The distance-from-the-wall requirements are the same, and the timbral and spatial benefits are the same, but the in-phase rear-radiating woofer of a true bipolar does something interesting: Its output wraps around and fills in when the front woofer starts to run into "baffle step" issue. Some tradeoffs have to be juggled but the net result can be a worthwhile improvement in in-room response. Floyd Toole loved his Mirage M1's.
The writer is probably asking about dipoles. Dipole speakers utilize room reflections to create a spacious sound, hence in most cases no room treatment in the way of absorption or diffraction is used. Regardless of their benefit, dipole speakers add a dimension to the sound that the mixing engineer and producer of the music did not intend, and of course could not have predicted or adjusted their mix for since every room sounds different. In fact, their intention was to recreate in the mixing process a sense of room and airiness through the use of reverb and other techniques. The goal of a true high fidelity music reproduction system is then to recreate as accurately as possible the room sound and airiness that was intended by the makers of the music, who themselves recorded the acoustic tracks in an acoustically dead space and then mixed those tracks in a highly treated room with tightly controlled reflections so as not to color what they were hearing from the monitor speakers. So then to accurately hear what they intended, we need to create a similarly controlled acoustic listening space. I've not heard this argument made elsewhere and it needs to be clarified.
I disagree with Speaker Builder and agree with Paul. When set up correctly, dipole and bipole speakers result in you hearing less of the playback room's "small room signature" and more of the acoustic space of the recording venue, whether real or engineered. This is highly counter-intuitive. They do this by adding more spectrally-correct, relatively late-onset energy to the reverberant field. The ear constructs a "picture" of the acoustic space based on which spatial cues are the most effectively presented. The early reflections are the ones which most effectively present the undesirable "small room signature" cues of the playback room, so we don't want to put more energy into early reflections. But later reflections primarily convey the acoustic space of the recording venue. The additional reverberant energy from the backwave helps tip the balance towards the recording venue cues AS LONG AS that first reflection off the wall behind the speakers doesn't arrive too early. As a ballpark rule of thumb, we want the backwave to arrive roughly 10 milliseconds or more behind the first-arrival sound, which implies having at least five feet between the back of the speakers and the wall (and ime 3 feet is the minimum). This way we have roughly twice as much energy in the reverberant field, but with no increase in detrimental early reflections. The ear picks up the spatial cues of the recording venue (whether real or engineered) from this stronger and therefore more slowly-decaying reverberant field. So counter-intuitive as it may seem, when set up correctly, good dipoles and bipoles let you hear more of the recording and less of the playback room.
@@dl6519 Nearly all modern recordings involve the addition of reverberation to individual tracks in order to emulate an acoustic space (often a large space with mostly late reflections), and it is this acoustic space and not that of one's listening room that is intended by the engineer to be reproduced during playback. A well treated listening room will tightly control all early reflections from walls, ceiling and floor, and scatter those from the back wall. My intention here is to present the rationale for use of single pole speakers in a controlled listening space as opposed to dipoles in an untreated space, and not to argue in favor of one over the other. Each has its benefits and drawbacks, I suppose. I hope someday to get my hands on Danny Richie's (GR Research) dipole design planar satellite speaker setup. Interesting that, unlike PS Audio's ARS 5's in Paul's music room one, and Seigfried Linkwitz's cone driver dipole Orion system in his home with lots of glass reflective surfaces, Danny's dipole system utilized lots of room treatment.
@@SpeakerBuilder "Nearly all modern recordings involve the addition of reverberation to individual tracks in order to emulate an acoustic space (often a large space with mostly late reflections), and it is this acoustic space and not that of one's listening room that is intended by the engineer to be reproduced during playback." Agreed! In our home listening rooms there is a competition between the acoustic space encoded on the recording (whether real or engineered), and the "small room signature" of the playback room. My claim is that a good dipole or bipole works WITH the room (when set up correctly) to the benefit of the recording. Assuming correct set-up, a good dipole or dipole speaker presents an increased amount of beneficial late-onset reflections without a corresponding increase in undesirable early reflections, and this tips the aforementioned competition in favor of the acoustic space on the recording.
