MarvinG

Does anyone have a 5.1 setup, with the bi-pole or di-pole surrounds on the back wall?

Most interesting. Actually, I thought there were three types 1 : monopole (or direct) 2 : bi-pole 3 : di-pole Per the Klipsch FAQs these are described as follows 1) Monopole" speakers consist of a speaker or group of speakers all firing on the same plane in the same direction. This includes the vast majority of all speakers made. What people think of as "normal speakers" are termed Monopole. With regard to current surround sound formats, monopole speakers are the least desirable because they are the least effective in creating an "enveloping sound field" (ambience). They are good at localization, but that alone is not enough to produce the desired surround effect. 2) If you take a monopole speaker and add another speaker placed 180 degrees opposite of it (i.e. back to back) firing in the same phase, you have a "bipole" speaker. Firing in phase means all drivers on both sides are at the same excursion point at the same time. This creates the exact same sounds coming from both sides of the speaker at the same time. By design, Bipole speakers send no sound directly toward the listener. A bipole speaker will produce good "ambience" as all the sound is reflected off the walls of the room, but is not effective in producing "localized" sounds. 3) If you take the basic design of a bipole speaker with the rear facing drivers firing exactly opposite of the front, you have a "dipole" speaker. Dipole speakers produce a very diffuse sound, which is good for ambience, but, like bipoles, are not very effective at localization. Dipole design further reduces direct sound to the listening position. I think my speakers, the wide dispersion RS-35, can be set for either bi-pole and di-pole...and the default is bi-pole, which is what I must have as I made no changes. As to placement: a) The FAQ further say that "Both bipole and dipole speakers should be mounted on the sides of the listening position and use reflected sound off of the walls to produce their effects. " But I have also read the opposite, ie "Bipole speakers and direct-radiating speakers work better when youre mounting the speakers on your back walls (again above ear level). " Intuitively, I always liked the idea of placing the surrounds behind me at ear level or slightly higher.....but the forums advised me to go to the side walls and higher up (per sketch). The irony is that the placement you suggest, behind the listener, would have been a piece of cake..I already have shelves there, and could have easily hid the wiring. But getting the wiring behind the sides wall (where the speakers are now) was a royal pain, and it took most of the day for two of us to fish the wires through - not to mention some holes we left behind the speakers...if I move them now, I'll need to get the plaster and paint out! I too would be interested in hearing more (no pun intended) on the dipole-bipole-direct speaker placement debate. Marvin

Yes, it is my first 5.1 setup, so it could indeed be a content/setup issue. For DVD's, I do ensure the DVD setup is 5.1 and I typically have the receiver om DTS - I assume thats 5.1 - correct? For some DVD's, I cant select DTS, and end up in Dolby surround, so that could explain it if you are saying surround is not the same as 5.1 Marvin P.S I erred in my original post...speakers are more like 7 feet up the wall (ie about 6 inches down from the ceiling.)

I rarely hear my surround channels. I have a 5.1 setup - HK525 with RF35's/RC35 up front and the RS-35 surrounds. The surrounds are mounted slightly behind the listener, about 6 feet up, on the rear side walls, facing each other. (see sketch at http://members.rogers.com/msgtech3/ht/images/perspective.jpg). I've even tried increasing the surrounds on the HK to plus 6db relative to fronts/centres but it makes no real difference. Is speaker placement my problem? The surround are mounted flush again the wall - do I need to aim the surrounds toward the listener? What would be a good example of a movie that has good rear channel content? Thanks Marvin

I would like to follow up on your comments. Are you saying you found your weakest link, which was at the heart of the problem, and that weakest link was the HK 7200 , which you replaced with a Rotel Rsp1068? Granted ROTEL is a fine prodcut, but I thought this forum (and others) confirmed that HK and KLIPSH as a great match? M My HK525 (not even a 7200) is no match for a ROTEL, but surely it a very respectable amp. Marvin

My first KLIPSH/SVS/HK experience .. Well, I finally got my new Klipsh RF-35 towers and RC-35 centre connected (RS-35s are still in the box ready for weekend mounting), along with a new SVS 20-39 PCi sub, all driven by my Harmon Kardon AVR 525, with my modest ULTRALINK twisted pair wiring, in my 11 x 17 den. I threw in a Jazz CD (in the Panny DVD player), calibrated nothing (yet) and hit play. WOW! I just sat on the couch and smiled. I hadn't been in this 'time and place' since I was a teenager. What a nice sound - crisp, rich, tight, warm ,full ..all at the same time. I threw in Armegeddon, was joined by my teanage kid, and when the meteors hit, she just yelled ' oh my god!" and she too was smiling! And its all WAF compliant to boot! Does it get any better? I know I have hours ahead of me in terms of getting all the settings done up 'correctly', but that will come in time.I am also on a learning curve with all the HK formats/options re Dobly, DTS, Logic 7 etc. Each one makes a difference. How does one really choose? I also noticed these babies use premium gas only! Some other CDs like James Taylor (with quality warnings on the label about them being original analog recordings) sounding quite muddled in comparison. I guess kLISCH tells no lies and you hear both the good and the bad. Now fortunately, I dont yet have a CD collection.. over the years, the kids took over with burining MP3's for the walkmans and the cars, and I have only a handful for the den. Should I be looking at dedicated CD player? SACD? DVD-A?...and looking into buying only certain types of CD's?? Thanks Marvin

