Don't like direct-rad surrounds. Why do you? (1 Viewer)

[Rob*W]

quote:I like to hear whatever I'm playing coming out of the speaker(s) it was intended to come out of. If the sound was intended to pan from the front right to the rear left I want to hear that sound pan from the front right to the rear left, not from the front right to 'somewhere behind me'. In my setup the rear direct-rad's aren't distracting at all.

This is interesting. I've got quadpolar surrounds, which are quite diffuse, but they seem to be capable of producing distinctly localized sounds. I'm not sure how that works. For example, in Kill Bill 1, in the mosquito scene, the mosquito flies around and I can hear the path of the mosquito go behind me, seemingly distinct in position, distance and speed. It was so distinct that I (instinctively) turned to look for it (at a specific location).

 

[Phil Iturralde]

quote:As for Bi/Dipoles not reaching 15khz at the SS...

Objective benchmarks by Tom Nousaine for Sound & Vision Magazine ...



Klipsch Reference Series



RS-3 surround............. 99 Hz to 14.8 kHz ±3.6 dB



Paradigm Legend ADP-170 Bi-Polar Speakers



ADP-170 surround...... 62 Hz to 11.2 kHz ±8.2 dB



Paradigm ADP 70 Bi-Polar Speakers

ADP-70 surround........ 138 Hz to 13.4 kHz ±4.7 dB



It's the Basic Laws-of-Physics, ... based on the bi-polar design, ... the tweeter center axis direction is more than 80-degrees away from the 'sweet spot' hence, the highs drop like an Hawaiian waterfall in Jurassic park!



My Side surround are 3' behind my 'sweet spot' and the tweeter center axis direction around 16-degree's off @ my 'sweet spot'.

quote:So I guess the THX people are just all completely out to lunch, aay?

Maybe not anymore, ... here's a transcript from Home Theater Forum "LIVE CHAT WITH DOLBY LABS" (February 6, 2001) Brent Butterworth (copied partial excerpt is near the end of the transcript) ...

quote:Subject: DOLBY LABS - Brent Butterworth chat Date: February 6, 2001 - (link no-longer available...)



(partial quotes) . . . I missed the forum that you, Dave DelGrosso of DTS and Maureen Jenson of HOME THEATER Magazine did at CES last month. Two questions: What was said and was it bloody?



(Brent_Butterworth) Oh, gosh, I can barely remember! The comment that stuck most with me was John Dahl's of THX -- he acknowledged that dipoles aren't appropriate for monitoring material (i.e., 5.1 music) that's recorded with 5 identical monitors equidistant from the listener. And he said THX is investigating solutions to that problem -- maybe some kind of automatic switching!

Gee, even THX is aware of the diffused nature of reflected sound!



FYI: Dr. Floyd Toole wrote in one of his White Papers that all the ambience, atmosphere and effects are already encoded in the DD/DTS-5.1/6.1 Blockbuster Movie surround channels, and reproducing those surrounds with increased diffusion seems to defeat the purpose of discrete 20 - 20 kHz surround effects.



Anyway, HT is an investment! Enjoy what you have! REF Calibrate your setup and watch one of your favorite DVD's!



This Friday's NITE DVD is "The Day After Tomorrow" for my usual once or twice a month group of family & friends, ... a couple of families waited to see this movie on my HT

!!! It's a blockbuster CGI & DTS-5.1 (I force ON the Matrix-6.1 mode) smorgasbord.

Phil

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Phil- Ok, so the answer is to have 5 (or 7) full range (floorstandeing) speakers all equidistant from the sweet spot. Yeah, OK. Let's see how that passes the WAF in most people's homes.

Tom Nousaine's freq response measurements for dipolar speakers are not relevant. He does not integrate the response 360 deg around the speaker. Which means he does not include room reflections which is the whole point to a dipolar speaker.