@@SpeakerBuilder Very nice! A big room makes it much easier to keep the reflection paths nice and long in the horizontal plane, regardless of what type of speakers are used. Ten milliseconds time delay between the direct sound and the first horizontal-plane reflections is ime a good target (to use a figure Earl Geddes mentions). Earlier reflections in the vertical plane are virtually inevitable with most speakers, but are less detrimental. Line-source-approximating dipoles (like Maggies and SoundLabs) are directional enough in the vertical plane to avoid significant floor and ceiling reflections. Dipole speakers have a null to the sides, which makes it easier to avoid early sidewall reflections in a smaller room given a bit of toe-in, but the distance-from-the-front-wall requirement (for best results) means that dipoles typically dominate a fair amount of real estate. In general I like at least 5 feet behind dipoles, with 3 feet as a "minimum". Less than that and imo dipoles are generally not a good choice. Diffusion and/or absorption can help, but imo best to use speakers whose radiation pattern doesn't require "surgery" from the get-go.
@Fat Rat They are better than the Klipschorn's I traded for them back in 92, but since that time I have nothing to compare it to. I have no audiophile friends or close brick and mortar stores. Also, I'm sure technology has improved speakers since the early 90's.
I own the Definitive Technology BP7000sc, they are wonderful TO ME! :) they produce the sound that touches my heart and that’s what we, the music lovers search for. :) definitely opened to experience more audio options off course, the journey never ends.
After listening to many brands in a listening room, from Infinity, Bower and Wilkins, Polk, Pioneer, etc etc, I went with the Definitive Technology: BP 7002, Pro Monitor 800's, and their Mythos Three center. I love the sound, the full room feel, the clarity, and how alive music and movies sound. Now I want to upgrade to Dolby Atmos and get the full BP 9000 line.
Cool Paul mentioned Mirage. One of the designers from Mirage now works with Axiom audio. The speakers I myself use. They make an Omni directional series bipole. Called the Axiom LFR series speakers to which they just released an active crossover version very worth a look.
Bipolar and dipolar loudspeakers are great if you want to make a string quartet sound as if they are actually playing in your non-acoustically treated listening room but can have mixed results on electric guitar based music - i.e. 1990s era entry level Mirage bipolars can sometimes blunt the focus and sting of a well recorded 1958 Fender Champ played in anger.
Try as I may, when I hear the phrase "bipolar speakers", I cannot help thinking this has nothing to do with technology, but in fact is just a speaker that is "withdrawn" often, and is only at its best on random, unexpected occasions. To be fair, bipolar is no joke. I have suffered on and off with it for almost 30 years with a manifestation of depression/anxiety and extreme highs and lows, that appear almost random. Against that backdrop, its safe to say that well recorded, faithfully reproduced music is one of the few things that consistently makes sense to me.
Paul You never listed the pros and cons of bipolar speakers. What do bipolar speakers do to the soundstage that's that dramatically different to dipolar ones and why why do you prefer dipole over bipolar?
Paul- Interesting to me that you zip tie the speaker wire together on the back of the IRS, Pierre Sprey from Maple Shade goes to great lengths to avoid wires touching or parallel runs..
Those wires share the same signal as those wires are for same series connected drivers. So no need to worry about parallel run. Also inductance>capacitance in speaker wires so no worries for that as well.
If you can hear the difference in how cables are strung, you have better ears than me. And I don't doubt that many people do. Blessing and curse. Just as I don't hear the system humming (except Glenn Gould recordings).
Stephen Smith I made my own braided speaker cables and can definitely hear the difference if it were braided or not. Even my father whose always sceptical about such stuff hears the difference. Cables themself only cost me like 20 bucks and a few hours so I think it's money and time well spend.
@@chielwouterscw Good for you. I applaud your skill and wish you enjoyment of your music. And your father's music as well. I am not that handy anymore, although I once assembled a Hafler amplifier kit that did not go up in flames and sounded good to my much younger ears. I find my fairly modest stereo system more than adequately good as is and it gives me joy in this late stage of the life cycle. A "get off the merry-go-round system" in the words of the late, great Sam Tellig (Stereophile columnist and reviewer). p.s. Excerpt from the 'weird stuff (keep it family friendly) file': I recall an old cartoon (in Stereo Review? 1970s?) of a guy wiring a black box into his stereo system labeled 'Glenn Gould hum filter'. And I love the music of Glenn Gould. Just thought it was funny.
If all of your new speakers will have a dipolar top end, then you have the same "problem" with speaker positioning - which isn't a problem at all, but should be the norm. High fidelity speakers need to be multidirectional and need to be pulled out from the walls for depth and spaciousness. This is an acoustic reality that cannot be overcome with any speakers up against the wall. And "in phase" or "out of phase" has nothing to do with it. The reflected sound from behind and around the speakers cannot be in phase with the direct sound and need not be. The soundstage is formed by a combination of direct and reflected sound. Now you need to learn how to shape the radiation pattern to take advantage of that principle of both live and reproduced sound.
