Game Over! Facts on direct vs. dipoles for newbies (or those new to multichannel)

[anarchist]

Alrighty Ed,

Since you have professed to having a sense of humor, I have created the "HornEd Guide to Home Theater using Direct Radiating speakers."

First, I will mention Boa is on the money, direct radiating speakers are not suggested as surrounds by any authority I have read including Mr. Toole in a 5.1 system. Simple logic dictates a speaker with a 30 degree dispersion pattern can not perform the job of providing ambience and a large sweet spot as well as a speaker offering a 180 degree dispersion pattern.

Now on to the 'HornEd guide':

Welcome to HornEd's brute force approach to Home Theater. There are only 2 mandates and that is you must use Klipsch speakers and they must all be identical, direct radiating speakers. If you can not implement this setup, you may as well go out and buy a Sony All-In-One HT system.

Here is what you do:

Purchase 8 pairs of Klipsch Belles. For those who like a less horny sound, don't have the space, or are lacking in fundage, you may substitute RF-7's.

Purchase 6 Bryston 7B-ST's or any other 500WATT amplifier.

Purchase 1 6.1 Surround Processor (not THX certified)of your choice.

Purchase a minimum of 2 but preferably 4 Klipsch RSW15 subwoofers. SVS is an acceptable alternative.

Set up your speakers with 3 across the front (normal L, C, R), 4 down each side and across the rear. Connect the the first surround on each side and the back as you would normally. Wire the remaining speakers along each side and back in parallel. Place a sub in each corner and rejoice.

Note: There will be one main speaker left over which each of you are encouraged to send to Crash.

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

Home Theater

KSP 400's

KSP C6

KSP S6's

Yamaha RXV995 (Current)

Bryston 9BST (On the horizon)

Bryston SP1.7 (A little further on the horizon)

Music Room

Heresy's

KG4's

KSW200

Ella PP EL-34 (Coming soon)

[HornEd]

IndyKlipschFan, Wide Dispersion Surround Technology (WDST) is the trademarked Klipsch approach to distributing sounds above 2000-2100Hz evenly around the room from both side walls. In theory, it helps broaden the "sweetspot" and in practice, it also provides multiple "first reflections" that further reduce our ears' (really brain's) ability to localize the sounds... creating an ambience... at the possible expense of some tone & timbre matching potential from the rear array.

WDST is one of the least sound quality compromising approaches for creating ambient sound from the historically anemic "surround" channel(s). At least, as Boa commented, WDST does provide one woofer to provide localized sound aimed with a direct radiating woofer at the sweetspot. While that deviates from the "THX Approved" dipole surround standard... I believe it was a good thing that can help Klipschers with acoustics challenged listening areas.

Klipsch provides most of the ingredients we are likely to need, speaker-wise, but it is up to us as consumer/audio enthusiasts to learn of our options and make the best choice. My frequent posts are intended to raise the awareness of multiple Klipsch options in light of what I perceive to be industry trends and/or dangers... and, thereby, spill a little light on the darkside!

-HornED

PS: I sure wish the "darkside smiley" had a little more like the Darth Vaderish characterization that I was looking for.

PPS: Crash, I expect your "HornEd Brute Force Approach" was an attempt at "over

-the-top" humor for it is replete with error in terms of how I might suggest setting up a quality HT system. This is but one more example where you have chosen to supply your own faulty logic and pass it off as someone else's approach. I am afraid this is one more time where you have earned a flash of PWK's yellow button! -H.E.

This message has been edited by HornEd on 05-29-2002 at 05:43 AM

[boa12]

ed, thanks & thanks for the link. though it seems he does agree that dipoles are the better reproducers for those certain sounds as i've said.

nevertheless, my use of directs covers the room nicely & i don't even have the surround corns on the sides. more in the rear corner w/ c7 in between for rear center. but instead of a hole i just have a longer soundstage due to the imaging between the fronts & surrounds. if i instead had the corns on the side & no rear surrounds, i think i'd find i lose that longer soundstage effect (not much from the rear) for surround type effects/sound. in this case i think wdst would be more ideal. but i can only assume & glad to say verything sounds great for me in my room. & those rear

corns cut down to 50hz put out some nice, even rear low bass as the mixers seem to be putting more of that in the surrounds & rears.

