dgps Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 hi all, I am thinking of using floorstander as rear spiks. the reason is that i can save on the spiks stand and it will be safer -> will not be knocked over like the case of bookshelf on stand. is it advisable to use floorstander as rear spiks? thanks
Ender1624705735 Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 In fact ideally all the front/centre/rear should to be identical. If not for the room and budget constraint, I would love to have my rears to be the same floorstanders as my fronts. IMO, if the room and budget allows, go for it.
Phil1624705739 Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Quote hi all, I am thinking of using floorstander as rear spiks. the reason is that i can save on the spiks stand and it will be safer -> will not be knocked over like the case of bookshelf on stand. is it advisable to use floorstander as rear spiks? thanks hahaha.. not true... my floorstander topple b4... bong!!! Phil
Guest duckling Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Quote hahaha.. not true... my floorstander topple b4... bong!!! Phil In the case of mission 774, it tall and slim - that's why.
Phil1624705739 Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Quote Quote hahaha.. not true... my floorstander topple b4... bong!!! Phil In the case of mission 774, it tall and slim - that's why. Well.. I would say most floor stander r tall.. ask 2 slim.. subjective... Phil
dgps Posted July 30, 2002 Author Posted July 30, 2002 agree but the risk level is lower Quote Quote hi all, I am thinking of using floorstander as rear spiks. the reason is that i can save on the spiks stand and it will be safer -> will not be knocked over like the case of bookshelf on stand. is it advisable to use floorstander as rear spiks? thanks hahaha.. not true... my floorstander topple b4... bong!!! Phil
Phil1624705739 Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Theres a few alternative lar.. 1. Use wall mount lor.. 2. Use blue Tag & heavy stand... blue tag will secure e bookshelf 2 ya stand.. since its heavy.. its almost impossible 2 topple it.. unless u give ya speaker a flying kick!! Phil
tcw Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Quote hi all, I am thinking of using floorstander as rear spiks. the reason is that i can save on the spiks stand and it will be safer -> will not be knocked over like the case of bookshelf on stand. is it advisable to use floorstander as rear spiks? thanks Yes, definitely, and preferable if you can afford it, or better still, you already have a spare set to use as Rear Speakers. Most people buy tiny rear speakers due to budget constraint.
Lancelot Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Hmmm.....I tot surrounds are best to be bipolar, placed above our listening height but not directly firing into our ears, so as to achieve the "surround" effect. If the above is true, floorstanders wouldn't be a very good choice. But I agree that all speakers should belong to the same brand and series to promote sound cohesion.
Ender1624705735 Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Quote Hmmm.....I tot surrounds are best to be bipolar, placed above our listening height but not directly firing into our ears, so as to achieve the "surround" effect. If the above is true, floorstanders wouldn't be a very good choice. But I agree that all speakers should belong to the same brand and series to promote sound cohesion. Depends what kind of 5.1 setup you want to have. Bipolar has diffuse sound fields which gives a better surround effect. But this compromise on directional and imaging effect. It only gives the feeling it's coming from somewhere there, rather it's coming from just right there.
Jag Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Bipolars as surrounds used to be fine in the era of Dolby Prologic and when Tom Holman was still with THX.(circa 1996) Those days, surrounds were never designed to produce any directional sounds.Only non-directional enveloping surround field. Thus, THX specified the use of dipoles for THX based on PL. Bipoles were not approved to be inculde in the THX specs. Today, DD and DTS are designed to give that directional surrounds and non-directional surrounds were even simpler to produce (simply mix anti-phase info to give that pseudo-enveloping surrond). Directional surrounds was dolby's design goal from day one. Floorstanders were the Dolbys first recommendation to 5.1. In fact, it was widely recommended as the reference standard since they would give absolutely unparallelled timber cohesion anywhere in the sound field. Also they give that extended bass and would actually improve imaging even though bass is non-directional. (I think Quadraphonic and ambisonic advocate the use of identical speakers for their surround playback and this was way back in 1970s. Those were the DD and DTS of the 70s.) Floor standers is not necessarily the only choice, but the main jist is that all 6 speakers were to be idealy the same. Thats why we always stress to buy the same type of speakers as possible to match the sound across the field. Even speakers of the same series can sound very different, due to the fact that the variations in speaker cabinet size will produce different resonance, thus affecting the likeness of the sound altogether. But speakers of same brand different series were a mixed bag. Mission 735 and Mission 753 sounded totally different even thou they were the same brand. Of course, where asthetics and financial aspects, floorstanders all round may not be the best choice, thus bookshelves of the same series were a practical and logical choice for surounds. Thus timber-matched 5.1 speakers package became common after DD was widely enjoyed. I hope this clarifies some doubts.
