swan surrounds

Discussion in 'Speakers' started by matt_matocha, Aug 8, 2004.

  1. matt_matocha

    matt_matocha Extra

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think ive decided upon the swan series of speakers. I plan on piecing a 5.1 setup over this year and wanted to start out with the 2.1's, then center, then 5.1's for mains, and i have some ideas for subs but none are set right now. My question is would the 2.1's be better for the surrounds or the actual surrounds offered from swan? Just didnt want to buy the 2.1's if i wouldnt really want to use them as rears if the actual surround are the better option. Thanks
     
  2. SethH

    SethH Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,867
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 2.1's will make very good surrounds. Many people on the forum have 2.1's for surrounds. Many people also have the dipole surrounds from Swan. I don't think I've heard too many complaints about either. It's really just a matter of preference. Some people like the monopoles, some like dipoles or bipoles. Your upgrade path makes good logical sense and will give you a great system in the end. If you get to the final 5.1 system and think dipole would be beneficial you could try to sell your 2.1's and probably wouldn't be out too much.
     
  3. matt_matocha

    matt_matocha Extra

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    thanks for the input. what are the advantages to going with a dipole over the bipole/monopole speakers? is it just that they are less directional? thanks again
     
  4. Rob Kramer

    Rob Kramer Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt

    You should really do a search. We just had this topic come up a week or two ago.
     
  5. Ben Mecham

    Ben Mecham Agent

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    matt,
    I think it will depend on the room size and orientation. Since the 2.1's are more directional than the bipoles, they would be best used if they could be placed slightly further away from the listener, or else you could be limiting your "sweet spot" areas. If the seating is very close to the speakers, bipoles might be the way to go, allowing for more variety of optimal listening positions, as far as the surrounds go, IMO.
     
  6. Burklund

    Burklund Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    bipoles?
    monopoles?
    dipoles?

    what does all that mean?

    I'm leaning towards the swans too. I'll probably get the 5.1s or 6.1s for the front main speakers, a center, and still undecided about the rears for surround sound.

    now whats all this "poles" about?
     
  7. SethH

    SethH Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,867
    Likes Received:
    0
    Search the forum or the primer for detailed explanations . . .

    Monopole = "regular" speaker
    Bipole = two speakers in one box angled away from one another IN phase
    Dipole = two speakers in one box angled away from one another OUT of phase
     

Share This Page