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

My Home Systems Page

This message has been edited by boa12 on 05-22-2002 at 12:37 PM

[T2K]

ED said:

"Wide Dispersion Surround Technology (WDST) is the trademarked Klipsch approach to distributing sounds above 2000-2100Hz evenly around the room from both side walls. In theory, it helps broaden the "sweetspot" and in practice, it also provides multiple "first reflections" "

Klipsch said:

"Klipsch produces a unique surround speaker that utilizes a technology called Wide Dispersion Surround Technology (WDST). Each WDST enabled speaker contains two Tractrix® Horn drivers and a woofer. Each horn covers a 90-degree arc and the combination of the two covers a full 180 degrees. This coverage gives excellent ambiance without having to use the walls to reflect sound. The controlled pattern of each horn (what we call "controlled directivity") leads to excellent localization of sounds because there is sound directed at the listening position, regardless of where in the room you are seated. And because the WDST surround speaker does not rely on wall reflections"

Keith

>Still EDit free!

[HornEd]

I agree with you, Boa, careful positioning of direct radiating speakers is critically important to enjoying both a good measure of ambience and all the thrills that rear localization can bring.

You will note that in the article, the pro states that he hasn't seen dipoles in control rooms for about a year... and what he saw were M&K Tripoles which behave more like Klipsch WDST and were the speakers someone mentioned to you (on a previous thread) that had both ambient and localization phases. His conclusion at the end favors identical direct radiating speakers for the pros.

It must be realized that sound that is mixed to have full-range to the front channels and a mediocre muddle directed to the rear channels will tend to sound better on a dipole... or something that leans toward the diffuse. Direct radiating speakers, particularly those made by Klipsch, are known to expose poor recording techniques... and I submit to you that the sounds that are better on "THX Approved" dipoles are examples of poor recording techniques.

Frankly, I prefer to keep my Legend and Heritage direct radiators and sharp eye out for better quality DVD recordings for my HT... and try to raise the wool that THX and Dolby have pulled over the eyes of my fellow Forum folk. -HornED

PS: Right on Keith... Klipsch is selling speakers in their comment (after all it is their job)... and I am trying to explain how those speakers behave in an average room.

To suggest that WDST speakers do not draw ambience benefits from reflections would be to deny the acoustically obvious. Not a slam... just a common fact that affects all speakers and provides the relative degree of localization that our brains interpret... for that is how ambient and localized sounds are produced in the theaters of our mind... where the real action is! -H.E.

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

Photo update soon! -HornEd

This message has been edited by HornEd on 05-22-2002 at 01:50 PM

[anarchist]

Boa,

Just so I can be clear on this: does your reading of Toole make it clear to you that in 5.1 systems, dipoles are a better choice. Does it also make it clear in 7.1 systems he no longer sees the need? Does it seem to jibe with my initial post or am I off on some crazy lark?

In any case 5.1/7.1, who cares? I have updated my HT plans and am following the approach outline in the 'HornEd Guide', 15.4 - of course, the HT in the basement must now become the basement in the HT.

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

Home Theater

KSP 400's

KSP C6

KSP S6's

Yamaha RXV995 (Current)

Bryston 9BST (On the horizon)

Bryston SP1.7 (A little further on the horizon)

Music Room

Heresy's

KG4's

KSW200

Ella PP EL-34 (Coming soon)

This message has been edited by crash827 on 05-22-2002 at 12:55 PM

[boa12]

crash, yea my opinion is that for 5.1 w/ no rears wdst definitely make the most sense. for 6.1/7.1 either side wdst or side directs is a toss up. iow, the direct rear surrounds in 6.1/7.1 provide pretty much the same effect as side wdst in 5.1. so side wdst in 5.1 would be more cost efficient.

but i'd always use directs in 6.1/7.1 regardless because they better anchor the sound from the surrounds

& for 6.1 discrete it's obvious (though a wdst as rear surround does provide that direct element).

of course again all is subject to different rooms, material/mixes & tastes.

i may suffer some not having my surround corns to the sides, but also pick up some benefits of longer soundstage & more rear bass (like having rear subs).

& w/ my more smallish room & imaging provided, the panning sounds from front-back pretty much leave no hole on the sides.

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

My Home Systems Page

This message has been edited by boa12 on 05-22-2002 at 01:43 PM

[HornEd]

Hey, all the best for your new HT construction Crash and I also agree that (especially in a "THX Approved" or Dolby ProLogic source) that wide dispersion approaches help cover up what's lacking in the mix... particularly if you only have five speakers and a sub to do the job!

However, properly placed direct radiators reproducing properly mixed source material tend to bring out the best sound IMHO. And, to answer an earlier Avman comment, yes my HT receiver does indeed create a virtual sixth channel that I feed to either a single KLF-30 or through another amp to a pair of KLF-10's for 7.1. The pair of 10's are better for poor mixes and the lone 30 is best for great mixes.

And, yes, Crash from that you may reasonably infer that I much prefer the results of at least three direct radiators across the rear than the conventional 5.1 arrangement. Again, 5.1 is an outgrowth of the early weak attempts to provide a surround channel.

From Toole's earlier writings I have concluded that he is for broadening the sweetspot without compromising the sound... but in the case of early 5.1 mixes... the still weak implementation of the rear channels tend to benefit from all sorts of sound sprayers. So I think the shift in Toole's thinking is more a response to the trends he perceives in more robust rear channel programming... as well as additional speakers.

Better mixing use of five full-range channels provide not only the ability to stage crisp 360° localized sound "events" but also 360° ambience by using all five channels... plus the derived channels such as Front Effects or Rear Effects.

As you know, Dolby ProLogic and ProLogic II are examples of having more channels recorded on fewer tracks to save space on the recording medium. While some purists think that only a dedicated pair of channels for the Rear Effects speakers will do... I think the mainstream benefit of using matrixed (derived) channels for Rear Effects to be a more practical, cost-effective, and psychoacousticly pleasing approach.

And Crash, now that we have gone through the hassle of getting to know one another a bit better, I do indeed look forward to a more mutually rewarding interchange that will continue to be beneficial to lurkers and Forum members. -HornED

This message has been edited by HornEd on 05-22-2002 at 01:55 PM

[boa12]

ed, yea but "properly mixed material" for directs in 5.1 would be that which has no ambient or panning effects (like music). iow, only sound that is more localized.

in 5.1 for those effects i think wdst or dipole would handle those for a the better. for music i think directs would handle better.

now if you add more directs along the side & in the rear then you have the best of both worlds as crash implies. i'm assuming a longer than wider rectangular room like mine.

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

My Home Systems Page

[boa12]

hey here's something for music & speaker set-up. the cornwall manual recommends them in the corners of the wideer wall. but it seems most set-up the other way - mains on the short wall.

i don't have a choice but to go longwise w/ my room. i need a big basement.

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

My Home Systems Page

[HornEd]

On the contrary, Boa, properly mixed 5.1 sound tracks can include all the front-to-back pans, and fully integrated ambient effects that are required to tell the story... and on direct radiating speakers like you have in your rig!

Sound is sound... so recording a low level background sound on all tracks that will be broadcast around the room from all directions and bouncing off objects will create an ambient sound for your ears to enjoy. In the same recording, dialogue, sound effects, sweeping sound pans, and bringing music up from background level to being in your face... are all things that can be easily achieved in the recording studio.

All sounds above about 80Hz are localized sounds to our ears... unless they come from too many directions for our ears to determine the source. Bouncing sounds off of walls by wide dispersion sound sprayers is what makes sound appear to be ambient.

Pure low (HGS 18") bass (under about 80Hz) cannot be localized by the brain and if you can grind out the SPL's, the low bass sounds will be attached by your brain to the complimentary sounds (over 80Hz) that are coming from, in your case, a Cornwall, KLF-30 or C7. Great bass becomes appropriately more directional in that way.

So, whatever the kind of sound shape required for excellent audio... a sufficient number of direct radiating speakers have a better potential to reproduce it providing the mixing engineer provided the necessary ingredients. -HornED

[HornEd]

Yeah, Boa, that was a PWK preference for the mains whether they be Klipschorns or Cornwalls... that provides reinforced localized sound and contributes to better ambient sound and a broader sweetspot. That is also why PWK preferred to have a Center speaker to fill in the hole... since the mains were in the most distant corners.

However, that manual was probably not written in anticipation of the multi-channel sound system you now have. I suspect the way you have your rig set-up is just about ideal. Enjoy! -HornED

PS: You can get some insights into this sort of thing by reading PWK's biography. -H.E.

[anarchist]

Aw shucks Ed,

It wasn't a hassle for me; challenging, yes. Hassle? Not at all.

I think your last post covered it all so there is no more to say about the subject until something new is presented...except a 15.4 system with direct speakers in a parallel fashion like that would rock. There is an issue of introducing delay to the parallel speakers and rear array that would need to be figured out but its something to think about in my spare time and provided I could find oh, a 30X50 room.

Who's up for debating the merits of powered-towers vs. independent subwoofers?

Living in the Matrix, we must keep ourselves occupied less we realize the Real World we live in.

PS. You added another post and there is a minor error in your logic about mixing possibilities and ambient sounds. If I wanted the background sound of a group of people coming from just left and front of me and continuing to the rear and directly behind me, a monopole in a 5.1 system would be less than effective as the surround. Placing that sound in all channels and attempting to use reflections would make it impossible to target that specific area; the sound would appear to come from everywhere and you would hear it directly before it ever was reflected off a wall. Scaled diagrams that incorporated the specific dispersion pattern of any monopole would make that abundantly clear. Mixing can only do so much.