Lancelot Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Quote Quote Hmmm.....I tot surrounds are best to be bipolar, placed above our listening height but not directly firing into our ears, so as to achieve the "surround" effect. If the above is true, floorstanders wouldn't be a very good choice. But I agree that all speakers should belong to the same brand and series to promote sound cohesion. Depends what kind of 5.1 setup you want to have. Bipolar has diffuse sound fields which gives a better surround effect. But this compromise on directional and imaging effect. It only gives the feeling it coming from somewhere there, rather it coming from right there. Precisely, what you said above are the exact requirements expected of surround speakers. Thats why there's speakers that are built specifically for surround effects as according to the above stated. All the articles I have read before strongly encourage the above, i.e, surrounds should give us the feeling thats sound coming from some where there, rather than from a focused and pin-point source.
Lancelot Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Jag, what I read from the dolby website seem to encourage a diffused and enveloping surround rather than surrounds that's firing directly to the listener. Their main objective for surround was to minimise sound localisation. I read this article (chapter 3.2), http://www.dolby.com/ht/Guide.HomeTheater.0110.html#chapter3
Ender1624705735 Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Quote Precisely, what you said above are the exact requirements expected of surround speakers. Thats why there's speakers that are built specifically for surround effects as according to the above stated. All the articles I have read before strongly encourage the above, i.e, surrounds should give us the feeling thats sound coming from some where there, rather than from a focused and pin-point source. That's why it depends what you want. To me, having the surround effect enveloping you brings back to the days of prologic. If you noticed, when Dolby and DTS sets the standard for 5.1, all five channels should have equal power, equal full frequency response range. That means ideally all five full range speakers. Most bipolar don't qualify to be full range speakers. For me, I don't call them surround speakers, they are my rear speakers. If you like enveloping surround, go for bipolar. If you want directional and following what DD5.1/DTS had intended, then 5 full range speakers.
tcw Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Yes, agreed with Ender. During the design phase of DD & DTS 5.1, the listener is supposed to sit in the centre of the "circle" (try to imagine the 5 speakers forming a circle) to get the optimum sound, and thus all DD5.1 and DTS 5.1 tracks are encoded to achieve this. It also implies that the rear channels should be of the same type as the front speakers to have sufficient "throw" for the person in the centre sweet spot. Having small bookshelf for the rear speakers is a financial/decorative compromise.
Lancelot Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Quote Quote Precisely, what you said above are the exact requirements expected of surround speakers. Thats why there's speakers that are built specifically for surround effects as according to the above stated. All the articles I have read before strongly encourage the above, i.e, surrounds should give us the feeling thats sound coming from some where there, rather than from a focused and pin-point source. That's why it depends what you want. To me, having the surround effect enveloping you brings back to the days of prologic. If you noticed, when Dolby and DTS sets the standard for 5.1, all five channels should have equal power, equal full frequency response range. That means ideally all five full range speakers. Most bipolar don't qualify to be full range speakers. For me, I don't call them surround speakers, they are my rear speakers. If you like enveloping surround, go for bipolar. If you want directional and following what DD5.1/DTS had intended, then 5 full range speakers. I definitely agree that full range surrounds be used. Dolby website also states that preferably, all the speakers to be the same. But if you have read my earlier post, the dolby website is still encouraging diffused and enveloping surround, even the surround placements they recommended revolve ard achieving it. May I know where you all read from that DD5.1/DTS intended their surrounds to be directional?
