Surround (RS-7) Placement

[SteveB]

Hi,

I just bought the Klipsch RC-7 (center), Klipsch RF-7 (pair mains), and 3 of the Klipsch RS-7 surrounds (the odd one for the rear center of my 6.1 setup). I am going from tower surrounds to these and I am not quite sure where to place these new dipoles.

My room is 21' x 14' approx. My TV is along the longer wall with the 'sweet spot' almost smack in the middle (slightly closer to the back of the room).

<b>Should I place the RS-7's in the corners or to my side? </b>

<b>How high should I place them in relation to the ground?</b>

<b>Should I keep my rear center RS-7 at the same height as the other two surrounds?</b>

Thanks in advance,

Steve

[jdm56]

Steve,

The RS-7's are what is usually referred to as a "quasi-bipole design. Most people suggest placing these on the sidewalls, even with or slightly behind the listening position, and a bit above seated ear height. I think if you can keep them all about the same height, it would be good.

Sounds like a real nice setup. Enjoy!

------------------

JDM

[ShapeShifter]

SteveB,

You may want to give some additional thought to using an RS-7 as a Rear Center. Actually another RC-7 is best. It will provide consistent coverage for the center, less tonal imbalance and improved dialogue intelligibility, if you will. As opposed to the diffused effects type sounds you will receive from the Wide Dispersion Surround Technology (WDST) RS-7.

I would only take the additional RS-7 under the condition that it could be returned if you did not like it in a rear center role. You may well like the diffused center as opposed to the normal localized sound of an RC-7. What works for you is what matters most!

Wes

------------------

"KLIPSCH IS MUSIC"f>

[HornEd]

Well, first, congratulations on your front array, SteveB... even if the center is a tad week (compared to the mains) for optimal enjoyment from 5.1 (and above) for the discrete sound mixing that responds best to five (or more) identical speakers. This of course is for reasons of timbre matching and accuracy in projecting the sound as intended by the audio engineers who mixed the DVD for home theater. Since upwards of 75% of the total HT sound is directed through your center channel, it would be nice if it truly were the equal of the left and right mains. But, your question was about surrounds... so here goes...

You have purchased three of the finest WDST speakers Klipsch has ever made. By there design, they mechanically change the recorded mix by spraying the sound of two horn tweeters to bounce off walls before they hit your ears... creating a "diffuse" sound. And that is okay for weak, outdated, surround sources like ProLogic or to jazz up films of yesteryear. The saving grace is that they have an 8" woofer to direct high bass and midrange toward the sweet spot as intended by the audio engineers of 5.1 (and above).

The answer to your question is that sound sprayers have the ability to sound "good/okay" just about anywhere you put them since by bouncing sound off walls before they reach your ears they depend less on location... but this raises a bit of an issue because your sidewalls are far from your sweet spot if your TV is on the wide wall.

Generally, surround sound speakers do better when they are mounted and aimed about a foot (or so) above your ears when seated in the sweet spot. For 6.1 (which I prefer), the side surrounds should be a foot or two behind your ears when seated in the sweet spot and the rear effects speaker directly behind.

If you drew three identical equilateral triangles sitting on a common plane... with one facing left (Horn Tweeter), the center facing forward (midrange cone) and the third facing right (Horn Tweeter)... you would depict the cones of sound emanating from a single WDST speaker. Thus, the side surrounds are throwing Horn Tweeter sounds toward the TV and the rear wall (which creates a mechanical, tweeter range 6th channel effect). Obviously, if you put a third WDST speaker on the rear wall, you are overlapping the tweeter range spray toward the side walls.

Again, the saving grace is the 8" woofers that will be sending the midrange of the original signal toward the sweet spot. I am a fan of WDST for unusual or difficult listening spaces... such as my 30' motor home. And, though an admitted horn fancier, do appreciate the sound quality of the minimalist horn design found in the Reference series. They are good, solid, accurate speakers by any account... and play a wide variety of source material without being as much "in your face" as fully horn loaded designs.

While not knowing as much about your room, gear and listening preferences... here is what I would suggest in Reference level listening. (Well, ideally it would be six RF-7's by my audio standards...)

