Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Dipoles for surrounds

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    22

    Default

    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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Am I correct that "matching" surrounds to mains becomes less important/unimportant when using multipolar speakers?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,034

    Default

    <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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Curtis, do you agree with ez-v that the Axiom QS8 would match well with the 340s?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,034

    Default

    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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    22

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,034

    Default

    <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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Thanks for your input!

    Mark

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,034

    Default

    I just re-read my previous post, and it did not come out the way I meant it...so I just edited it.

    -curtis

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    rancho cucamonga
    Posts
    86

    Default

    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!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •