Surround Speakers or Bookshelfs

[pinipig523]

I am wondering, would i be better off with booshelf speakers for the rear or surround speakers?

i know that surround speakers diffuse the sound better than bookshelfs (direct radiating) do, but bookshelves have the advantage in SACD and DVD-A tracks. I dont know which to get... so confused. any help and opinions would be much appreciated!

[dantfmly]

i would go with what ever you have on your mains. Most advacates on this website I've personally seen would say the same. if they are not bookshelf speakers i would choose bookshelves over surround speakers. if thoose two are your only choice.

[yromj]

I would recommend the bookshelves, especially if you're even considering multi-channel music. Multi-channel music is encoded for direct radiators.

John

[m00n]

If you are considering bookshelves, seriously give the RC7s a listen. I know they are supposed to be used as a center speaker, but trust me on this one. They are fantastic speakers for 2 channel also. Ask you dealer to setup 2 RC7s in a 2 channel stereo setup. Have a listen.

[cjgeraci]

Ok, I've had my RB-75s for almost two weeks now, and I highly recommend these speakers as surrounds. Today, I took a RB-75 and a RC-7 to a local Rotel dealer to demo some Rotel separates in 2 channel. We used no subs and pumped a full range into both types of speaker.

Moon, I agree with you that the RC-7 is a bit fuller sounding that the RB-75, all things being equal, and price playing no part in the equation. However, the RC-7 does have an extra woof woof so that is somewhat to be expected. After reading your initial post on your RC-7/RB-75 comparion, I flipped back and forth between the two at my house, shortly after the RB-75s arrived. Interestingly, the gap between the two speakers has now narrowed somewhat after putting a lot of hours on my RB-75s, and after placing them on quality stands.

In my opinion, either the RC-7 or the RB-75 would equate itself admirably as side surround alternatives to full-sized mains. Factor in the respective prices of a RC-7 vs. a RB-75 and the analysis becomes even more interesting.

Carl.

[m00n]

Yeah price can make a big difference in your decision. I agree, at what point does the price outway the performance.

You might want to talk to bruinsrme.. He put something under his RB75's and he said it definatly made them sound even better. I can't remember what he said it was though. If I recall it was some kind of foam.

[cjgeraci]

Cool. I'll shoot Scott an e-mail.

Thanks.

Carl.

[doudou]

the ideal set up is to have the same speakers for all channels, so for surrounds use the same speakers as your front.

[pinipig523]

only problem with monopole speakers (bookshelves) are that for movies, it isnt as enveloping.

in addition, im afraid that if i get surround type speakers for the rears, when i play videogames - i might not be able to discreetly tell where the bullet shot came from. argh!! what an agonizing decision!

[dantfmly]

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

On 4/17/2004 12:15:18 PM pinipig523 wrote:

only problem with monopole speakers (bookshelves) are that for movies, it isnt as enveloping.

in addition, im afraid that if i get surround type speakers for the rears, when i play videogames - i might not be able to discreetly tell where the bullet shot came from. argh!! what an agonizing decision!

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

i can tell you that i own monopole speakers for my surrounds and they are very eneloping. I don't know if they do that as ell as dipole, because i have never owned a set of those good luck on a decision. oh you have the same problems with movies if you don't have monopole speakers on the rear where did the bullet come from.

[T2K]

Pick the type that you think are more important to you, or use both. The ultimate test for side surrounds is a flyover or pan. The question of which type is best for movies will be answered.

Keith

[doudou]

the dipoles for surround is good if your room is not very large and if your room has no hard wall.

i live in a little flat and the wall are very hard, dipole sprakers spread the sound everywhere and i had to put a kind of carpet on the back wall to avoid to many reflections.

with monopole speakers i think i shouldn t have this probleme.

once you have set up your room dipole are very nice for movies and games, for music i prefer using only my two front speakers.

[dantfmly]

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

On 4/19/2004 2:50:45 AM doudou wrote:

the dipoles for surround is good if your room is not very large and if your room has no hard wall.

i live in a little flat and the wall are very hard, dipole sprakers spread the sound everywhere and i had to put a kind of carpet on the back wall to avoid to many reflections.

with monopole speakers i think i shouldn t have this probleme.

once you have set up your room dipole are very nice for movies and games, for music i prefer using only my two front speakers.

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

I agree with the two channel for music. That is what i do, at least until i get a SACD or DVD audio player.

[Darren]

"the dipoles for surround is good if your room is not very large and if your room has no hard wall."

Not so sure - I have a large room with concrete walls (Middle East construction). I've been extremely happy with the RS-7's for DVDs. I've only recently hooked up all the cables for SACD and DVD-A and only have 1 of each disc at this point. With very little exposure to that, I've been happy with that sound as well.

I'm sure there are better options for specific cases, but I'm happy using the speakers where they are "suppose" to be and trust the Klipsch engineers knew a thing or two while designing these.

[doudou]

once again i didn t succeed in writing what i was thinking,sorry for my poor english.

i meant that dipoles surrounds works well in my room if we hide the hard surface.

i totaly agree on the fact that dipoles speakers are more enveloping.

last but not least, enjoying dipole or monopole speakers for movie or music depend on who use the speakers, some people prefer and enveloping sound and some prefer a more direct sound.

[Mario NJ]

The correct answer is, "You should let your ears decide." But you could answer 95% of the questions on this forum with that answer and then this would become a terrifically boring place.

My ears tell me that multipoles are almost always better if you only have 2 surround channels, but that monopoles are better if you have 3 or more.

[imahawki]

Well I recently faced the same decision. I find that people often make odd assumptions about dipole surrounds.

First of all, I would bet that of all the people who will give you their opinion one way or another, only about 25% of them have probably actually heard both types in any more situation than a demo. We always say you need to pick your own speakers for your room, no the dealer demo room, but apperently this doesnt apply as we can all rule out dipoles by listening at the dealer? Hmmm....

Second, there seems to be this general thought that a dipole surround will totally diffuse the sound to a point where its not localizable. That is entirely untrue (from someone who has owned both dipole and monopole in their own HT room). All it does is make it seem like the speaker is both bigger than it is and that maybe its a little farther away. This is usually good as it expands your perception of overall room size and most peoples home theaters are smaller than a commercial theater.

Third, there is a ton of evidence to support the use of dipoles as being prefered by the "experts" and standard setters in the land of Home Theater. Why do so many companies make dipole surrounds if they are so inferior? Why does THX still recomend it as part of their standard and companies that make THX speaker packages use them? Home theaters are intended to reproduce the sound of a cinema (within reason... many people HT are more accurate and have better frequency response than the local megaplex) which use a whole array of speakers as side and rear surrounds. This is what dipoles are designed to reproduce. When a sound comes from over your left shoulder in a movie theater, you can tell, but if you are sitting in the middle of the theater, the sound was actually coming from a speaker that was in front of you, and beside you and behind you too. But because the speakers that are nearest you to the side and behind, are the ones that are loudest (from the simple fact of being closer) psychoacoustics take over and you perceive the sound to be coming from over your shoulder. This should work for the person 10 rows in front of you and 10 rows behind too. This technology works using direct radiators in theaters, but there you have the ability to use dozens of them and they are place sometimes 20+ feet above your ears.

Listen to a set of dipole surrounds sometime. The sound is diffuse, but its not muddy, run together or unlocalizable at all.

[doudou]

i think the one who is the closest to the truth is Mario NJ.

try the two speakers in the same room.

[dantfmly]

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

On 4/20/2004 11:49:22 AM Mario NJ wrote:

The correct answer is, "You should let your ears decide."

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

the best advice yet. listen for yourself and see what you like. it is your money.