 

[Lewis Besze]

quote:Tom Nousaine's freq response measurements for dipolar speakers are not relevant. He does not integrate the response 360 deg around the speaker. Which means he does not include room reflections which is the whole point to a dipolar speaker.

?

......and how is the room gonna restore fr range especially when it's not refelected at you directly at any point?

quote:So I guess the THX people are just all completely out to lunch, aay? Paradigm, B&W, Mirage, Def Tech, Polk, Wharfedale, etc, too? (All of which offer dipoles and/or bipoles for surround sound use.)

Yes, IMO,and it seems that DTS and Dolby takes a different stance as well.For every speaker manufacturer you cited here, there is a couple of each, who would never buid a multipole speaker,so I don't see how's that relevant or "proof" for anything.

quote:Phil- Ok, so the answer is to have 5 (or 7) full range (floorstandeing) speakers all equidistant from the sweet spot. Yeah, OK. Let's see how that passes the WAF in most people's homes.

You're right about that, which is why BM and TA was invented.

 

[Phil Iturralde]

quote:Tom Nousaine freq response measurements for dipolar speakers are not relevant. He does not integrate the response 360 deg around the speaker. Which means he does not include room reflections which is the whole point to a dipolar speaker.

Not relevant Kevin?? Lets, see, ... every HT Speaker that Tom has objectively benchmarked, his routine is identical, where he places his calibrated MIC @ his 'sweet spot' and takes his objective measurements in a typical living room. The MIC and room does not change.



Now about the surround speakers, ... IN THE LABS Notes, he will acknowledge that the location(s) and height(s) of the surround speakers are based on the MFG. recommendation - it's only fair.



So, let's see if he considers the room reflections in his objective testing, ... ... his HT Surround Speaker Standards states ....

quote:Sound delivered to the listener's ears from surround speakers will be reflected from room surfaces, so their response was averaged over a ±60° window with double weight given to the widest off-axis angles.

What's not relevant?



The MIC represents what we would hear, including the reflected sounds @ our 'sweet spot' facing the HDTV.

quote:Phil- Ok, so the answer is to have 5 (or 7) full range (floorstandeing) speakers all equidistant from the sweet spot. Yeah, OK. Let's see how that passes the WAF in most people's homes.

WAF IS very Important and Dolby Labs knows that!



So, ... let's use a little common sense and look @ "5.1-Channel Production Guidelines - Production Environment" recommendation again, ... (NOTE: There is no WAF influence involved retrofitting or building a new 5.1 Mixing Studio) ...

quote:3.2.1 Front Speakers

(pg. 24)



Multichannel sound systems add a center speaker to the Left/Right pair used in stereo systems. To promote good imaging, all three should be identical, just as conventional L and R stereo speakers must be matched. If all three cannot be the same model, the center speaker may be a smaller model from the same product line.





3.2.2 Surround Speakers (pg.25)



Whenever possible, use the same speakers all around to achieve uniformity. If this is not feasible, the surround speakers may be smaller than the front speakers but should maintain the same character; i.e. they might be smaller speakers from the same manufacturer.

Key words, "... smaller model from the same product line.", and "... smaller than the front speakers but should maintain the same character; i.e. they might be smaller speakers from the same manufacturer."



When I started researching all this HT stuff in 1997/98, all the buzz @ the Trade Shows and Stereo / HT Magazines about relatively 'new' Dolby Digital's AC-3 (5.1) for Consumers was the new requirement for identical full-range speakers around you, or, ... if that's not possible, ... identical satellites / bookshelf's speakers w/sub!



Those reporters and editor's visited Dolby's booth and asked questions about how the new DD-5.1 DVD's were being mastered and they all noted the types of Studio Monitor's used @ the DD-5.1 Mixing Studio's. Most written articles stated that the goal of Dolby Digital AC-3 (5.1) was to provide the pin-point discrete 20 - 20kHz surrounds effects to add more realism and sonic options for the Movie Director and how basically it was improvement over the Dolby Pro Logic's mono, frequency limited surround effects (100 Hz to 7 kHz).