Jag Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 The dolby paragraph you refered was the same paragraph with same diagrams I read in 1996. Of course no DD at home yet then. Besides, this was written for the average joe in mind, and not for the HT Xtremist. I don't trust that anyway. So that speaker arrangement applies to Pro-logic fully. The same guidelines apply to DD/DTS quite well, but being directional, DD has different surround pyscho-acoustic considerations. Dolby encourages diffused surrounds so as to maintain compatibility with PL; and PL2 actually works better with enveloping surrounds. Of course, DD wouldn't want to undermine their legacy system, rite? DD can work well in direct radiating mode, if not better. BTW, enveloping/spacious soundfield can have that focused and pin-point acuracy using direct rads, but the same enveloping/spacious soundfield can also have that diffused feeling from bipoles/dipoles. But accurate and diffused surround cannot co-exist in a enveloping surround field. With DD, things get a bit different. The full range capability of DD/DTS meant that surrounds can technically produce the exact same quality of audio as the fronts; with equal power throughout they can practically produce 100% equal quality of audio in the surrounds as well as in the fronts. So the simple logic would reveal that achieving uniform sound quality would require equal sounding speakers; ie same speakers. There are even more points I can go about, but I think next time we makan together, we can discuss it light-heartedly. Now enough talk from me, I'll refer you to this URL from Dolby. This is written for 5.1 dubbing production studios with majority of mixing studios following the layout and style. Look in Chapter 3.2.2. http://www.dolby.com/tech/L.mn.0002.5.1Guide.s.pdf This arrangment is the "What the director intended you to hear" format. Quoted from the para "Whenever possible, use the same speakers all around to achieve uniformity. If this is not feasible, the surround speakers may be smaller than the front speakers but should maintain the same character; i.e. they might be smaller speakers from the same manufacturer." Looking further into the diags, obviously, it would reinforce what I've said earlier. It even states ITU-R's recommended listening room. Now, THX may have different things to say, but honestly, I don't have much confidence in THX today as I did in 1997. I wouldn't take the "Guide to Home Theater" article to be gospel truth, but it generally suits well for the average joe. Like I said, for the xtremist, go for the techincal white paper. It will mention more things than you thought u knew about 5.1 surround. To answer some of questions raised: 1)"Thats why there's speakers that are built specifically for surround effects as according to the above stated." Well, those speakers were developed for PL and THX. Still relevant today and recommended when u can't use the same speakers all round. 2) Same brand same series does not always give 100% sound cohesion. For 5.1, my personal experience would be to get floorstanders for fronts and the 2 pairs exact same series bookshelves for centre and 3 surrounds speakers. 3)Ender has said it, all bipoles/dipoles don't qualify to be full range. But I use bipoles and direct rad simultanteously for my SL/SR. It really brings out the best of pin-point accuracy with enveloping surround field. 4) Dipoles/Bipoles can never share the same sound character from its direct rad cousins even its from the same series. The baffle/enclosure architectural difference would make it sound different even if everything else is the same. 5) 5.1 was intended to be directional, but legacy mentality has prevented their intended purpose; Which is not to anyones disadvantage. But directional can co-exist with enveloping surround field. Diffuse can co-exist with enveloping surround field. HOWEVER, DIFFUSE CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH DIRECTIONAL in an enveloping sound field.. They are not the same. Ok, lenghty post, took me 1 hr to write, but I hope this clears up the misconception. Cheers
Phil1624705739 Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 wah.. no patience 2 read ya post.. But hor.. I think I remember seeing something abt defuse & direct radiating speakers 4 DD/DTS... I think it was recommended 2 use Di/Bipole 4 DD... anyway.. oni e Dipole r out of phase.. e Bipole r simply 2 set of drivers alighted @ different angle 2 create diffuse soundfield.. so we can still isolate sound from such speakers... Direct r more 4 DTS esp. music... I think I remember where I got this liao.. its from e Denon website.. 4 explaining why their AVR-3300 got 2 set of surround speaker output.. 1 4 diffuse & another 4 direct. Phil
Lancelot Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 Oh man..... Jag, I'm impressed with your detailed explanations in your audio essay!! :o ;D I roughly get the idea that you are driving across now. Quote 2) Same brand same series does not always give 100% sound cohesion. For 5.1, my personal experience would be to get floorstanders for fronts and the 2 pairs exact same series bookshelves for centre and 3 surrounds speakers. Do you think a bookshelf speaker can do the job of a centre speaker as well as those speakers built specifically for centre purposes? Are you having the same setup as described above?