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

Home Theater

KSP 400's

KSP C6

KSP S6's

Yamaha RXV995 (Current)

Bryston 9BST (On the horizon)

Bryston SP1.7 (A little further on the horizon)

Music Room

Heresy's

KG4's

KSW200

Ella PP EL-34 (Coming soon)

This message has been edited by crash827 on 05-22-2002 at 02:46 PM

[boa12]

crash, that's an interesting feature of the denon i explored long ago - the a+b use o 2 sets of side surround. maybe keith or a denonor can verify, but if i remember right the distance (delay) setting can be set specifically for each set of a & b surrounds.

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

My Home Systems Page

[HornEd]

Sorry, Crash but in my concern to be brief I have apparently failed to make myself sufficiently clear.

By having the potential to record infinitely precise levels on all channels does not mean that they all would have the same level at the same time... they could, of course, but not to depict the event that you describe.

Of course, the relative volumes in the two rear channels will affect not only those channels but any derived (matrixed) Rear Effects channels as well. Clearly, having four speakers across the rear array is far preferable than two speakers... even if those two surround speakers were WDST... again IMHO.

On a consulting job, I have personally witnessed the effect of having a helicopter whirling about my head projected by four corner located direct radiating speakers and a specially mixed soundtrack. The effect was so smooth and realistic (I am no stranger to circling helicopters thanks to my military experience) that my brain tended to believe my ears more than my eyes... an uncanny feeling!

The next example I was shown in this Texas experimental sound lab was a pair of high quality headphones with just two drivers. This time a computer generated sound track made the helicopter circle around my head about as accurately as the four speakers had done moments before.

My purpose for the visit was to determine if a venture capitalist should pump millions of dollars into the technology. Incidentally, the engineer who developed the audio technology had originally built it for the air force as part of the helmet system that lets fighter pilots know of intruders by making sounds that denote where the bogie is in any direction (globally).

For the record, I did not advise that my client invest the money because the critical part of the technology already belonged to the Federal Government... IMHO.

I had the privilege of being one of the innovators in the beginning of the desktop publishing phenomena... with a particular emphasis in the modification and printing of complicated items like photographs... but from the detailed aspect of absolute positioning of variable dot structures consistent with the latest innovations of subtractive primary color space.

Compared to that degree of control we learned to computerize in color theory and printing... the state of the art for sound mixing technology in movies has a long, long way to go... with an absolutely stunning future. That is providing the dark cloud of "THX" doesn't condemn us to technology that takes away the benefit of full-range sound available equally from any main speaker.

Friends, the mixing and speaker technology is available, and I believe the industry has the guts and opportunity to rise above the huge installed HT base of compromised dipole-dependent home theaters... and apply a three-dimensional sound space that embraces moving ambience, clear dialogue, and stunning localization of "sound events" in any quadrant.

I think your basement, by any nomenclature, has a great potential to exceed your wildest expectations. May the Force be with you! -HornED

This message has been edited by HornEd on 05-22-2002 at 05:35 PM

[anarchist]

Hi HornEd,

I am aware of a technology that used only 4 speakers (can't recall if direct or otherwise) to provide surround sound and through some proprietary methods was able to provide a convincing surround field.

That company was killed off for some unknown reason.

The premise behind your reasoning is sound but ignores the reality of the situation. The big sound formats and THX are here and their standards are implemented by the studios. One can not build a HT based on what is may be possible, only that which is commercially available.

You also must realize speaker manufacturers feed off those standards because it allows more speakers to be sold. The relationship is not unlike that between Microsoft and Intel. Given the capital involved, it would be difficult to revise the 'system.'

We are Borg. You will be assimilated.

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

Home Theater

KSP 400's

KSP C6

KSP S6's

Yamaha RXV995 (Current)

Bryston 9BST (On the horizon)

Bryston SP1.7 (A little further on the horizon)

Music Room

Heresy's

KG4's

KSW200

Ella PP EL-34 (Coming soon)

[HornEd]

Perhaps, my new friend, but not without a fight.

As to the four corner and headphone proprietary sound system, the company with that proprietary technology was doing quite well until it was suddenly acquired by a penny stock company that did not have the leadership to exploit the technology and eventually sold the assets piecemeal. Not a happy journey.

Being more familiar with Microsoft and Intel in my think tank days (I had friends in the "inner circle" at Microsoft and Intel sent a heard of engineers to my think tank to convince me to sell some technology that was incorporated into the code-named P5 (Pentium) processor)... but I don't think that George Lucas located across the Golden Gate Bridge and Dolby Laboratories Headquartered in my native San Francisco have near the stranglehold that Bill Gates designed.

Actually, I am in somewhat of an awkward spot in wanting to be candid but not feeling free enough to do so in all fairness. Suffice to say that I think that the long term goals of Dolby will be better met with a horizontally structured mixing format than one that lumps the ambient responsibility and an occasional migrating localized sound to the rear channels.

A couple of the forces that push this trend are mixers with a strong desire to improve the art... and manufacturers who see a lucrative upgrade path. But, the real clincher is that the latest generation of DVD mixing works exceedingly well with a minimum of three full-range direct radiators in the rear array with 5.1 Dolby Digital or DTS input being translated to 6.1 by the receiver. And 6.1 EX or ES stuff is a blast... and if it is as backward compatible as they say... it will continue to be a blast!

Frankly everything from the Eagles' Hell Freezes Over to BACH Greatest Organ Works comes across better in my HT and Music systems than the same DVD's played on a conventionally configured Reference system (RF-7, RC-7, RS-7 and RSW-15) fed by a Denon 5800. By the way, that was not only my opinion but the opinion of the folks with the Reference system. In fairness to Klipsch, I hesitate to express less than favorable opinions of their current product line... but results are results.

Actually, I think if I had the time and opportunity to properly set-up the Reference system that it would have given the Legends a better run... but the custom KLF-30 Center, SVS Twin Tower and dual C7 Front Effects speaker create a set of dynamics that is hard to overcome. And the Heritage system... well, they are still a cut above anything Klipsch in everyone's opinion that day.

So, Crash I am quite comfortable with my rig and its opportunity to shine in the current clime and that of the foreseeable future... which makes me happy to help others who want to go down this alternate road. Frankly, in a coldly logical assessment, my rig has a better life expectancy than I do. -HornED

PS: Yes, I am biased... but I didn't get this way without a lot of thought and experimentation. But, I hasten to add that if Klipsch launched an RF-8 series that featured dipoles all around and they beat the Heritage system hands down... I would be first in line! Oops, there goes my last chance at the "Audio Zealot" merit badge.

This message has been edited by HornEd on 05-22-2002 at 05:17 PM

[forresthump]

HornED has it right. Use Monopole speakers but all is needed is two Main Speakers. All other but his two front KLF30 are a waste & so are Dipole or WDst speakers. All you need is Two.

I was on one of my many trips around the world to Bangkok Mostly to find hookers but also heard the new Magicmix EXXX there. It was developed by Buddast Monks

who also went to MIT. It will make 2 front speakers sound like you have 10 speakers. Just by this mix even if it descrete, it still works.

Mixing has come a long way old chaps. With Magicmix EXXX all you need is two Monopole speakers. Those Monks are amazing.

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

go forth & hump the world

[cluless]

Thump.

You are truley amazing! I Bow down in humble homage... Never before have I seen a post anywhere which combines Bangkok hookers, and post-graduate Budapest monks from MIT, (now is that the Metaphysical Institute of Telepathy, or Mediocre Intelligence Transformation?. You have successfully entertained me. I really think you should consider a field in the literary arena.

Now I do know for a fact that those monks can be crafty little devils. Chimay Ale, and one of the finest brews in my opinion, is brewed out of a monastary in Belgium

[BBB]

Magicmix EXXX ??? Huh ? Well Ill be a MONKLIPSCH UNCLE ! I think I missed this one.

Goes to show you. If you blink your eyes for just a few centuries technology will pass you by. I guess their slogan is right. Only from the minds of Monkola . Ive got to pay more attention to these posts because I missed how monks from Thailand ended up brewing beer in Belgium. Was it something that happened during a student foreign exchange program between MIT and BSU? We better keep an eye open with these new kids. The next thing you know theyll be making bath tub Ginsing in the basements of fraternities all over the globe. Funny thing is I thought I heard of this Magicmix EXXX before and just dismissed it as call letters of some radio station a grocery store was piping through their PA system. I think they were playing the Monkees Greatest hits. I dont know. My memory is all mixed up. I better cut back on the Thai sticks. Either its that or the after effects of having 4 RF-7s and a couple of RF-5s and a RC-7 pointed directly at my head in my living room. Having 2 SVS ultras on either side of me is probably adding to some brain wave confusion. Well Ive got to stop goofing around and put on my favorite Thelonious Monk album. I picked it up while on a shopping spree in a Bangkok K-Mart just as they were running a red light district special in the live food aisle. Gotta go now. My bath tub awaits!