So, as a guide, everyone can use the Dolby's Consumer's Guidelines to get started like I did back in '97!



Early on, I never joined the bi- or di-pole solution to reproduce DD/DTS-5.1/6.1 DVD's pin-point discrete surround effects in my HT/family room.



I've been using passive or powered subs since 1982 (use to sell Audio, Video & Computer equipment) so using small satellites or bookshelf speakers was always in the plans. Using IDENTICAL satellites / bookshelf speakers wasn't, ... until I got the JBL NSP1's (APR 2000 - now @ my vacation house) and I finally heard what seamless 360-degree transitions sounded like with IDENTICAL Speakers anchoring my Fronts & Side surround locations (w/timbre-matching Center).



Today, I'm fortunate enough to have room for six identical bookshelf speakers (JBL S26's) for my Fronts, Side and Rear Center Surround locations (w/timbre-matching Center & SVS of course) in my HT/family room and it's just great!!!


Phil

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Thank you for digging up exactly how Tom Nousaine tests. But the fact remains, for how most people will orient their surrounds, 2 - 3 ft above their ears, those high frequencies will also be rolled off. No difference. Physics dude!

Since you have never had bipoles/dipoles/omnipoles in your own system, I do not see you as being a good resource to be able to compare them. You only seem good at presenting information available elsewhere. I have tried all three types at different heights, orientations, and distances from where I sit in my own system. (I had an all direct radiator setup for 9 months. Vandersteen, ever heard of them?) Dipoles were good for HT, not so good for MC music. Monopoles were excellent for MC music, but I didn't care for them for movies. I found that bipolars/omnipolars offered the best compromise of spaciousness for movies and imaging for multichannel music. I am comfortable knowing that for my room, my system, and my preferences, I have the best speaker setup possible.

 

[Ryan Tsang]

You know guys, I think it boils down to preference of the presentation. True, the most accurate reproduction of the sound mixer's vision may be represented using identical speakers. But, that may not be what you or I find preferable.



Last night I hooked up my Hales Revelation Ones in the back on stands at ear level, directed at me. I run a 5.1 system with Hales Rev Two as the mains. After level calib, I played around with Pearl Harbor. The rear presentation was much more lively and aggressive compared to my bipolar Mirage OM-R2s. I could hear every shell, plane, and explosion. One might prefer that, saying it is more lifelike, and therefore it puts you "in the middle of the action." If I closed my eyes, I would agree 100%, because in a war, action IS all around you. It's not diffuse in the back!



However, I found it to be distracting and pulls me away from my following of the story and cinematography that is unfolding in front of me. It's like being in a busy restaurant and the table over your shoulder is obnoxious so you have a hard time listening to your date. Sure it's real, but is it good? I'm sure it's just me not being use to direct surrounds, much like Joe-SixPack finding the letterbox annoying.



I would venture to say that when very well done, soundfields do sound more realistic with direct rads because of the high frequencies, and they do match better with the mains. The opening scene of the Perfect Storm showed me that: low-level ambience is better preserved this way. Generally though, on most DVDs, my bipolar surrounds give me the most accurate imitation my experiences in a theater.



Cheers!

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Ryan- Similarly, here's what I've found: When I tried direct radiators, I hear the individual speaker. I hear 4 points of discrete sound to the sides and behind me. It's *too* discrete. The imaging back there is *too* good. It pulls my attention away from the screen and the front of the room too forcefully to the back of the room. I want to hear the soundfield back there, but not the individual speakers.

Phil- I did buy in to everything you have posted. I had dipolars a long time ago. Then I migrated to an all Def Tech system. Bipolars all around. With the dipoles, I always felt I was a little detached from the action. Sometimes I felt like I was "under" the soundfield. With the bipoles, I felt immersed in the sound field. I really liked that system (actually more now in hindsight than when I had it). But then I got an itch to change, and to try some of the best direct radiators I could find. I read everything I could, and a lot of it agrees with exactly everything that you post. But I actually did the comparison myself. My room, my system. My choices for music and movies.

