I am in the process of purchasing surround speakers for a 5.1 setup and cannot decide wether to get dipoles or direct radiating speakers.
Does anyone have any experience using dipoles? I have heard some say that they are weak and do not add much and that direct radiating speakers are better.
I would appreciate advice from anyone who has used dipoles and direct radiators and what you think is better and why. Thanks
Conventional wisdom has it that direct radiators are best for multichannel music reproduction and that di- or bipoles are best for home theater.
Dipole speakers have out of phase speaker components which tends to de-localize the sound. This is a good thing for surround speakers, particularly in 5.1 (as opposed to 6.1 or 7.1) systems in smaller rooms. The tradeoff is that dipoles are the worst at reproducing surround music, which ideally requires direct radiators of close to the same frequency response as the main speakers.
In my opinion, bipoles are the best compromise. Here, angled in-phase speaker sets rely on reflective room acoustics to reproduce a seamless rear sound field. Most are successful at doing this, assuming optimum placement.
If you are mostly a music listener, with the occasional movie, I would go direct. If you watch mostly movies with a little music, then di/bipoles are best. Ultimately, your ears should be the judge and you should listen to all three types before making a final decision.
I appreciate the input John but I have read all the stuff regarding how dipoles versus monpoles are supposed to work and sound.
I am looking to hear from people who have actually used both types and what they think of the difference in sound. I'd like to hear people describe how the different types sounded when they were used, what types of rooms they were used in , where they were placed etc etc.........
