travisc Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 I was wondering what the benefits of a wide dispersion surround were compared to say a set of bookshelf speakers, and vise versa. just some strengths and weaknesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 For some time I used a pair of the speaker pictured for surrounds. They had a lens with a super-wide 130 degree horizontal pattern. They worked very well; by spreading so much sound off to the sides of the speakers they gave a "big", enveloping cloud of sound without too much pinpointing but enough pinpointing when it was called for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RM1111 Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Hey Travisc, Bookshelf speaker will do ok but I recommend the wide dispersion speakers if you watch more movies than music. I just hooked mine up and they sound great compared to my book shelfs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 WDST speakers (klipsch' term) will tend to provide a more diffuse, enveloping sound that works well with video and with natural music ambience. "Normal" monopole speakers will do a better job if "music-in-the-round" is your thing. Since I consider music-in-the-round to be gimmicky and unnatural anyway, I would always prefer the WDST approach. If you do go with monopoles, if you put them tight in the back corners they will tend to sound bigger and more diffuse than they would otherwise. At least, that has been my experience, for whatever that is worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 ---------------- On 1/10/2005 12:39:52 PM jdm56 wrote: WDST speakers (klipsch' term) will tend to provide a more diffuse, enveloping sound that works well with video and with natural music ambience. "Normal" monopole speakers will do a better job if "music-in-the-round" is your thing. Since I consider music-in-the-round to be gimmicky and unnatural anyway, I would always prefer the WDST approach. If you do go with monopoles, if you put them tight in the back corners they will tend to sound bigger and more diffuse than they would otherwise. At least, that has been my experience, for whatever that is worth. ---------------- I know already that this will set off a huge debate, but I'll do it anyway. There is nothing natural about WDST. It's a smear effect that throws everything all over the place. It's one of the reasons why hardcore Klipschers can't stand the sound of Blo$e speakers - they throw sound everywhere, indiscriminately bouncing it off hard surfaces all around the speakers. The proponents of direct sound from all channels believe in a sound engineer's ability to properly mix the audio they're hearing. I, for one, prefer to hear the engineer's vision, not some diffused, reflected, and otherwise spatially distorted version of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I swear to god...with the new set that I just got (RSX'4 satellites and center) I cannot localize where the surround effects are coming from!!! It must be the perfect way I set them up. The proper sound level speaker to speaker and the sanus stands with needles at the feet. But the surround sound is INSANE! No need for wide dispersion speakers. -antonio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 ---------------- On 1/10/2005 9:59:30 PM Griffinator wrote: There is nothing natural about WDST. It's a smear effect that throws everything all over the place. It's one of the reasons why hardcore Klipschers can't stand the sound of Blo$e speakers - they throw sound everywhere, indiscriminately bouncing it off hard surfaces all around the speakers. The proponents of direct sound from all channels believe in a sound engineer's ability to properly mix the audio they're hearing. I, for one, prefer to hear the engineer's vision, not some diffused, reflected, and otherwise spatially distorted version of it. ---------------- Hey Griff, ya suppose we'll ever agree on ANYTHING?? FWIW, it seems to me that when you're at a concert, the reverb and echo, or the "hall sound" DOES came at you from all over the place. Which is exactly the idea behind WDST speakers. But, like I said before, if you want to listen to multi-channel recordings that place the listener in the middle of the band, the so-called "stage perspective", then sure, put 5-7 identical, "normal" monopolar speakers in the recommended array and you'll be a happy camper. It's just that I find that very concept unnatural to begin with. The last place I'd want to be is in the middle of the band! Look at it this way: Have you ever been to a concert and thought, "yeah, this is good, but gee, just think how much better it would be if the back-up singers would come stand behind my right shoulder, and the horn section over my left"? ...I haven't either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 THANK YOU GRIFF "I know already that this will set off a huge debate, but I'll do it anyway. There is nothing natural about WDST. It's a smear effect that throws everything all over the place. It's one of the reasons why hardcore Klipschers can't stand the sound of Blo$e speakers - they throw sound everywhere, indiscriminately bouncing it off hard surfaces all around the speakers. The proponents of direct sound from all channels believe in a sound engineer's ability to properly mix the audio they're hearing. I, for