best spkr combo?

Options
brentski
brentski Posts: 96
edited September 2003 in Speakers
I currently have the following speakers;

CS-400i-center
RT-55's -mains
FX-500i -side surrounds
RT-35's- rear surrounds
(I also have a CS-300, my previous center channel spkr.)

Since all the speakers have the same matching drivers and tweeters, My questions is the following;

1) Use the FX-500i's as my rear surrounds and use the RT-35's as my side surrounds?

2) Get another CS-300 to go along with the one I already have to use as my rear surround spkrs? (and put the 35's aside for use in another room or....)

3) Leave things the way they are

I know that room acoustics can make a difference, but consider the room is 14' W x 18' L x 9' H.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Center; CS-400i
Main's; RT-55's
Side Surround's-RT-35's
Rear center;CS-300
Sub; SVS PB12-NSD
Post edited by brentski on

Comments

  • shack
    shack Posts: 11,154
    edited September 2003
    Options
    It would seem to me that #3 is the optimum setup...but then there is nothing to change and what fun is that?

    Seriously...that may be the best grouping of RTxxi speakers that you could come up with. Some may suggest to replace the RT35i with another set of FX500i but I think that would a step back from what you have now. I think in a 7.1 setup that you want the rears to be direct firing but that is JMO.
    "Just because you’re offended doesn’t mean you’re right." - Ricky Gervais

    "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase

    "Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." - Bernard Berenson
  • bigsexy1
    bigsexy1 Posts: 557
    edited September 2003
    Options
    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.
  • wallstreet
    wallstreet Posts: 1,405
    edited September 2003
    Options
    This just confirms that speaker type and selection is a personal preference decision. No two "experts" can ever agree on what's best. The best solution may just be to buy the most flexible speakers allowed for your particular situation. Polk's bipole/dipole switcable speakers certainly apply.:)
  • Frank Z
    Frank Z Posts: 5,860
    edited September 2003
    Options
    Another vote for #3.
    9/11 - WE WILL NEVER FORGET!! (<---<<click)
    2005-06 Club Polk Football Pool Champion!! :D
  • danger boy
    danger boy Posts: 15,722
    edited September 2003
    Options
    sell them all to me.. and get yourself a nice Bose set up. :p







    JK
    PolkFest 2012, who's going>?
    Vancouver, Canada Sept 30th, 2012 - Madonna concert :cheesygrin:
  • fgr41
    fgr41 Posts: 432
    edited September 2003
    Options
    /me flogs dangerboy
    Originally posted by danger boy
    sell them all to me.. and get yourself a nice Bose set up. :p




    I vote #3
    Front
    Polk RT800i (BI-wired)
    Rear
    Polk RT600i
    Center
    Polk CS400i (BI-wired)
    Sub
    SVS 25-31PCi (22Hz tuning port)... it's SubHuman
    Receiver
    YAMAHA RX-V1400
    TV
    Mitsubishi WT-46807 HDTV
    HD receiver
    T i V o HR10-250