So I got an all Vandersteen system. Time aligned, phase coherent drivers, pinpoint imaging so good that if you moved your head 6 inches in any direction, the sound quality changed as all the phase relationships changed. I had their VLR-1's for surrounds and rears, and they have coaxial tweeters and woofers which actually helps with off-axis freq response as there is no comb filtering from those two drivers in the overlapped freqs as you move vertically up or down in space from 0 deg, unlike typical bookshelfs. I even posted things like the following as I got into that system:

o direct radiators are the way to go, because as film soundtracks have evolved from DPL to DD to DD EX, more discreteness is preferred in the back of the room.

o soundtrack mastering also evolved as more discrete effects are placed in the surrounds. Not just rain and sounds of a forest back there anymore.

o and as you go from 5.1 to 6.1 to 7.1, the very presence of those additional speakers helps to prevent localization of any one speaker.

o and if you have all direct radiators up front, you should have all direct radiators in the back, to maintain timbre matching and the cohesiveness of the soundfield all around the room.

(I bet some of those posts are still here on HTF. About 18 months ago. )

So I'm listening, and I'm watching, and I kept thinking that something's wrong. That setup was fantastic for 2 channel stereo. Awesome for mc music. When I got Dark Side of the Moon, I just sat there and listened to it all the way through with a big grin in my face. I hadn't simply listened to a piece of music without reading the paper or a book, or playing on the computer

at the same time for years. But then I watched Magnolia, and I finally figured out the problem. There is a point near the end of the movie when frogs fall from the sky. That first frog in the rear right surround was so discrete it just destroyed the "movie moment". Just way too much localization. I knew then what the problem was.

I slowly dismantled that system, switched to Mirage (although at one point, I was just going to recreate the Def Tech system I had), and I'm a happy camper. (I do actually prefer Mirage's omnipolar center to the direct radiators that I had with both the Def Techs and the Vandersteens. An omnipolar center seems to help mute the effect of the reflections I get from having my center directly on top of the TV with that big flat screen right below.)

And here's how I think of the experience now: I had to go through the process that I did, to get to where I'm at today. The sins of the all direct radiator setup for film were much worse than the sins of a bipolar/omnipolar setup for stereo and multichannel music.

As for imaging in the back of the room? I have two demo scenes that I use to show off my system. The first 6 minutes or so of Pitch Black (the "crash sequence"), and the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. I have actually had more than one person duck while watching that beach landing.

 

[John-Tompkins]

My preference for movies is dipoles on the side and direct radiators for the rear.

I cant stand being distracted from the side speakers, I like to hear them of course but if they call to much attention to themselves it just buggs they heck out of me.



Its funny though, I dont seem to have the same problem from the rears.. It just doenst distract me to hear things coming from behind..I actually like the behind directionality using direct radiators..but boy, put the directs on the side and it annoys me to no end.



The dipole side/ direct back combo gives me exactly the right mixture of fullness/diffusion and discreetness.

 

[TomH]

Has anyone tried M&K tripoles? Do they really bridge the gap between direct and bipole?



Thanks

 

[JohnSmith]

They do work well, they do offer more direct sound than a dipole- but not too much direct like a monopole- I guess slightly different to bipole sound (they're more direct too) But in the UK the prices are extortionate. The SS-150's cost more than most peoples (high quality) fronts speakers alone!- the UK price is $2323! There is no price competition on M&K products- a set "no haggle price", with the usual $1-£1 price fixing

and not "acceptable" prices perhaps 50% more of the US price :-(



For US customers M&K offer good prices- but over here there are other brands that offer better value for money (or higher quality at the same prices)...if you just want "great surround speakers" the same can be said of their subwoofers- £2100 ($4000) for the M&K MX-350 and you have many other options at that priceband.