RTi150 and FXi50 as surrounds?

Emlyn

As some of you know, the Denon AVR-3803 receiver has the capability of using three different sets of speakers for the back of the viewing area. Currently, I have direct radiating speakers in the back: a pair of RTi150s in the corners of the room and a center channel speaker as a single back surround speaker.

For a while now, I've been toying with the idea of removing the rear center channel speaker and replacing it with two FXi50s. Also, I have been thinking of putting an additional pair of FXi50s on the side walls. The Denon can be set up so that the RTi150s would be switched on for music sources, and the side mounted FXi50s for home theater.

Prices are low on the FXi50s and I'm not interested in getting any of the new RTi line of speakers when they come out next month. I can't think of any drawbacks to doing this except for the extra cost. Is it worth getting the dipole/bipole speakers for home theater use? What benefits can be gained over the system setup now?

dorokusai

If you can find a good deal on them, buy them.

The bipole/dipole type speaker excel because they are able to fill the space better than a direct radiating speaker. They excel in HT due to the effects being open and not specific. Great type of speaker for HT. I think it is worth it.

The 5.1 music format is just starting, and they may not be everyones choice for this, but they sound fine to me.

bigsexy1

Emlyn, as a fellow 150 owner, I copy and pasted another reply
I very recently made on this forum. Also just wanted to add that the tweeters in the 30s are also 1 in. just like the 50s (the old fx300i's tweeters were smaller than the fx500is), so I wouldn't automatically rule them out either if you can get a good price on them. I mean, just how much benefit on back and side surround channels during movies is it really anyway just having a 1 in. bigger woofer? Probably not really all that much, especially since you have bass from rear speakers for multi channel music more than covered with another set of 150s back there!
You will then have pretty much the same set up as me after you have done this.
Another thing to keep in mind, if you do get your 50s (or 30s if you go that route) from Circuit City, you keep alive at least the option to trade them in for the newer RTi series within a year just in case you ever change your mind. Never say never, and it doesn't hurt to keep an option open for later, "just in case".

---

Go to hometheatermag.com as there is an article about a test they did with a panel of 4 or 5 people about this very subject. You can do a search and find it in the archives. In short, the majority of the panel like bipole/dipoles at both side and rear positions, and if a monopole (or direct radiator) has to be used, put them on the sides. That having either one or two monopole direct radiating speakers in the rear was the least favorable option of the panel out of the four possibilities of combinations (direct sides/dipole rears, all monopoles, all dipoles, or dipole side/monopole rear).

Here is exactly what the four people in the panel said (notice how 4 out of 4 picked rear dipoles

Face Off: Surround-Speaker-Configuration Wars: Page 6

What Do You Think?
I've always been big on clear, distinct, directional sound. I want to hear exactly where sounds are coming from. Once the terms monopole and dipole were explained to me, I assumed that monopole speakers were for me—they shoot the sound right at you, so you can hear where it's coming from. This is why I was so surprised with the results of this blind test. I consistently preferred configurations that included dipole speakers. Ultimately, I preferred the all-dipole configuration; however, having at least one set of dipoles (either on the sides or in the back) still filled in the gaps and made me feel like I was a part of the action.
When it came down to picking between one surround back speaker or two, I definitely preferred two. I still want distinct, directional sound, though. With the rear monopoles, sounds that I thought should be directly behind me often seemed to come from one side. I was pleasantly surprised to find that using dipole speakers in the rear eliminated this problem.

Of course, the sound is also affected by the listener's location. I happened to be sitting in the exact middle of the room, and the room was a perfect rectangle with no open doorways or windows. (These people at HT take their listening seriously.) From this location, I definitely preferred all dipoles with a dual-rear-speaker configuration. However, I also thought the sound was good with monopoles on the sides, as long as dual dipoles were used in the rear.—Brandon Dahl

I showed up at the studio on a sunny Saturday afternoon, ready to sacrifice my day to the cause of better sound. After eating a Carl's Jr. Superstar and fries (Mike's bribe to get us there), I was ready to sit back and let my ears do the work. We compared the common 5.1 speaker setup with 6.1- and 7.1-channel configurations and then compared both dipole and monopole versions of those arrangements.

