 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I am building a moderate HT setup and am confused about which surrounds to get. I have put together the following so far:Panasonic plasma
HK AVR 330 7.1 receiver
Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 mains and center
Sony 12" 150-watt subassuming my choices are dipole, bipole and direct radiating, which type do I want for the rear? Which type for side walls? I was considering the Cambridge Soundworks Newton S300 multipoles which are switchable among dipole/bipole/direct. But after doing a search here, I'm not so sure anymore. The search did not really tell me what I want to know?
I plan to listen to standard redbook CDs, DVD-audio, SACD and movies on this system. I presume the movies will vary in recording technique (5.1, 7.1, etc.) If I movie is recorded in 5.1 then I should have bipoles, ritht? But if 7.1, then dipoles or direct?
I'm so confused (and tired of reading).
Help!
PS. fwiw, AA does not sell dipoles or bipoles for use as surround, which is why I did not purchase surrounds from them.
Follow Ups:
....reading up some more at dolby.com and reading everyone's helpful suggestions here, I think I am going to go with 2 additional pairs of Ascend Acoustics CBM-170s. Yes, they are direct-radiating speakers, but it sounds like matching timbre and using exactly the same speaker (or at least same mfr) is more important and will ultimately give me a better experience than using dipoles.Thanks to everyone for the helpful suggestions!!!
You made the right decision.
Does the company that makes the mains and centers also make a surround model? It is always wise to use similarly voiced spekers all around.
They essentially offer 3 models: 1) The CBM-170, their "shining star", which can be used for mains or surrounds. 2) A more economical speaker, the HTM-200, also for both purposes. And, 3) a dedicated center.All are direct radiating from what I can tell, which is why I didn't purchase surrounds from them (not yet anyway). I've always heard the best sound from surrounds coming from dipoles. But then again, all of the HTs I've experienced have been 5.1.
My question is really being driven by Cambridge Soundworks' description of their S300 surrounds:
"...the S300's Multi-Mode implementation offers three dispersion patterns for optimum performance with any surround sound program material. The Dipole mode provides a diffuse dispersion pattern that seems to be coming "from all directions." Diffuse dispersion is favored for Dolby Surround® recordings. The Bipole mode retains the broad dispersion of the Dipole mode, but adds a center focus ideal for synthesized surround applications (e.g. DSP "hall" or "stadium" modes) and many Dolby Digital® recordings. Direct (monopole) mode employs a front panel-mounted two-way system of superb fidelity for precise rear speaker imaging on programs featuring a larger amount of complex rear channel sound (like many DTS or Dolby Digital® concert recordings and soon-to-be-available DVD-Audio recordings)."
I really like the ability to have that flexibility, but Ascend Acoustics doesn't seem to offer it, so do I compromise matching timbre, etc. and go with the different surrounds from CS? Or, do I stick with speakers from the same mfr and live with one mode?
If I went with everything from Ascend Acoustics, I would buy/have the system in the link that johnvb provided.
Thanks!
There is great disagreement over the use of dipoles for surrounds, an idea propigated long ago by Thomlinson Holman, then of Lucasfilm's THX. I still would go for uniform timbre voicing so as not to distract from the desired suspension of disbelief.Having opined that, I should admit that my own HT consists of four Magnepan 1.6's and their CC-3 center, all pure dipoles.
.
Surround sound depends as much on the type/size of your room, as much as the sources. Multichannel music would probably sound best with all the same model speaker, but for home theater, the manufactuer system would be best. Matched sets from the same manufactuer takes a lot of quess work out of setting up the system. A combination system usually means compromise,so which is more important to you. music or movies? It looks like you can order direct from the factory, maybe try different models and return what you don't need.I have gone from direct corner mounted surrounds, to 2, than 4 in-walls, to side mounted box bipoles. Now that I have a HT receiver (Rotel 1055)that can process all sources to 7.1 surround, I am going to try adding 2 bipole in walls that match the sides (as per the manufactuer). I won't know if it is "better" until I try it.
So I should ask myself...am I going to listen to this system more for multi-channel music or movies? The answer is movies first, 2-channel music second, multi-channel music third.Yes, the Series 2000 in the link you provided is what I will end up with if I go with everything from AA. I would probably add another pair of HTM 200 for the side surrounds (remember, 7.1).
question: Is 7.1 seven discrete channels?
Thanks!
The way I understand it, on Dolby EX and DTS ES, the third channel is matrixed out of the two discrete surround channel, similar to how the older Pro-logic center channel was produced out of the analog 2 channel signal. So there still is only 5 channels + LFE, but your processor extreacts 1 or 2 more signals for your center surrounds.Check out Dolby's site for more info:
that the difference bewteen 6.1 and 7.1 is an extra speaker but not an extra CHANNEL.
I can't get the link to work...but go to dolby.com. click on the Dolby Knowledgebase and read the 5.1-6.1-7.1 question.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