Take back two RS-7's and upgrade them to two RC-7's. Put the remaining RS-7 on your back wall directly behind your sweet spot and about 6' high. Put the RC-7's (either horizontally or vertically) on the sides a foot or so behind the sweet spot and high enough for the horn tweeter to be aimed slightly above ear level. With a room as wide as yours... there is plenty of room to have an abundance of ambient sound... your challenge is to get the appropriate discrete sound that makes 6.1 technology a real winner!

The RC-7 is such a well designed speaker that you could mount six of them in your room for a 6.1 system and, with the addition of an adequate subwoofer, have a system that would outperform the one you bought on all quality 5.1 (and above) source material.

Please understand, SteveB, that the intent of this post is to help folks understand when WDST helps and when other Reference series are a better choice... it is not a slam against Klipsch or using WDST where it is of most benefit. Klipsch Reference speakers are so well designed that you could please most folks even if you had six RS-7's instead!... but, IMHO, you would not be getting all the benefit that RF-7's and well mixed source material have to offer.

There is a reason that higher end Klipsch systems tend to have a monopole design even for 6.1 HT and multi-channel music... particularly SACD. Enjoy what you have... but as you grow in understanding of your audio opportunity... please remember this post when it comes time to upgrade. -HornED

PS: I was writing this reply when Shape Shifter gave his sound advice of getting past the overlapping sound sprayer effect. If your TV were on the short wall, I would have probably recommended that approach. His counsel to have the right to bring back rear array speakers if they do not perform well in your room is excellent advice! H.E.

------------------

Photo update soon! -HornEd

This message has been edited by HornEd on 04-16-2002 at 10:09 AM

[Seb]

...and HornEd is at it again!

------------------

http://members.fortunecity.com/sebdavid - go laugh at my crappy website/equipment

http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mc.asp?alias=Sebdavid - go laugh at my puny little DVD collection

[HornEd]

Ah, yes, merci beaucoup Seb, but note that this is only his fourth post and I believe that newbie's also have the right to the skinny of phat sound! -HornED

This message has been edited by HornEd on 04-16-2002 at 02:53 PM

[ShapeShifter]

HornEd,

You right! They should at least be presented with the alternative cup of choices. Whether they choose to step up and drink or not, at least they know what choices they can partake. I tend to be conservative in my suggestions after getting jostled a few times last year for endorsing full rangers in the rear.

Wes

------------------

"KLIPSCH IS MUSIC"f>

[T2K]

If you say it over and over and over long enough, some people will believe it. No matter what it is you're saying!

Keith

[HornEd]

Ah, yes, your technique is well recognized, Keith and I support your right to keep using it. It takes all kinds of tolerance and a little diversity to make a good board. Certainly there are many people on both sides of the fence... fortunately, most remain civil. I have tried your approach and continued to find what I believe is a better way.

And sometimes, when an ideal speaker can't be found, there are those who, like John Warren who will experiment to find a better way... and, frankly, look at all the experiments that PWK tried. Sometimes a better way is not always seen as a more saleable way... and that's why the KSP's were stopped dead in their tracks.

You, Keith have chosen on more than one occasion to suggest that the KLF-30's were built for the ProLogic era... and I suppose they were. But they were designed as monopole main speakers and not surrounds. Fortunately, most of us have not bought them for audio surround's weakest link, ProLogic, but have used them to reveal more of what 5.1 (and above) offers. Several people have built new KLF motorboards to allow them to turn a Klipsch floorstanding speaker into a "horizontalized" version to become a center speaker (as I have) and I have yet to hear of anyone who did not find it a significant improvement.

SteveP and Miss Becky, for whom I have great respect, like Heritage up front and your KSP-S6 outback way... and that's okay by me. My hero, Q-Man, agrees with me... as do many others with larger rooms and budgets to match. Soundog is another who has spent a lot of time, effort and money to create a great sound system... but he prefers a great set of monopoles for his family and friends to enjoy. Fortunately, Klipsch makes speakers that fit our various persuasions... and even has a Forum that lets us talk about them... at the risk of being vilified now and then.