Unlike the other listeners, I liked having just one speaker for the back channel, although I did like the sound of the dipole more than that of the monopole. With two speakers in the back, there was almost too much going on. Sound seemed to bounce around. In a room larger than the one I was digesting in (which was 21 feet by 15 feet), two speakers may be necessary. But in a room the size of HT's listening room (or smaller), one speaker was just fine. With one dipole, I thought the sound was clearer, but not to the point of being distractingly obvious. It seemed to add a more even flow when sounds traveled from the right surround speaker to the left. I'd say that you can't really go wrong either way. Two surround back speakers are better than none, but, in my opinion, one was simply more satisfying.—John Martorano

Apparently, we didn't have any die-hard Quadraphonic fans on our listening panel. Whenever I espouse the benefits of dipole speakers for surround sound, I'm usually yelled at by some older (or, shall I say, more chronologically experienced) gentleman who says that Quad was the best. These folks always insist, sometimes violently, that surround systems should, like old Quad systems, consist of five identical full-range loudspeakers. These people seem to forget that five full-range speakers are impractical for the vast majority of users and that Quad was, like 8-track, a colossal failure.

That being said and having witnessed the outcome of our direct-versus-diffuse, single-versus-dual Surround EX speaker configuration Face Off (by far the most wordy Face Off title ever), I can continue to recommend dipole speakers for the majority of installations. Sure, for the handful of action movies that utilize discrete effects for a small portion of the film, monopole speakers might be better. However, to me, the benefits these speakers may add to those scenes don't outweigh the distractions they cause with other, more-ambient sounds. Dipoles, on the other hand, only soften the more-discrete effects while enhancing the majority of diffuse sounds. Besides, since the people who like the bizarre or, as Jason put it, "creative" mixing of some 5.1 music CDs are likely the same people who liked Quad stereos, I don't care if they complain. They were going to anyway, assuming they even made it past the first paragraph. For the rest of us, dipoles will offer enveloping sound that won't distract from the action onscreen. —Mike Wood

Of the various surround setups we listened to, I preferred the dual rear Surround EX speakers, as opposed to the single one. I liked the fuller, more-enveloping sound. Even though the EX channel is a decoded mono channel, the two rear speakers seemed to create a rear stereo effect.

In the dual-rear-surround speaker configuration, I preferred monopole side surrounds with dual dipoles in back. This seemed to offer the best of both worlds on software that has discretely placed surround information and software that has diffused ambient surround sounds. However, the all-dipole surround system came in a very close second and seemed to do almost as good on making the discrete/localized information just as aggressive and exciting. More tests with other EX software might be helpful.

I preferred monopoles for the multichannel music software that was "creatively" mixed with a different instrument in each channel and dipoles for the traditional "ambient/audience/ reverb" surrounds.

All things considered, I'd go with the monopole side surrounds and dual dipole back surrounds, as this setup offers more flexibility. And, if you can switch your speakers like the M&Ks, all the better.—Jason Koehler

---

I personally like having side surrounds set to dipole, rear to bipole. I also like how the Denon 3802/3803, 4802 and 5803 actually let you hook up 2 different pairs of rear surrounds (in addition to the side surrounds). That way you can hook up both a set of bipoloe/dipoles in the rear center wall for movies and a set of direct radiators angled in at the rear corners for music and have the best of all worlds. You simply reassign the receiver's rear channel amps to whichever set of speakers you are using at any given time for a specific purpose.

Emlyn

Thanks for the advice Bigsexy1. While I was in Circuit City returning a defective phone switcher last night, I noticed the store finally had their last RTi150s marked down to $284.99 each. I of course didn't have my receipt with me from when I willingly paid $474.99 each for my second pair of the speakers. No problem. They looked the purchase up on their computer and gave me back the almost $400 difference in price.

To celebrate, I just bought two pairs of FXi30s. After considering, I figured it wasn't worth it to spend an extra $120 to get the FXi50s from another source.