I do intend to use banana plugs in general, eg at the receiver end of all cables, and at the speaker end for towers(RF-35s). But I need to use bare wire for the flush mount surrounds (RS-35), and even for the centre channel (RC-35) as its right up against as wall as well.

If one does not use banana plugs or spades, and simple feeds the wire through the hole of the binding post, is it necessary to solder tip the ends? For example, I wont be using plugs or spades on wall mounted surrounds.

Well, I opened up the second speaker and it's identical, so I guess this is normal! I remain curious as to why it is the way it is.

My RF's arrived today. Just opened the Rf-35 and already a question! When I look in the rear port hole, I see the eggcrate type foam neatly affixed along the bottom, and along ONE side, but then kind of randomly folded in the top/middle, such that there is NO foam on one side- ie I am looking at bare wood. Is this normal? I havent opened the other rf-35 to compare, but thought I'd ask. It looks very odd!! I have not heard these baby's yet, but man they look awesome! Marvin

When mounting the RS 35 flush against the wall, I assume one cannot and should not use plugs (as they'd extend into the wall), so does one typically just use bare wire, or spades? Also, the manual refers to the use of backpanel keyholes (or the threaded insert), but does not show where the keyholes are. It only shows the domed rubber feet. Where are the keyholes and how many are there? My Rs-35s are on their way...just trying to prepare!

Man , so many variations even with plugs! What's the deal with 'locking plugs'? At first I thought this referred to the wire being locked in via a set screw, but I gather that's synomomous with compression, and this has nothing to do with locking plugs. I was told locking plugs are terminated the same way (eg screw) as a non-locking plugs, but when inserted into a 5 way binding post, can be twisted and locked into place . Eg: http://www.speakerrepair.com/ebaypics/banana-l-side-appart.jpg So does this mean: a) that the vertical locking portion of the pluh is spring loaded such that is disappears as you push the plug in and then springs open (kind of like a toggle bolt)? that all binding posts can accoomdate a locking plug? Are locking plugs the norm given they have that advantage thay cannot easily be pulled out, or is this just marketing hype and non-locking plugs are just fine?

I'm going to be using either 14 gauge 4 wire or 12 guage 4 wire cable, and double up on the wires. I'm looking for compression fit banana plugs. I know if I used 14 guage 4 wire, and double up, the thinkness of the wire will 'just fit' msot plugs ( If I do the math, this confirms it , ie 14 gauge= 0.0641 inches , so 2 leads is 2 x 0.0641 = .1282 which just shy of 8 gauge, and most compression plugs will only take a make of 8 guage). BUT it I go with 12 gauge 4 wire, and double up, leads are 12 gauge = 0.0808, so 2 leads is 2 x .0808 =.1616, which close to 6 gauge! I cant seem to find a banana plug to fit! Is there such a thing, or should I just stick with 14 guage 4 wire.

Got a followup reply from KLIPSH (Steve): 1) "Sorry for any misinterpretation or confusion. Klipsch corporate would not have a position on bi-wire/biamplifying other than listed in our owners manual" 2) "I had previously provided a personal opinion/recommendation also shared by others (book recommendation is from someone not associated with Klipsch whatsoever) regarding the benefits of bi-wire. " 3) "Sorry for any confusion as to the position of Klipsch as we can not offer any other assessment on the audible effects of bi-wiring/biamping Klipsch speakers other than stated above. You can connect via standard wire and enjoy!" So its seems the official position is as per the manual, which to me says: a) bi wiring - 'in some case may be prefeable' bi-amping - 'not recommeded' Marvin

yromj - ironically, the longest run, the surrounds (RS-35) and not biwireable. So between that, and an review advising against it for the 4 wire cable I am using, and this/other forums which have debated this at nauseum without consensus, and the inconsistneices even within the manaufacturer, I am concluding that while there may be a theoretical difference, there is not a compelliing practical/sonic difference in almost all cases. I now tend to be in the camp that says interesting notion, but concentrate on the hundreds of other variables that in fact do make a difference. So it's bi-bi to bi for me. Marvin