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

Found a great article, that for me, nicely ties toghether the various Group 1, 2 and 3 camps on this topic. Of course not all of us may agree with it, but it seems to align with almost all the posts in this thread. See: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_10_2/ultralink-CL414-cable-5-2003.html The only minor difference of opinion relates to biwiring - not so much ther merit or non-merits of it, but more the suitability a 4 wire twisted pair cable (which he loves) for biwiring - he cautions to resist the temptation to use this cable for bi-wiring, as he feels some of those twisted pair benfits would be lost. Regardless, I thought it was a very pragmatic and well written article. Hopefully my faith in it wont be too shattered following its critique by my fellow brethren in this group! I just wanted to thank everyone again for all thier guidance, suggestions, and opinion. This is truly a great forum. Marvin

I wrote back to Klipsh support and asked they explain the contradictory position on biamping (re thier email response and the manual- its in the RF35 manual was well). No reply yet.

oooh , I guess there is , but they are called boots, not pants. Cute! http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=185-212

The wall plates are indeed clean. Only negative might be it introduces another break in the connection from amp to speaker. One last option I can think of is the let the wire be exposed into the room, but improve the appearance (for those who peak) by using '2 sleeve cable pants', such as those shown at http://www.hometech.com/techwire/audioconn.html#Z1P This would work for two terminal connections ( ie not bi-wired), but I have yet to find any 4-sleeve cable pants. Is there such a thing?

When one uses in-wall cable, how are the cables terminated? I am guessing its via some sort of wall plate, then 'regular' speaker cables running from the face plates to the speakers (and the AVR). Are the generally available? For example, if I dont go that route and expose a foot or two of the wire for the front towers, is there an appropriate plug/sleeve/connector arragement for this? Take a look at http://members.rogers.com/msgtech3/ht/images/bi.pdf This 'look' sucks. This is Ultralink CL414 in-wall cable with UltraLink Compression Fit UL-0521 connectors. Thanks Marvin

By shotgun I assume you mean just double up two conductors into one banana plug. I am assuming this same cable can be used for biwiring - ie the same as above at the amp end (ie two conductors into one banana plug )but only one plug per conductor at the speaker end. Correct? Hey - thanks for all your pateince with me!! These newbies can be hell!

Suppose I have: - a single AVR ( eg HK AVR 525) ( ie no bi-amping) - a roll of 4 conductor 14 gauge cable (eg ULTRALINK CL414 - not yet purchased -a set of bi-wireble towers a bi-wirable centre and - a set of non-biwirable surrounds. Suppose as well, given I have the wire, I choose to implement bi-wiring, on the premise of no-harm-done and that its recommended in the KLIPSCH manual. Can I safely assume that it's a perfectly acceptable/normal arrangment to bi-wire some but not all the speakers and drive them all from the same AVR and all with the same type of cable. Ie wiring as shown as http://members.rogers.com/msgtech3/ht/images/bi.pdf Where wires are doubled up, does it matter which two, ie do you pick two adjacent conductors or two alternate conductors. As black is adjacent to white, I'd assume alternate conductors should be bundled. Thanks Marvin

Griff - you are of correct, they of course have a whole product line...it's jsut that I had planned on something like the Excelcior as a decent cable, so I was asking questions relative to that product. So now, if I rule it out becuase of the building code issue, and go with the "in-wall" CL3-FT4 rated cable (eg CL414 or CL212), that's fine, and it happens to be considerably cheaper than the ULTRALINK excelsior....hence my question, is teh in-wall cable it actually a poorer quality cable than the excelsior? Again , it the in-wall is really very decent stuff, I may have found my perfect solution .. 12-14 gauge...good quality.. fire retardant.. avaiable in 4 wire if so desired (re bi-wiring) ...brand name.

It seems that the current 'marketing' arm of KLIPSCH is pushing it. Here was their reply to my question to them of whether or not they foramlly recommended it, even for those users who do not bi-amp: == Thank you for your email and for your purchase of Klipsch speakers for your home theater system. You are correct as there seems to be some debate and confusion about bi-wiring. I can refer you to a book written by Robert Harley entitled "The Complete Guide to High-End Audio" (http://www.hifibooks.com/). In chapter 11 Mr. Harley has a very good explanation about bi-wired loudspeaker cables. Klipsch has gone to greater expense to design and manufacture our Reference Series speakers with bi-wire and bi-amp capability along with being internal wired with Bandwidth Balanced Monster Cable and therefore, I would agree with Robert Harley and suggest that you take advantage of this and bi-wire your speakers, even if it means buying two runs of less expensive cables. Other benefits of bi-wiring would be in allowing your electronics to operate more efficiently as the amplifier "sees" a higher impedance on the tweeter cable at low frequencies, and allow impedance at high frequencies. The opposite is true n the woofer half of the bi-wired pair. Hope this helps...enjoy! Steve W. Bailey Klipsch Home Audio Tech Support Klipsch Audio Technologies 1-800-554-7724 option 2 Klipsch...A LEGEND IN SOUND == So, I guess thre is no harm done by bi-wiring ( ie speakers are desgned for it, no warranty issues, manufacturer reccommends it) , but the jury is out as to whether it makes a differnce. Per earlier posts, the founder of the company, PWK, didn't think much of it.

The "in-wall" CL3-FT4 rated ULTRALINK cable is considerably cheaper than the ULTRALINK Excelsior....does this mean the in-wall is actually a poorer quality cable? If its really very decent stuff, I may have found my perfect solution .. 12 gauge...good quality.. fire retardant.. avaiable in 4 wire if so desired...brand name... hmmm...OK ...what's the catch!!!