# Two side surround pairs rather than one?



## pmcneil (May 29, 2010)

I currently employ two side surround pairs, splitting the side surround output from my pre/pro to two power amplifiers and four speakers. One pair is midway between the front/center location and my seating position, the other slightly behind the listening position. The frontmost are bipoles, the rearmost dipoles. (I haven't yet tried the alternative placement, reversing this placement).

The idea of using two pairs, instead of one came from Floyd Tooles' book.

Anyone else tried this?

I find it greatly enhances the ambience and expansiveness of the surround sound.

Should I add a third pair!


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

The concept is called "sound reenforcement", and is pretty much mandatory in pro-audio. You've given no information about your setup at all (room size, current performance, goals, what you are using for, etc) and so there's no way someone could possibly tell you the ideal number of pairs of side-speakers.\

I can think of any number of potential problems with comb filtering and the like.


----------



## Mika75 (Feb 5, 2009)

pmcneil said:


> I currently employ two side surround pairs, splitting the side surround output from my pre/pro to two power amplifiers and four speakers. One pair is midway between the front/center location and my seating position, the other slightly behind the listening position. *The frontmost are bipoles, the rearmost dipoles. *(I haven't yet tried the alternative placement, reversing this placement).


I think Floyd was using wide dispersion monopole speakers ?


----------



## pmcneil (May 29, 2010)

> I can think of any number of potential problems with comb filtering and the like.


I think that Floyd rather thoroughly debunks the 'comb filtering' myth.


----------



## pmcneil (May 29, 2010)

> I think Floyd was using wide dispersion monopole speakers ?


I don't remember if he specifies type, will have to check. I could matter...I agree.


----------



## nholmes1 (Oct 7, 2010)

Yes Dr Toole does recommend monopole's, and it's the same concept used in real cinema's and theaters.


----------



## bambino (Feb 21, 2010)

I would assume that your room has to be pretty large to require extra speakers for sound reenforcement aside from using larger speakers all around. I can understand it a requirement in say a "hall" atmosphere or Movie Theater but for the home i think the traditional 5.1/7.1 setup is just fine.:T


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

nholmes1 said:


> Yes Dr Toole does recommend monopole's, and it's the same concept used in real cinema's and theaters.


Correct. This is why my system uses three spaced side surrounds per side and two spaced rear center surrounds, all monopoles. They are placed at calculated distances from each other to ensure they disappear, and prevent each speaker from giving its location away(Allen Array technique). The comb filtering myth he has debuked is the use of multiple monopoles for each wall, not the combined use of multiple bipolar and dipolar surrounds. It would seem to me the combination of the two would make a fuzzy wuzzy indistinct mess of the rear sound field. 

I would never recommend it, that is for sure. Even if the room was huge! A well designed monopolar array will convey a wall of information without giving away each speakers location. It would translate everything accurately from a tight to a wide open sound field. A combination of bipolar and dipolar speakers in the same array would blow of the surround field so large, it would not mesh well with the front sound field. Not to mention directionality being a bit fuzzy. You would have to be careful to line up the in phase sides of the dipoles with the bipoles, so you don't get any phase suckouts happening at different frequencies. This is too complex for me when there are far simpler solutions. Why make it hard when it really is easy?

Some of us are mixing sound coverage up with sound reinforcement. Sound reinforcement utilizes microphones, amplifiers and speakers to amplify the voice for large spaces. Sound coverage is when you use additional speakers to fill in holes in the sound field, and create even coverage throughout the room.


----------



## pmcneil (May 29, 2010)

My room is long (38 feet) and narrow (15 feet), I sit in the middle, and the front/centers are 7 feet away from the front wall. 

I guess, based on Sir T's opinion, when I can afford it, I must try three or more wide-dispersion (does this mean 'horn' type) monopoles. With my current motley crew, bipoles and dipoles, there is no fuzzy wuzzy problem, as best as I can tell (when discrete sounds are indicated, there is no problem with their clarity or localization) and the side sound-field messes excellently with the front sound field...e.g. there is never an apparent gap. If I use only one or the other of this pair of surrounds on each side, the location of the speaker becomes more obvious, to the point of being distracting, at least for me (my wife never complained!), especially when not in the 'sweet' (middle) position slot. I have tried one set of monopoles as side surrounds, and it was awful: surround effects were clearly localizable. 

I do use monopoles for the rear surrounds, which in the great majority of the cases don't deliver discrete sounds anyway.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

pmcneil said:


> My room is long (38 feet) and narrow (15 feet), I sit in the middle, and the front/centers are 7 feet away from the front wall.


That is a long room indeed. The room the system in my signature sits in is 20x34x13.6, also a pretty large room, but certainly wider than yours. 



> I guess, based on Sir T's opinion, when I can afford it, I must try three or more wide-dispersion (does this mean 'horn' type) monopoles.


Does not have to be horn loaded monopoles. 




> With my current motley crew, bipoles and dipoles, there is no fuzzy wuzzy problem, as best as I can tell (when discrete sounds are indicated, there is no problem with their clarity or localization) and the side sound-field messes excellently with the front sound field...e.g. there is never an apparent gap. If I use only one or the other of this pair of surrounds on each side, the location of the speaker becomes more obvious, to the point of being distracting, at least for me (my wife never complained!), especially when not in the 'sweet' (middle) position slot. I have tried one set of monopoles as side surrounds, and it was awful: surround effects were clearly localizable.


This is why you use more than one set of monopoles, of course one set will give its position away, it can't help but to. Add a couple of more, and the effect is lessened. Add another pair(that's three pair), even more so. In your room add another two pair(correctly spaced to prevent localization), and you won't be able to locate any speaker, but you will still get the spatial performance as a professional theater or dubbing stage. I like all of my theaters that are devoted to movie watching to be set up just like the dubbing stage I work on. What you get is a more accurate translation of the soundtrack, just scaled down to the size of my own home theater. 



> I do use monopoles for the rear surrounds, which in the great majority of the cases don't deliver discrete sounds anyway.


You are correct about that, but that is changing pretty quickly.


----------



## pmcneil (May 29, 2010)

> I like all of my theaters that are devoted to movie watching to be set up just like the dubbing stage I work on. What you get is a more accurate translation of the soundtrack, just scaled down to the size of my own home theater.


This is a powerful argument. 

I forgot to mention that my ceiling, is cathedral, and is only 8 feet high, which intuitively I guess exacerbates my problem of source localization (reflections from sloped ceilings, etc.). 

I may need more than 3 pairs...

Thanks, Sir T, for your helpful and informative input!


----------



## pmcneil (May 29, 2010)

I'm actually starting to have a look at what's available, in a quantity of six, for using as replacements for my current (see above) bipole/dipole arrangement, based on Sir T's contributions to this thread above. 

Any thoughts on the Klipsch KSB 3.1, six of which can be had for under $400? Any suggestions, for wide-dispersion monopoles, preferably wall mountable and six for under $600?


VMPS RM2 (right/left fronts), Revel Performa M20s (one above one below centers), Streem bipoles (first side surround pair), Carver dipoles (second side surround pair), AR 301's (back surrounds), Onkyo 885 Pre/Pro, Outlaw/Adcom/BK/Kinergetics/Dayton Power amps, Infinite baffle subs (2 x 15', 1 x 18", 2 x 10''), Velodyne bass equalizer


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

pmcneil said:


> I'm actually starting to have a look at what's available, in a quantity of six, for using as replacements for my current (see above) bipole/dipole arrangement, based on Sir T's contributions to this thread above.
> 
> Any thoughts on the Klipsch KSB 3.1, six of which can be had for under $400? Any suggestions, for wide-dispersion monopoles, preferably wall mountable and six for under $600?
> 
> ...


Take this into consideration while you contemplate and search for replacements of what you already have. First thing up...bandwidth. Make sure that whatever replacements you choose have at least flat output(or around there) down to 80hz. -3 at 80hz is perfectly acceptable. This is the typical roll off point of the surround array in a typical dubbing stage or movie theater. (some go as low as -3 at 50hz)

Make sure the speakers can achieve a X(whatever you choose) amount of dynamic range. For example, each one of my surround speakers can achieve a maximum output of 110db from 80-30k. The combination of the output a single wall of surround speakers is almost the same as a single front channel from 80-30khz, This is to keep amplitude and frequency(of 80-30khz) of the front screen and any wall of the speakers in the surround as close to identical as possible. Obviously my front screen speakers go much lower than 80hz(my surrounds are -3 at 50hz), but I just wanted to align the bandwidth and amplitude at those frequencies to keep the sound field consistent all the way around. 

Try to get a surrounds that have similar timbre and voicing as the front speakers you already have(if you are as critical as I am!). This way as things move from front to back(or the reverse these days), the sonic characteristic of the sound effects don't change. 