My music system is based on the Khorn corners and Belle center that the late Mr. Paul preferred... I am glad that people like Tony Reed of this Forum (Vintage Klipsch collector and a longtime friend of Mr. Paul & Miss Valerie) called attention to Mr. Paul's preferences long enough for me to wake up and get on board. And Boa (who uses Cornwalls for surrounds and KLF-30 for mains would like to do Khorns and Belles up front from his many comments) gave me some of the incentive to invest in six KLF-30's for HT. So did a lot of others. BobG suggested that I re-visit the acoustics papers of Floyd E. Toole, Ph.D... and I did. Most pros consider Dr. Toole to be the best in the business in his field regardless of brand affiliation. I have spent the time, money and research to side with Dr. Toole and others instead of accepting your alleged "common sense" and potentially closed mind.

Lighten up, Keith, just because someone doesn't agree with me I don't consider him a bad person... or feel a need to follow his post with some lightly veiled ridicule. The strength of this board is the potential for us to grow after feasting on a difference of opinion. Clearly, different people have different audio agendas... hear in a slightly different way... or have room acoustics that override one approach or another.

Your system works for you... and you comment upon it frequently. My HT & Music systems work for me... and I comment on it frequently. I am sure you must have a stack of appreciative emails from people who have read your comments... just as I do. I fought for this country because I believe in the freedom to express a dissenting opinion is a cornerstone of social strength. Paul Klipsch was an engineer's engineer who contributed far more to this country and the world than a legacy of great speakers... yet stories abound as to how he gave people the benefit of the doubt... and I have yet to hear the story where he flashed his little yellow button because someone violated his idea of "common sense."

Common practices for setting up audio systems are not necessarily the best way to set them up. If they were, we should all be replacing Klipsch with Bose since Bose sells far more speakers and therefore setting them is a more common practice than building a life around the KSP's of yesteryear. But, frankly, I would much rather start over with KSP's than Bose. I spend time on this board to learn for myself and encourage others to benefit from what I have learned. While I may not be the world's best audio student... I am also not so full of myself that I don't leave room for the opinion of others in my own mind. I have learned great things from some of the most unlikely sources... and I shall continue to do so. You, for example, have contributed much to spur me on to better audio and greater tolerance. -HornED

This message has been edited by HornEd on 05-10-2002 at 02:15 AM

[USparc]

nice speech HornEd !!!

SteveB, read it carefully!!

quote:

---

I am going from tower surrounds to these and I am not quite sure where to place these new dipoles.

---

If you have the place for towers stick with towers.

Yep, where do you place the RS-7. It is more difficult to place RS-7's then extra RF-7's if you have the place.

Also THX is going to the monopole speakers. Creating the right environment is the task of the receiver or better the soundtrack itself!!

------------------

-------------------------

Receiver: Pioneer VSX-909RDS

DVD: Pioneer DV-525

Screen: Thomson 46" RetroProjection

Front: RF-3 tFTP

Rear: RF-3 tFTP

Center: RC-3 tFTP

SubW: KSW-12

[SteveB]

Wow, great speech HornEd!!!

I could hear the sound of Pomp and Circumstance faintly playing in the background as I read through, very moving!! :-)

Now another question. I sent back the 3rd RS-7 that I was going to use for the surround center (actually found someone that paid more for it than the MSRP). My setup is now RF-7 mains, RC-7 center, 2 RS-7 surrounds, and a Kenwood JL840 tower to fill in as my surround center for the time being. My room is approx 14' by 21' with my TV being along the longer wall as I stated in an earlier post. Perhaps not the ideal setup, but based on architectural concerns, the most logical.

I've heard folks tell me trash the RS-7s and get 3 RC-7s for my surrounds. I've had folks tell me get 4 RS-7's, 2 for surround, 2 for surround center. I've been told keep my Towers (Kenwoods old) for surrounds. I've been told to throw all my Klipsch out and get Vienna's. I've been told alot of different things.

I know it's all personal preference really, but guys, I am not sure now what I should do here??

I am keeping the RF-7 mains, RC-7 front center, and the 2 RS-7 surrounds. That much I know. What should I get as a surround center now to compliment this setup?

My receiver, not the best, decodes DTS-ES6.1, DTS, 5.1 DD, prologic. I need a few more pieces of advice to confuse me a bit more, please ;-)

Thanks for all your time guys and gals. Your help really is appreciated very much.

Sincerely,

Steven B

My setup:

Sony WEGA 27" TV (soon to be a 65" HDTV)

Sony DVP-NS700P DVD player

Pioneer VSX-810S receiver

Klipsch RF-7 mains

Klipsch RC-7 center

Klipsch RS-7 surrounds (l and r)

Kenwood JL840 surround center

Boston Acoustic PV-800 subwoofer

[HornEd]

Thanks USparc and, of course, you raise a very interesting issue regarding the migration of multi-channel sound systems in commercial and home theaters (which use different audio approaches). LucasFilm THX and Dolby Labs have gotten together to produce "THX Surround EX" to compete with DTS (Digital Theater Systems) patented 6.1 multi-channel approach, "DTS-ES."

The THX partnering with DD 5.1 creates a giant market share juggernaut and shifts the emphasis from three distinct channels up-front and ambient channels in the rear... to three distinct channels up-front and three distinct channels in the rear... plus the LFE subwoofer channel, of course. (Note: the new THX/Dolby approach makes two speakers available for the rear but they draw from the same rear center channel.)

Having three identical or closely matched speakers up-front has proved to be a winner in anchoring sound to the screen and providing better left-to-right sound pans. Adding a discrete rear center channel to the discrete left and right surround channels provides a more realistic way to pan between the three discrete rear channels. Of course, bipole, dipole and tripole approaches tend to defeat the mixing process... and so the migration to monopole rear speakers as source material is mixed for these emerging THX and DTS 6.1 discrete channel formats (Remember, the new THX has only 6.1 channels although it uses two rear speakers.)

It should be noted that the new Sony Dynamic Digital Sound (SDDS) approach. Sony uses 8 discrete channels... Left, Right and Center Mains... Left and Right Front Effects... and two channels for Left and Right Rear Effects. Notice that Sony (as yet) has not provided for a Rear Center channel.

Clearly, having three identical speakers up-front and three more identical speakers in the rear creates a potential to have better back-to-front sound pans as well. I have constructed my HT to conform to the best of THX, DD, DTS and SDDS technologies as I understand it. I have tried to alert my fellow Forum members and lurkers that audio technology is shifting and that the argument that Keith and others are making will become moot over the next few years IMHO.

By the same token, I have agreed that Klipsch WDST does a great job at providing a bridge technology between what-has-been and what-is-to-come. Certainly, by suggesting that someone build a surround sound system out of Klipsch monopoles when appropriate does not lessen dollar volume or market share of the Klipsch company.

For those of you who would like to explore some of the history and future of surround sound, you might try exploring the How Stuff Works website threads beginning at http://www.howstuffworks.com/surround-sound.htm to be more in-tune with the details. -HornED

PS: Mr. Paul will be laid to rest this day. His Spirit was one that spurred inquiry to the next level... may we in our diversity keep that that Spirit alive on this Forum.

This message has been edited by HornEd on 05-10-2002 at 10:13 AM

[HornEd]

PWK photo & PWK logo derived from Klipsch website, Yellow Button from Mrs. Paul W. Klipsch website. Type font Copyright 1990, Ed Dennis & Associates. All rights reserved.s>

This message has been edited by HornEd on 05-10-2002 at 10:30 AM

[T2K]

Ed, I do not have a 'technique'. I simply try to state my opinion in a clear and concise manner so that others may easily understand my opinion.

My suggestion that KLF-30's were built for pro-logic was more or less a joke. I made that observation using YOUR logic.

Your dropping of names does not impress me at all,and does not lend any support to your incorrect opinion of the actual design and use of WDST surround speakers. I have 7 full range speakers available for my use in my HT (note: did not further cloud issue by mentioning SACD) and yet I still prefer the use of both the WDST surrounds AND monopoles in my HT setup. You just cannot seem to get the difference in bipolar,dipolar, and WDST speakers. WDST speakers,if set up correctly,provide a 180 degree 'dispersion' (not 'sprayed'-your 'technique')and do not rely primarily on first reflections for a diffuse sound. The design is intended to mimic multiple surround speakers (such as in movie theatres & the Klipsch theatre room)in an attempt to provide a complete surround experience that leaves no'holes',which is exactly what monopoles do provide when used as you suggest. As I have stated before,my opinion is that there is no holy grail perse, but the use of BOTH monopoles AND correctly set up WDST surrounds tend to give a more complete surround experience without the 'holes' in the surround that monopoles alone will provide. Sounddog understands my meaning. His LaScala surrounds are set up so that they 'spray' sound just as a WDST speaker does.