Bipole or dipole, any speaker that emits sound from more than one side needs a lot more space than a "normal" speaker does, which makes the case for a dedicated sound room, a luxury few ordinary people can afford to have.
Firstly, thank you for your videos Paul! Secondly, you're dangerous... A couple weeks ago I sought to replace my aging and well, crappy home theater receiver. I scoured RU-vid and online reviews and settled on a Denon Avr-3805. It's not an amazing receiver but suits my needs and more importantly my budget. That's how I've discovered your videos and have watched probably 50 in the past few days and since then I have new optical as well as rca cables enroute (have a way more complicated system than is necessary), new heavier gauge speaker wire and most importantly a audioquest dragonfly red dac. I wish I had discovered your videos years ago but as I said, you're dangerous, to my budget that is, I am excited to see where this rabbit hole ends and hopefully in time can replace my Polk and Bose set up with Elac debuts. Thank you again and happy listening.
Backfiring speakers add room ambience that wasn’t in the source material making you feel the music is more live. That’s great for music that lacks such room ambience and is intended to sound live but not good for music that is made for sounding pure e.g. EDM or most modern studio made music.
Fat Rat Actually I’m down to three pieces left of a bag of Darrell Lea Soft Australian licorice. My dog also loves these. I just realize RU-vid wants me to spell it different than the spelling on the bag “Liquorice”. Non GMO, plant based and no high fructose syrup make it (almost) healthy...
Fat Rat Yes, but some times we aren’t much better. The serving size defined on this licorice bag isn’t making much sense for my bad habit of consuming such bag in an evening of doing some hobby work in my electronics lab.
What if one were to add a tweeter or super-tweeter to the back of a speaker that designed conventionally? Come of the speaker binding posts and into a high pass crossover then to the tweeter. Just to give a bit more air and depth. Running Elac Unifi UB5s.
I'm confused, when you talk about the IRS you never mention the woofers in the back. Why not. Please try and take some time and answer this question. Thank you.
Questions, why did Infinity make the Emit tweeters out of phase then the rest even though they all face forward? With these "polar" speakers the cabinets have to be vented? If not where would the air go when they both drove in or out? Wouldn't a di-polar just need to power one speaker of the two being the stroke of the woofer it would automatically push out or suck in the other speaker (I can see smaller speakers, Tweets and mids not being able to do it)? Thank you Paul for acknowledging those of use that cant set 7 foot tall speakers in the middle of our room's and expect to still stay married.
Ferget all that. Whilst at the speaker store, get 4. Why? Just now, if I close my eyes I could reach out and touch Paul's nose. OR, the 1st violinist can sit in my lap. Two speakers against the wall I face, facing me. Two pulled out to a near field listening position. Result, a sound stage you would kill for, IF you heard this set up. I don't want to BE THERE. I want THEM HERE, and this set up does EXACTLY THAT!
The above only works if the equipment has A + B channels that can play simultaneously. Receivers tend to have this capability, and, yes Virginia, there ARE high end receivers - LOL
yes you could, however some of the benefits with dipoles is no cabinet reflections. If you have two monopoles our of phase in the same box you wont have that problem, but a single speaker in an open baffle will do the same thing so why bother.
Ton R. I think Paul once told that that would be preferable but not necessary as they aim to sell their speaker to not only audiophiles but also (rich) people who can't have them in a dedicated sound room. (If my memory serves me right)
Playing with speaker positioning is a fun and rewarding thing, and it’s free. You would be amazed at how just moving your speakers out into the room, even a few inches, can open up the sound.
Still have M3s which are still great.. Looking to replace them decades later and only open baffle seem like they might be suitable, and there are not many of those.
@@QoraxAudio That's very interesting. Is it a bunch of cell phone drivers on a tennis ball? 😃 Nope, I dont really want to know. I'm not changing directions at this point. Plus I need 120db+ on occasion's. Helps with my cyclothymia.😃
@@sailingaquarius23 Ah I was kinda joking, but isobaric subs are cool. Unfortunately, I've never seen/heard them in real life though. I just have a cheap single 15" sealed sub for support. Do you have cone to cone, magnet to magnet or the type that has two drivers in series behind each other?