Next, make sure the dispersion pattern of the surround speaker you choose is fairly wide over a wide bandwidth. This way you can use fewer to cover more area. The more narrow the dispersion pattern of the speakers, the more you will need to each speaker non localizable. 

If you are as picky as I am, take all of this information into consideration. If you are not, take as much of this as you need to meet your needs.


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

This thread is very interesting to me - because based on everything I've read about DTS/DD setup recommendations, they always give locations for sides and rears - but always seem to neglect anything more sophisticated in terms of more than 2 speakers for sides, 2 for rear. I've always thought that setup is "best case scenario" and that theaters are then making a "compromise" by having to use so many side surrounds? The last theater I was in, I noticed there were 5 or so surrounds on each side wall and only 2 in the rear.

But, it sounds like multiple side surrounds don't introduce any real compromises if they are spaced correctly? 

I guess that's where I get confused. I always thought that surrounds in some respects were supposed to be somewhat localizable - and that multiples would be less favorable? IE, rather than surround effects coming from the left, they now come from the left wall.

I guess I'm just thinking out loud... I've just read a great deal of conflicting information about what surrounds should and should not do.


----------



## reed.hannebaum (Apr 21, 2006)

I find this discussion very intriguing. I currently have a single dipole pair for surround speakers that gives me a very dispersed sound field. But now I am now wondering if multiple pairs of monopole speakers would be a better way to go. My room isn't that large though; 13.5' X 25'. Like Zeigeist, I have read some conflicting information on this topic.


----------



## reed.hannebaum (Apr 21, 2006)

Sorry, I am not trying to hijack this thread, but I had another thought/recolection. I remember once seeing a picture of a studio where there were 2 pairs of monopole surround speakers, but instead of being spaced along the side walls, they were stacked, one speaker on top of the other. The bottom speaker was tilted toward the front, and the top speaker was tilted toward the rear (or maybe vise versa). I suppose that by adjusting the tilt angle of the speakers you would have some control over the dispersion? I don't know if they were wired in phase or not.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

Zeitgeist said:


> This thread is very interesting to me - because based on everything I've read about DTS/DD setup recommendations, they always give locations for sides and rears - but always seem to neglect anything more sophisticated in terms of more than 2 speakers for sides, 2 for rear.


Both DTS and DD set up take a few things into consideration for their recommendations(they are not standards). 

1). How many speakers the enthusiast could manage in their rooms based on online and print surveys that have been done. 

2) Ease of use for the average person(the more speakers, the more complex it is to set it up properly.

3) The cost of the system to get acceptable results. 

4) The average size room of the typical user. 

Let's take example one. How many people here have properly setup and calibrated 7.1 system? Probably not that many when compared to 5.1 systems.

How many are willing to go through the trouble of setting up and calibrating a 7.1 system with 12 speakers involved?

How many have a room so large they need the surround coverage of 3 sides and 3 rear center speakers?

How many are willing to pay the cost of purchasing this many speakers?

The answer to those question ought to take you a long way to understanding why Dolby and Dts don't mention these kinds of setups. 



> I've always thought that setup is "best case scenario" and that theaters are then making a "compromise" by having to use so many side surrounds?


Why would the theater be a compromise rather than a home theater? Aren't soundtracks explicitly designed for theater first, and home theaters are a complete after thought? While that may not be the case for Disney( our DVD and Bluray titles have home theater mixes), it is certainly the case for all of the other studios. Soundtracks are designed on dubbing stages that mimic the professional movie theater, and that is a fact that no one can ignore. 




> The last theater I was in, I noticed there were 5 or so surrounds on each side wall and only 2 in the rear.


That theater was probably long and narrow. That is what Dolby would recommend for theaters that are long and narrow. 






> But, it sounds like multiple side surrounds don't introduce any real compromises if they are spaced correctly?


Absolutely correct! Floyd Toole recommends this setup, and I do as well for larger rooms.(that is the caveat)



> I guess that's where I get confused. I always thought that surrounds in some respects were supposed to be somewhat localizable - and that multiples would be less favorable? IE, rather than surround effects coming from the left, they now come from the left wall.


In the dubbing stage where all soundtrack mixes are created, there are multiple surrounds. In movie theaters there are multiple surrounds. If the place the soundtracks are created have a left wall characteristic spatially, then that is the precedent for what it should sound like. Nearfield monitoring of sound tracks is only an occurrence in home theaters, and hence why home theaters require THX like post processing to correct for the listening distortions that can occur in home theaters.(overly bright soundtracks, too much dynamics etc.)