I'm proud for you that you have the Heritage speakers ED. I can assure you that if I wanted Heritage speakers I would certainly have them.

I don't 'follow' your posts Ed. In fact,I rarely read your posts(redundancy).

I've wasted all the time here that I can, for now.

Keith

[HornEd]

Keith, it is refreshing that you have elected not to "waste any more time" by niggling my posts. Sure there is redundancy because the nature of this Forum is that new people keep showing up with the same old concerns. I try to keep them appraised of trends and alternatives that they might consider.

Your "technique" as I meant it was to mix and match monopole and WDST speakers (and their close relatives like KSP-S6). Just as you believe they are needed, probably a poll of all multi-channel systems of every brand would show that that opinion is in the minority. That, of course, would not prove which approach is actually better.

I used names of a few people who have been prominent on this Forum for their considered opinions pro and con. Soundog and Q-Man both use inverted LaScala's to achieve a better sound experience... but these are examples of shaping sound with more precision than turning loose two or four 180° horn tweeter sound "diffusers" into a room.

Some of us have the opinion that this creates an overabundance of diffused sound that more than fills in the gaps. As indicated by USparc, the trend seems to be toward monopole surrounds with the correct level of ambient sound mixed in the source material rather than arbitrarily broadcast 180° from each side... and, sometimes, 180° from the rear as well. If you don't see anything wrong with that scenario... than by all means keep on keepin' on!

Obviously, what you call "clear and concise" I find to be misleading, presumptive and not in the best interests of the average reader. You seem to have that view of much of what I contribute to this Forum. To present our varying opinions is what this Forum is all about. What I don't understand is why a difference of opinion should be a signal to launch into attack mode?

The only reason that I spend so much time replying to your tactics is to avoid being painted as someone who posts irresponsibly and without speaking plainly. Your misdirected taunts force longer, clearer explanations of my position... and in the end, that may be a good thing for the average reader. -HornED

[HornEd]

SteveB, sorry I missed your post as it came online while I was typing up a response which was inserted after your post.

Your point about how your room shapes up is a valid one. Usually, WDST speakers are chosen for rooms that are more narrow than wide. Widely placed monopoles create a wedge of coverage that provides ample ambient and localized sound. The new THX Surround EX uses two speakers using the same discrete rear channel to help compensate for the nearness of a rear wall.

The role of the Rear Effects Speaker(s) is to more closely tie-in side-to-side sound pans and to provide for more accurate mixing of ambient and localized sound on the source material. Commercial THX approved theaters must pass the THX test of avoiding reflected sounds... the intent is to create an acoustics environment similar to the one being depicted in the movie.

Bipole, dipole, tripole, and WDST all tend to mechanically increase sound reflections as a path to greater ambience... but, increasingly, those concerns are being more precisely met by better mixing of source material and better understanding of correct speaker placement. Speaker systems that spray a 180° pattern also tend to be harder to match for tone and timbre... but Klipsch WDST does a better than average attempt at this... particularly in the RS-7.

So, SteveB, the answer to your short term question is to add one or two monopoles for the Rear Channel... and be prepared to shift to monopole side/surrounds in the next couple of years to get the best out of the emerging "THX Surround EX" standard that is likely to become to big to ignore. It sounds like your receiver may already be equipped to supply a matrix channel for your rear speaker(s). In effect, your WDST side/surrounds are already bouncing a "mechanically matrixed" rear effects off of your back wall... but a discrete rear monopole should help restore some of the lost localization of appropriate sounds.

Remember, if you dump enough dirt in a big valley of hills and dales you will get a plain... and that's what happens when mechanically enhanced ambient sound overwhelms the localized sound mixed into the original sound source... IMHO. -HornED

------------------

Photo update soon! -HornEd

[USparc]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HornEd:

Remember, if you dump enough dirt in a big valley of hills and dales you will get a plain... and that's what happens when mechanically enhanced ambient sound overwhelms the localized sound mixed into the original sound source... IMHO.

-HornED

---

Wow, I couldn't said it better. Nice resemblance HornED!!

I'm going to try it from a more practical point of view. I take the movie "The Matrix" as test sample.

Yep, the scene on the roof when the bullets are slowed down. You hear (some of us) the bullet(the one going to the left) passing you and go behind you (all on the left). With dipoles (or whatever non monopole speaker) Where is the bullet gone?? Yep, Lost in space!

Then the camera turns around Neo and you can even hear the agent firing from the rear right. Did you all hear that to??

Dipoles are indeed used to virtually create more speakers to give more environment feeling to live up the "wow" factor, but at what cost.

If you know what a 2 channel system can bring you, the placing of all the instruments in the 3 dimension,... . It is all in the soundtrack. Don't mess with it and enjoy it like it is meant to be.

------------------

-------------------------

Receiver: Pioneer VSX-909RDS

DVD: Pioneer DV-525

Screen: Thomson 46" RetroProjection

Front: RF-3 tFTP

Rear: RF-3 tFTP

Center: RC-3 tFTP

SubW: KSW-12

[anarchist]

Uh,

In the words of PWK, Bullshit. I watched The Matrix again yesterday. I watched the lobby scene two times and at very high volumes. Listening to shell casings dropping and scattering, listening to gun fire emanating from various places in the room, listening to guns sliding across the floor in different directions...none of it 'lost in space.'

Horn speakers have a very specific and tight dispersion pattern - read PWK or any of the Klipsch literature for the last decade - it does not lend itself well to ambient effects without processor intervention. In fact, I can step 1ft to the right of any Klipsch speaker and the volume drops out the window. Fact of life.

I don't know what processing equipment you have - although HornEd has a Yamaha - but your opinions appeared to be partially mired in the limitations of your processor. The Yamaha is not well-suited to WDTS, KSP-C6's, dipoles, or bipoles. You are not able to set the delays to proper levels, you are not able to specify speaker distances, and you are not able to specify 'type' of speaker. The processing should occur in the processor and if you spend enough money and select an appropriate, feature-rich processor (which specifically addresses speaker types), you will find WDST's/dipoles/KSP C6's to be every bit as effective as your processors time-delayed/phase manipulated use of direct speakers.

One other point. The KSP C6 is the same speaker as the KSP400's less the subwoofer, which is crossed-over at 80hz. The size of the cabinet does not make it weaker or stronger. I believe the same is true of the RC7 vs. the RF7's. Since you are employing 80hz cross-overs if following THX specs, it is overkill and useless to place a full size tower capable of 30hz in the center. It may look cool but you aren't using the 'stronger' part of the speaker so what did it buy you?

------------------

Home Theater

KSP 400's

KSP C6

KSP S6's

Yamaha RXV995

Music Room

Heresy's

KG4's

KSW200

The move to separates is coming, I can feel it.

[boa12]

crash on the big center i agree as far as the 80hz high pass essentially nullifing it's benefits. like i've been harping on he, a more flexible dsp or external box like an icbm would more turn all those 30s more back into the slammers they were born to be. powerful amp helps too.

he has a point w/ the 30s though in that the C7 doesn't have the same drivers at all of the 30s. seems to mate

pd well w/ my 30s, but then again i don't have the klf-30hec.

if i had the space i'd do the klf-30hec. but that's dif than the ksp. agree though better processors are key to all those things u mentioned.

i'm going to have to revisit the thx site to find out about what thx has in store. i though the current tech

was called "thx surround ex", w/ the matrixed 7.1 (rear surround info rides on the surround channels for rear matrix). dts es discrete already does that so they seem to be ahead of the curve, but thx has the pockets & influence to get any new tech out there more.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

[anarchist]

Thanks Boa,

Yeah, I wasn't paying attention to the KLF series and still don't remember the differences in the C7 and KLF 30's. HornEd wanting matched timbre is exactly on the money and there may be no alternative with the Legend series.

With the KSP and Ref series though, it is completely unnecessary and a waste of money (maybe the current Synergy series as well) unless you are going to run them full range which goes against THX and 'proper' bass management. Maybe HornEd will add that disclaimer to his posts.

He should look at an ICBM and evaluate some of the newer pre/pro's; he would likely write much more flexibly upon seeing the results of good processing - of course, I know he loves the front effect channels on the Yammie; likely because they broaden the soundstage and create the ambience he is missing from not using WDST or S6's as his surrounds.

------------------

Home Theater

KSP 400's

KSP C6

KSP S6's

Yamaha RXV995

Music Room

Heresy's

KG4's

KSW200

The move to separates is coming, I can feel it.