one, prefer to hear the engineer's vision, not some diffused, reflected, and otherwise spatially distorted version of it." This was exactly my point in a previous thread on this board where a user was asking about bi-pole vs direct vs ?? for surround speakers. I WAS TOLD TO ALERT THE KLIPSCH ENGINEERING STAFF to my find that since we were paying for discrete full range sound from 7.1 (and climbing) channels, that I preferred to hear and localize each channel to it's fullest, eliminating room reflections and the Blo$e effect (sorry, it's too good of a term, you must share it). It's one of the main reasons that Cornwall owners are told to 'toe' their speakers in. You want to keep the sound emanating from the horns from hitting the side wall first. Early reflections blur the sound. My belief is still that Bi-pole, WDST, etc. were all good for ProLogic when it was just one big blurry soundstage across the rear of the room. Now that we have 3 or 4 discreet speakers, WITH AN ENGINEER CAREFULLY CONTROLLING which sound should come from each direction, we should use as direct sound sources as possible. The only possible exception would be a very long HT room, where WDST might be usable on the side walls. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marksdad Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 thank you griff, i am in your canp, i think wide dispersion is another gimmick to sell more speakers, i have used them, but for about 1 minute, i hated thier limited range, and lack of focus, in ht when you know things should sound direct and loud they are off floting in the air in the next room and sounding very tiny, with little or no bass, but neither am i a fan of book shelfs, they are definatly a step up, but they are still very limited rangewise, i did many many head to heads when i was in the process of buying my first ht, and the rs's were not even an option, they sound more like bose, the bookshelfs while sounding good, lack depth, and than i tried rf 3's as rears and there it was. all the data being sent to the rears was now being displayed, i think people think there is not much bass going to the rear channels, but it is only because they have bought speakers that do not support the lower freqs, once you go full range, you can never go back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 The reason you toe in your Cornwalls is to improve the stereo 'effect'. How do you suppose monopoles limit reflection? Is that something those engineers build into the soundtrack? Remember, properly placed WDST speakers are no more aimed at a reflective surface that a monopole would be. Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 ---------------- On 1/11/2005 11:16:15 AM T2K wrote: Remember, properly placed WDST speakers are no more aimed at a reflective surface that a monopole would be. ---------------- Ummm, Keith - if you are placing your speakers properly in a 7.1 system, you are pointing the dipoles everywhere except the listening position, which means the first signal to hit the listener position is one that has already been reflected... Oh, and BTW - I hate the sound of a cathedral. I'd rather sit in a smoky bar and listen to a group of musicians than listen to them in an echo chamber like that. Reverb is not one of my favorite effects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 ---------------- They worked very well; by spreading so much sound off to the sides of the speakers they gave a "big", enveloping cloud of sound without too much pinpointing but enough pinpointing when it was called for. ---------------- Tom, not trying to start an argument here, but how exactly do your speakers know when pinpointing is "called for"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 more fuel for the fire... When I step outdoors, I hear sounds all around me. Not just beaming at me from 2-4 discreet points in space. When I am at a concert, I hear sounds all around me. Not just beaming at me from 2-4 discreet points in space. I really think the only way a conventional controlled-directivity monopole would have an advantage for surround applications, would be if there were a lot more surround channels than any format currently supports. Maybe 7-9 surround channels! But until that happens, everything else is going to involve compromises. Monopoles will more accurately reproduce discreet sounds if those sounds are SUPPOSED to come from where the speaker happens to placed. But WDST, bipoles and dipoles will do a better job of filling in the gaps that are left when trying to cover 330 degrees of horizontal arc with four speakers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 ---------------- On 1/11/2005 12:08:12 PM jdm56 wrote: But WDST, bipoles and dipoles will do a better job of filling in the gaps that are left when trying to cover 330 degrees of horizontal arc with four speakers! ---------------- Sure they will, if you're using two of them in a 5.1 system. I haven't installed a 5.1 system in years. Furthermore, if that's your approach, why aren't you using WDST in the front? After all, you're talking about covering 330 degrees (everything but the center channel) with 4 speakers... I, OTOH, am talking about covering 180 degrees. The front three are the front three. Whenever possible, I make sure the back three (or four) are exact matches to those front three, because