Ender1624705735 Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 Jag, No one could have explained it better... I guess the average joe still yearns for the prologic surround effects. Now you mentioned it, I did notice that Dolby recommended speaker placement hasn't changed since prologic days.
Lancelot Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 Quote ... I guess the average joe still yearns for the prologic surround effects. I disagree with your statement. It's not that the average joe is yearning for prologic or old style surround effects. Rather, it's the articles from the hifi mags and even the Dolby website itself that's misleading the audio enthusiastics. If any audio enthusiastics should come across a detailed and well explained article, something like that of Jag, I'm sure he might have second thoughts on prolgic surrounds.
Ender1624705735 Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 Quote Quote ... I guess the average joe still yearns for the prologic surround effects. I disagree with your statement. It's not that the average joe is yearning for prologic or old style surround effects. Rather, it's the articles from the hifi mags and even the Dolby website itself that's misleading the audio enthusiastics. If any audio enthusiastics should come across a detailed and well explained article, something like that of Jag, I'm sure he might have second thoughts on prolgic surrounds. Point taken. I still think that average joe still prefer the enveloping sound more than direct radiating. If somone were to audition one with enveloping sound field and another with direct radiating, my guess is that they would be more impressed with the one with enveloping sound field. Unless they start reading article like the one Jag wrote.
Jag Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 Yes, and the average joe still thinks 5.1 is fantastic. Ha, wait till he feels 6.1. (I used the word feel instead). Then again, he'll most likely be using door-bell wires for his speakers anyway. Honestly, I recommend using 1 bookshelf from the same product line as the centre, if no proper centre speaker was designed to suit or if the centre spkr sucks. It'll demostrate sound cohesion far better than anything else. Of course, u can use the other bookshelf for the surround back in 6.1. I use bookshelves for centre and the timber match is spot on, other than cabinet size anyway. If u tend to prefer to use bipoles, do what I do. Run both bipoles and direct radiating. Situate the bipoles to the side of you and the direct rads as recommended by Dolby. The imaging is really scary in those intense surround movies! U get enveloping ambience and the pin-point precision during flybys can be shockingly accurate. A good demo dvd for sound cohesion is in Die Hard 3 during the car drive-by scene in Harlem. The car blasting ghetto music drives by from right front to right back. The beat, drums and pitch should stay intact or at least similar.
Ender1624705735 Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 Quote If u tend to prefer to use bipoles, do what I do. Run both bipoles and direct radiating. Situate the bipoles to the side of you and the direct rads as recommended by Dolby. The imaging is really scary in those intense surround movies! U get enveloping ambience and the pin-point precision during flybys can be shockingly accurate. Are you running them in parallel?
Lancelot Posted July 31, 2002 Posted July 31, 2002 I guess the bipoles are in parallel facing each other. I think Jag meant that the bipoles be positioned to the side and above that of the listener, whereby the bipoles are firing simultaneously towards the front and back of the listener, therefore forming an enveloping surround with pin-point precision. And right from the start of my post, this is the kind of surround that I have been trying to get across, except that I didn't know pin-point precision can be achieved in this kind of bipole surround and placement.
Recommended Posts