leerocker Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 Hi, I am soon going to be looking for new surrounds, for a 7.1 system. I am going to need to get 4 new ones, as the quintets i use for rears now are going to be demoted to computer speakers. My question is, what type of rears should i get for a 7.1 system, bookshelves or surround sound specific speakers. Itll be used mostly for HT but i also will listen to SACD and DVD-A . I would imagine the ss-1 or similiar bipolar/dipolar whatever speakers would be better because they project sound everywhere, but ive also read that they excelled in the days of prologic, and nowadays with 7.1 receievers, regular bookshelves or towers for rears are the way to go. any advice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 how much money do you have to spend? what other gear do you have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 You've read my rantings! Bi-and di-polar designs were best when spewing out non-directional pro-logic surround sound. Nowdays, we need directional, full range speakers, so the RB line from Klipsch does a great job. Pick a set that's similar or just smaller than you're mains and you'll be good to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leerocker Posted January 8, 2005 Author Share Posted January 8, 2005 Hey thanks a lot, I have ksf 8.5 mains and a ksf-c5 center on the way. i know lots of people get the taste of vomit in their mouths when they think of the synergy series, but im really happy with my 8.5s, even when i had them paired with an sc-1. Since they didnt make a bookshelf to go with these though, ill have to go with a newer synergy bookshelf, like sb-2 or sb-3 i guess, unless anyone has any better ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scp53 Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 i have a pair of sb3's id sell possibly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 hey scp, Elk Mound, is that anywhere near Camel's Toe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scp53 Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 im in elk mound wisconsin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 ---------------- On 1/8/2005 6:26:58 PM colterphoto1 wrote: You've read my rantings! Bi-and di-polar designs were best when spewing out non-directional pro-logic surround sound. Nowdays, we need directional, full range speakers, so the RB line from Klipsch does a great job. Pick a set that's similar or just smaller than you're mains and you'll be good to go. ---------------- Boy, you're really hip man. I think you're on to something. Have you notified the engineers at Klipsch yet? The SS-1's are neither bipoles or dipoles. They are in reality quasi-monopoles that >disperse< sound at ~45 degree angles from one another. They offer a diffuse sound, that is, non-localizeable. The type of sound that one would want for surround 'effects' if watching movies. Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Buy a pair of KSF-C5 center speakers and a pair of KSF-S5 surround speakers. You should be able to buy the center speakers for $125 each or less and the surrounds for around $150 pair or less, if you're patient. Try the speakers in different positions (side surround-back surround) and decide what is right for you and your room. Good luck, for the money your speakers are hard to beat. Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 ---------------- On 1/8/2005 6:54:08 PM leerocker wrote: Hey thanks a lot, I have ksf 8.5 mains and a ksf-c5 center on the way. i know lots of people get the taste of vomit in their mouths when they think of the synergy series, ---------------- Oh I dunno, many on this board have them and are very happy with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leerocker Posted January 9, 2005 Author Share Posted January 9, 2005 so we've got one vote for directional speakers as rears, and one vote for 'non'directional, like the ksf-S5. anyone else with 7.1 want to weigh in and be the tie breaker? thanks for your help so far Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LandLockedPH Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 If you're interested... I'll be selling my pair of SS.5 surrounds to upgrade and match with the rest of my system. I'll put them on eBay tomorrow unless somebody wants them today for $150, plus shipping? They are in new condition. I also have a KSC-C1 center channel that's new condition going on eBay tomorrow night. Same deal... $150, plus shipping and it's yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 If the choice is between WDST klipsch, which as Keith said, are neither true dipole or bipole, but actually a "wide-dispersion" monopole design, and "normal" monopoles, I would take the WDST everytime. They are more natural sounding with video, whether dpl or discreet (imho) and MUCH more natural sounding with music ambience. The only edge I would give to traditional monopoles for surround use would be with discreet surround music like SACD and DVD-A, and then only with recordings that are gimmicky and unnatural anyway, in that they place instruments and voices in the back (where they generally shouldn't be). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 "Boy, you're really hip man. I think you're on to something. Have you notified the engineers at Klipsch yet? The SS-1's are neither bipoles or dipoles. They are in reality quasi-monopoles that >disperse< sound at ~45 degree angles from one another. They offer a diffuse sound, that is, non-localizeable. The type of sound that one would want for surround 'effects' if watching movies. Keith" My point is: why pay all that money for discrete sound channels 7.1 and the number is rising, if you're going to spew it all over the room? There is enough reverberation in most home listening rooms already. In order for the ear to tell where the sound is coming from, I personally want as much direct sound coming from each of those boxes as possible. The Anti-Blo$e effect, if you will. In a very large listening room, I can see where side surrounds could be 'non-localizable', the variety that you mention. It just seems to my mind that radiating sound anywhere that in a direct line to the listening area invites more reflected sound, which muddies up the sound field. Sound 'effects' like general atmospheric sounds, rain, thunder, and the like, can easily be a unlocalizeable mush behind your sofa. Laser beams and gunfire zooming across the back of the sound field should be heard in a VERY localizable fashion, otherwise the effect is lost. Thanks for the sarcasm though. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheelman Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I personally like both kinds of surround sound. direct and diffused. But I will take a diffused sound for my surrounds any day of the week when it come to 90 percent of what it will be used for. I don't like holes or gaps between speaker interaction. No panning gaps or directional sound that is very irritating and hard to concentrate what's on screen. Like with alot of directional surrounds if your to close to one it is really noticable and can keep your attention from the dialogue and what's really going on screen. I like my living room to sound like a real theater and diffused is really the only way to do it properlly. I have had direct sound for many years, but it never came as close to a theater as diffused sound has. If I had a bigger room I could of made better with directs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladi Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I use RB-5II for my surrounds and I like their sound very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 ---------------- On 1/10/2005 4:41:23 PM colterphoto1 wrote: "Boy, you're really hip man. I think you're on to something. Have you notified the engineers at Klipsch yet? The SS-1's are neither bipoles or dipoles. They are in reality quasi-monopoles that >disperse< sound at ~45 degree angles from one another. They offer a diffuse sound, that is, non-localizeable. The type of sound that one would want for surround 'effects' if watching movies. Keith" My point is: why pay all that money for discrete sound channels 7.1 and the number is rising, if you're going to spew it all over the room? There is enough reverberation in most home listening rooms already. In order for the ear to tell where the sound is coming from, I personally want as much direct sound coming from each of those boxes as possible. The Anti-Blo$e effect, if you will. In a very large listening room, I can see where side surrounds could be 'non-localizable', the variety that you mention. It just seems to my mind that radiating sound anywhere that in a direct line to the listening area invites more reflected sound, which muddies up the sound field. Sound 'effects' like general atmospheric sounds, rain, thunder, and the like, can easily be a unlocalizeable mush behind your sofa. Laser beams and gunfire zooming across the back of the sound field should be heard in a VERY localizable fashion, otherwise the effect is lost. Thanks for the sarcasm though. Michael ---------------- [/blockquote> You are welcome. Read wheelman's post above. Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Well, I guess that's why they make different kinds of speakers. I've even heard that the latest thing is hanging a matrix of speakers ABOVE the listening position. Presumably there is a gap there. These R&D guys won't rest until we have 19.3 channels in each room in the house. Just as some prefer Rock and some Jazz, there are preferences in accentuating the bass regions, there will be some who prefer more direct sound, while others enjoy the 'sound field' approach. Can't we all just get along? I was just espousing my theory to the reader. No need in name calling, Okay? Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sivadselim Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 i, too, am NOT a big fan of surround-specific speakers. on today's modern movie soundtracks, when engineers want you to hear diffuse sound, they master the recording that way. a speaker designed specifically to provide diffuse (re: inaccurate) sound is an oxymoron, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 While there can be good arguments made on behalf of "controlled directivity" for front (l-c-r) speakers, those arguments just aren't valid for surround speakers, where the very goal is to provide diffuse, enveloping ambience for music, and realistic sound effects for video. The goal is for the surround effect to wrap around you like it does in reality. To achieve that, especially with just two to four speakers, wide-dispersion monopoles and even dipoles, bi-poles or omnipoles will always do a better job. 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.