the consistency of sound makes for a more convincing effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Sorry Keith, gotta disagree. "The reason you toe in your Cornwalls is to improve the stereo 'effect'" And you do this by increasing the ratio of direct-to-reflected sound by toeing in the speakers. Otherwise, a large portion of the mid horn sound reflects off the nearby side walls before reaching the listener. Think of it as a large pair of headphones. "How do you suppose monopoles limit reflection? Is that something those engineers build into the soundtrack? Remember, properly placed WDST speakers are no more aimed at a reflective surface that a monopole would be. " Any sound not reaching my ears DIRECTLY from the sound source is by definition reflecting off of another surface before I hear it. (unless you're outdoors or in an anechoic chamber). WDST are by their very nature not aimed directly at the listener, therefore, it is diffuse, reflected sound. Respectfully submitted, Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Griffin---The speakers didn't know, it was just a way of speaking. You know what I meant. I'll try again. The speakers combined a large, spacious sound with accurate (as far as I can tell) sound placement. There, how's that? Get some 120-130 degree lens or horns and try them. Then see what YOU think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 even though monopole speakers are "pinpointed" to a certain spot, i believe that if you are in the sweet spot a simliar "wide despersion effect" will take place when that sound stage and soudn field are created by the monopole speakers, now i also believe that if you are not in the sweet spot the you really loose that effect, i think that placement and position is what makes a monopole speaker sound so good, that is because that field is created in front of you that "simulates" that effect (maybe not the best word choice) in which case may not be as natural as wide despersion speakers, but personally i think they sound better. I think that the highs are more clear on monopole speakers,but the soudn field is not always as good as dispersion speakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 ---------------- On 1/11/2005 11:47:54 AM Griffinator wrote: ---------------- On 1/11/2005 11:16:15 AM T2K wrote: Remember, properly placed WDST speakers are no more aimed at a reflective surface that a monopole would be. ---------------- Ummm, Keith - if you are placing your speakers properly in a 7.1 system, you are pointing the dipoles everywhere except the listening position, which means the first signal to hit the listener position is one that has already been reflected... Oh, and BTW - I hate the sound of a cathedral. I'd rather sit in a smoky bar and listen to a group of musicians than listen to them in an echo chamber like that. Reverb is not one of my favorite effects. ---------------- Do you sit facing the group or facing the rear of the smoky bar? Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 ---------------- On 1/11/2005 1:58:47 PM colterphoto1 wrote: Sorry Keith, gotta disagree. "The reason you toe in your Cornwalls is to improve the stereo 'effect'" And you do this by increasing the ratio of direct-to-reflected sound by toeing in the speakers. Otherwise, a large portion of the mid horn sound reflects off the nearby side walls before reaching the listener. Think of it as a large pair of headphones. "How do you suppose monopoles limit reflection? Is that something those engineers build into the soundtrack? Remember, properly placed WDST speakers are no more aimed at a reflective surface that a monopole would be. " Any sound not reaching my ears DIRECTLY from the sound source is by definition reflecting off of another surface before I hear it. (unless you're outdoors or in an anechoic chamber). WDST are by their very nature not aimed directly at the listener, therefore, it is diffuse, reflected sound. Respectfully submitted, Michael ---------------- And by the way, where is the name calling? You were the person ranting remember. Sit just in front of your left Cornwall as music plays. Which speaker do you hear, left or right? You are hearing a mono/direct sound. Now move towards the sweet spot, does that change? You should hear more of a 'diffuse' sound, non-localizeable, a stereo effect in essence. Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 ---------------- On 1/11/2005 8:11:20 PM T2K wrote: Sit just in front of your left Cornwall as music plays. Which speaker do you hear, left or right? You are hearing a mono/direct sound. Now move towards the sweet spot, does that change? You should hear more of a 'diffuse' sound, non-localizeable, a stereo effect in essence. ---------------- Here's my question for you. Do you know of any surround mixing studios that work with WDST's in the rear? I'm very close friends with engineers from several surround studios including Phil O'Keefe from Sound Sanctuary, George Massenburg, Ken Lee from Eleven Shadows, and every one of them use 5 or 6 full-range monitors to mix, some using a sub, some not. Why do I want to hear it any other way than the way they heard it? If WDST is nothing more than an "improvement" on the "diffuse" effect from monopole speakers, why aren't more studios using them to mix? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.