so great for movies. Now, I've never tried dipoles, but after the direct radiators, I tried bipoles. (Well, really "Omnipolar" speakers by Mirage, but bipoles are very similar.) I thought the bipoles very nicely combine the best of dipoles (ambience) with the imaging of direct radiators. My opinion is that dipoles might have been the way to go in the old days of Dolby Pro Logic (II) when the info in the back of the room was supposed to be more of an ambient, unlocalizable nature, but in the current day and age of Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks where very specific sounds are specifically mixed to either the left or right side of the rear of the room, that bipolar speakers *might* be the best compromise for imaging *and* diffuseness.

But you also have to remember that people's preferences and rooms are different too. For example, if the tweeters of the side surrounds are at ear level, then bipoles themselves might be too localizable and dipoles would be the way to go. But if you follow the typical recommendations that the tweeters of the side surrounds be 2ft to 3ft above ear level, then I really do believe that bipolar speakers will give you a better listening experience. In my case, the tweeters are about 18" above ear level and I still prefer bipoles. (I knew very specifically what I didn't like about direct radiators in the back of the room, and changing to bipoles fixed the problems I had with them. Never felt the need to try dipoles.)

Also consider whether you only listen to movie soundtracks, or if you also listen to multichannel music. If only movies, then dipoles might well work for you. But for MC music where you want imaging between speakers, I then still believe that bipoles are the best compromise approach.

 

[JohnRice]

It's always a bit of a mistake to speculate that you wouldn't like an approach you've never tried.

 

[Arthur S]

I agree with John Rice.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

There is a continuum of pinpoint imaging to diffuseness as you go from direct radiators to bipoles to dipoles. I am happy enough with the amount of imaging *and* diffuseness I get from bipoles such that I don't need to try dipoles in my own HT. I have listened to dipoles at store showrooms, and for soundtracks like Saving Private Ryan where you want to hear the bullets whizzing by your head, dipoles didn't cut it for me. Too diffuse.