Timbre Matching Dipole/Bipoles Surrounds with Monitor Series II?

xantonin

I'd like to stick with the Monitor II series and maybe eventually get bipole/dipoles for the surrounds but there's none in the monitor series to match, only in the RTi series.

How important is timbre matching on the surround speakers? Or bipole/dipoles worth it?

Thanks

gp4jesus

xantonin wrote: »

...only in the rti series.

How important is timbre matching on the surround speakers? Or bipole/dipoles worth it?

Thanks

very!!

ravaneli

bipoles/ dipoles are the only thing that's important. The type of experience they create is vastly superior than any type of matched one directional speaker.
As far as I can tell the algorythm that determines what sounds goes to which speaker never plays the same thing through fronts and surrounds. The fronts do play the same thing as the center though not quite the same way. I would be very suprprised if someone could tell in a blind test that a dipole surround speaker does not match the fronts. You would need to play stereo through all speakers for that.

tonyb

The older fx300/fx300i surrounds would match well and used run about 150 bucks for the pair.

xantonin

gp4jesus wrote: »

very!!

Were you saying they are very much worth it?

Or that it is very important to timbre match the dipoles with the front/center?

ravaneli

imagine two people talking in the forest. The wind is gently swaying the trees.
With dipoles you feel in the middle of the forest. You hear noise of wind going through the leaves all around you. With your eyes closed you cannot point to the direction of the surround speaker. The noise from the leaves is everywhere in the room. The conversation around the campfire definitely comes in front of you though. It comes from the center and the fronts and it is very articulated and detailed and the sense for direction is easily identifiable with eyes closed. You can point finger to the conversation point.

With single direction speakers the entire sensation that you are in the middle of a fores is nonexistent. Noise from leaves come from one exact location. There are some leaves exactly there and you can point that point with eyes closed. It is very distracting througout the movie.

Polk audio makes outstanding dipoles, really. My old FX500s will beat any single direction speaker as surround. They will beat A9s as surrounds without even being a close comparison. Just test some dipoles before you make your decision and there will be no dount in your mind about the right choice.

As for timbre matching.. in the same example you hear conversation through the fronts and leaves and other ambient forest noise through the dipoles. How can you tell if they are matched?? : )

tonyb

Timbre, tone....speakers of a certain series are voice matched for each other. For instance, an LSI FX is voice matched for the LSI SERIES of fronts and center. If you used a fx or rti series, the front to back soundstage would differ some. In movies, the sound sometimes pans from center to the left, the the back left and then up the other side. With matched speakers, this panning of the sound should be seamless. With different timbre matched speakers it won't be as seamless. Some this bothers and some it doesn't, up to the end user.

gp4jesus

tonyb wrote: »

Timbre, tone....speakers of a certain series are voice matched for each other. For instance, an LSI FX is voice matched for the LSI SERIES of fronts and center. If you used a FXi from the rti series, the front to back soundstage would differ some. In movies, the sound sometimes pans from center to the left, then the back left and then up the other side. With matched speakers, this panning of the sound should be seamless. With different timbre matched speakers it won't be as seamless.

+1. To add to Tony's panning scenario, the sound should "float" between front & rear as it pans from same much the same way a singer's voice is centered in a 2 channel system. In a mixed system the sound will seem to jump from front to rear.

Would you expect seamless 2 channel LR imaging w/ different speakers?

Another example is the sound track simulating ambiance w/reverb or echo. With either the decay or slapback will have rolled off highs, more so with time. Using Tonyb's "system," If the inititial comes from the LCR, the decay would come brighter speakers thus sounding unnatural, less seamless.

Tony's "system" may work w/mixed RTi/RTi A series as they use the same tweeter though different XO parts. I recommend against that, the chief reason I have all "A" series in my HT.

Geoff4rfc

I would bet the FXiA4 wouldn't make a very noticeable difference if any at all if used with M70's or M60's.

When I upgraded from Monitors to the RTiA's, it was blended transition, so I was using the RTiA series with the Monitors until I had all of my monitors sold.

The FXiA6 is very powerful in my set up and IMO would overpower the M70's. I believe Polk has a return policy, it may be worth giving the A4's a try to see if they mesh well with the Monitors.

codyc1ark

I disagree. Matching surrounds is not nearly important as your front stage. I have a matching front stage, and looked for over a month for a surround that would FIT where I needed them too. I would argue in my setup that my not even same brand surrounds work very well. Although I am tempted to try some TL350s because from what I understand they use the same tweets, but I really like my surrounds. I would think you would be fine running a rti surround with your monitor setup, good luck.

jeremymarcinko

+1 timbre matching the surrounds will be best.