PDA

View Full Version : Dipoles for surrounds



ez-v
08-30-2003, 02:07 PM
Haven't heard too many multipolar speakers because I found that I preferred monopolar, direct-radiating speakers for my surrounds. Of the ones I have heard, though, I thought the M&K tripolar speakers and the Axiom quad-polars were very good at creating a very diffuse soundfield while retaining a certain sense of clarity and detail.

I only heard the top-shelf models of each series (Axiom QS8 and M&K Surround 250 MkII tripole), but I have heard positive things said of the lines in general, so I think you should be happy with any of the line that fit within your budget. Some posters on other boards seem happy with the Paradigm ADP dipolars and the Onix Rocket RSS300 as well, though I haven't listened to these and can't give you my impressions.

Victor

mskreis
08-31-2003, 01:49 AM
Am I correct that "matching" surrounds to mains becomes less important/unimportant when using multipolar speakers?

curtis
08-31-2003, 04:28 AM
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mskreis

Am I correct that "matching" surrounds to mains becomes less important/unimportant when using multipolar speakers?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No...I don't think so. The fact that they are multi-polar does not mean the should not be matched. Some people believe that matching surrounds is not as important as matching the L/C/R. I believe, while it may not be as important, it should not be treated as un-important. In movies, there is plenty of information that moves from front to back and vice-versa.

-curtis

mskreis
08-31-2003, 01:50 PM
Curtis, do you agree with ez-v that the Axiom QS8 would match well with the 340s?

curtis
08-31-2003, 03:17 PM
I haven't heard them, so I can't comment as well as ez-v can. I know ez has done a lot of research to come to his conclusions and preferences. I would want to hear them with whatever fronts I had to be sure they blended well. Axiom makes great speakers, but the more I have listenned to them, the more I have found myself to prefer the Ascends. If the QS8's have the same sound as their M22's and M60's, and if I wanted multipoles, I would end up wishing Ascend made a multipole.

One thing I can agree with ez-v is, for me, direct over multipole. Especially now, since I am beginning to explore multichannel music.

-curtis

ez-v
08-31-2003, 06:36 PM
mskreis,

While it isn't as important, I would agree with Curtis in that some care must be made to ensure that the sound of the surrounds do not differ too much from the front 3 channels in order to create a cohesive soundfield.

It is somewhat of a general consensus that Axioms tend to be brighter than the Ascends in their sound. While I never heard the QS8s with my Ascends, I did hear them as part of a 5.1 with the Axiom M3tis which I found only slightly more forward in their presentation than the Ascends. I have heard that the CMT-240s are also a bit more forward and detailed in their presentation than the CBM-170s.

With that circuitous logic, I think the QS8s might be a good match for the Ascend 340 sound. However, since I have never heard the QS8s with the CMT-340 and, more specifically, in your setup, I would suggest ordering both the Ascend L/C/R and then the QS8s to see if they match... Worse comes to worse, you are only out shipping on the Axioms.

curtis
09-01-2003, 01:05 AM
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ez-v

While I never heard the QS8s with my Ascends, I did hear them as part of a 5.1 with the Axiom M3tis which I found only slightly more forward in their presentation than the Ascends. I have heard that the CMT-340s are also a bit more forward and detailed in their presentation than the CBM-170s.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

FWIW: IMHO, while the 340's and 170's do differ in thier treble presentation, it is subtle. The treble in the 340's is still very different than the Axiom M22 and M60. The M3Ti is said to be less forward and have less treble than the these two Axioms

-curtis

mskreis
09-01-2003, 01:53 PM
Thanks for your input!

Mark

curtis
09-01-2003, 02:01 PM
I just re-read my previous post, and it did not come out the way I meant it...so I just edited it.

-curtis

gr1m
10-07-2003, 04:53 PM
curtis,
Have you heard the Paradigm Mini Monitors and the B&W 601s? How do they compare to the 170s, as far as HT? I will be doing ~95%HT, 5% Audio in a med-sized room (19x13x9). What about mixing and matching speakers, ie. Mini Monitors for L&R, CC370 for Center, and 170s for surrounds, would that work? Please advise.
Thanks!

curtis
10-07-2003, 05:59 PM
I have not....

But I know Quinn originally had Mini Monitors, and got the CBM-170's for another set-up. The CBM-170's quickly replaced the Mini Monitors. I do not have much experience with B&W's....just what I have read on some boards.

I listened the Paradigm Studio 20 v.2 a lot before I got my CBM-170's.....The 170's were so much cheaper and sounded better.

I am not a big fan of mixing. Maybe Quinn will chime in.

-curtis

Quinn
10-08-2003, 02:18 AM
The 170s were bought for a secondary system on a lark with some X-mas cash. I heard things like breathes taken, brushes on drums, the timpani, and other details that I never heard with the Mini-Monitors. Also the clarity and soundstage improvement were immediately noticeable. Voices also sounded much more natural with the 170s.

Needless to say the Mini-Monitors went and Studio 20s were no longer my dream speaker. I still consider Paradigm a better value than many of the speakers on the market but there are some better values out there if you are willing to search them out. I'm still running Paradigm Atoms(in white)for rear surrounds as a WAF concession. I don't have a problem with the mix but my availible location for the rears is crap-tacular anyway. If I go to a music surround format(SACD,DVD-A) the mixed speakers most likely will be an issue then.

MRose
10-08-2003, 02:22 AM
gr1m- I listened to the minimonitors when I was demoing speakers, though, I never had them at home for a listening session. I found them to be decent all around monitors, slightly colored at the midbass (as all the lower end paradigms seemed to be). That coloration may make them sound more appealing to some folks when used without a bass. I found I liked the 'canadian sound', eg; paradigm, energy, athena. All things considered I would have been happy with them. That said, I found the 170's to be better speakers with advantages in pretty much every range, particularly when matched with a sub.

As for mix and matching, I don't remember that much of a difference between the 170's and minimonitors, though I believe the mini's had a metal dome. The ascends have a soft dome and would expect the timbre characteristics to vary across the spectrum. My advice is that if you are set on the minis or already own them, get matching paradigm surrounds and center. There's nothing wrong with that set up and you wont have the real or imagined differences bugging you on a mix and match.

If you are still shopping, order a pair of the 170's and listen to them at your home. If you don't like them, you're out the $16 shipping or whatever they charge. If you're like the rest of us here, it's well worth the cost compared to the amount of time you will spend perusing internet articles, trying to get a demo from a dealer set up to approxiamte realistic conditions, etc... Nothing compares to an inhome audition of speakers to see what actually sounds the best on your equipment and in your room (that and being able to fiddle with stuff without a salesperson hovering).

-Michael

Quinn
10-08-2003, 05:10 AM
I agree with Michael if you already have the Mini-Monitors I'd stick with Paradigm for the surrounds.