> I guess I'm just thinking out loud... I've just read a great deal of conflicting information about what surrounds should and should not do.


Actually, you are asking quite pertinent questions. 

The reason you get conflicting information is that a lot of the information is based on what people think, as opposed to what people have actually tested and installed in the field. Obviously a lot of people so called home theaters(which many are just HTIB setups in living rooms) would not be sized big enough for this kind of system, so based on that many recommend against such a system - which is logical. The thrust and breadth of information is aimed at people with modest to medium sized home theaters which would probably not benefit from this kind of setup. Too many people wouldn't install this type of system, so why bother talking for or against it. It is too complex for most folks to set up anyway, so why support such a system when commenting on forum such as this. Lastly, most people who speak against this setup usually site comb filtering as an issue. Well, as Dr. Toole found in his studies(of which I already understood years before) that comb filtering is only an issue if you are moving around the room while a soundtrack is playing. Since nobody does that, then comb filtering is a non issue. We usually sit still while watching movies. Placing each speaker the proper distance apart based on the dispersion pattern of the speaker also help in mitigating comb filtering from the array of speakers(the Allen Array principle). 

These are some of the reason you have heard negative or non supportive position on this subject.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

reed.hannebaum said:


> Sorry, I am not trying to hijack this thread, but I had another thought/recolection. I remember once seeing a picture of a studio where there were 2 pairs of monopole surround speakers, but instead of being spaced along the side walls, they were stacked, one speaker on top of the other. The bottom speaker was tilted toward the front, and the top speaker was tilted toward the rear (or maybe vise versa). I suppose that by adjusting the tilt angle of the speakers you would have some control over the dispersion? I don't know if they were wired in phase or not.


This is for sound coverage for a wider area. It mimics what you would get from a bipolar speaker(both stacked pair are usually in phase), but gives you a degree of control of how much front to back energy you want projected into the room.


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

Sir Terrence, 
As always thank you for your extremely informative and detailed post.

I figured that the DTS/DD recommendations had something to do with "typical consumer audience". I guess I'm just surprised that I've never seen anything that is a little more comprehensive? For advanced consumers or something. I mean, if you're building a larger theater with multiple side surrounds, it seems like there aren't many places to find recommendations.... unless you start looking at commercial theater design specs. I'm curious how many home theater installers would place multiple side surrounds without much real logic. This ties in well with what you said about "based on what people 'think' versus actually tested.." No doubt dispersion patterns are vital in determining that spacing.

I thought that a theater was a compromise (in terms of large number of surrounds) - because of the logistics of covering such a large room. I incorrectly assumed that there had to be some sort of penalty for having to cover such a wide area - and attempt to convey the same spatial audio to nearly all the seats.

I feel like some of my feelings about commercial theater audio are a little jaded - because a theater that I've been to - too many times... seems to have a number of shortcomings. I swear their smaller theaters lack rear surrounds all together!

I actually had no idea what arrangement dubbing stages used. As much as I knew was that Genelecs were somewhat popular for dubbing stage speakers and that they weren't huge rooms (but you'll probably surprise me with how big they are  ) . Knowing how dubbing stages are configured actually helps me a great deal with understanding how movies are *designed* to sound.

I think you've mentioned it before - but how large is your room? 

I've been probably as confused about surrounds as I have about ideal room volumes. I found some SMPTE doc that applied to rooms larger than about 4000 cuft - but was curious at what volume the logistics of multiple surrounds and the "big" room acoustics start really being relevant. I don't mean to get OT. Just seems like there is a threshold at which 2 side surrounds is required, and below that where 2 side surrounds is overkill.

I imagine if you only have 1 row of seats, having more than one side surround speaker is probably not worthwhile, as long as the dispersion pattern fully encompasses that row? (Which I imagine would basically have to... since that's a narrow area to cover)

But.... I realized that statement doesn't agree with a dubbing stage layout. A dubbing stage has multiple side speakers.......even though the dubber (correct term?) sits in a single spot? I imagine the closest side surround would be loudest, but would get some coverage from other sides that are less audible? I guess it goes back to.......ideally you want a wall of sound even if you have 1 row -- as long as the room isn't real small.


----------



## fractile (Mar 15, 2009)

This thread has brought in some good information about surround sound, from production to presentation. To add my own take on it, it seems to be a progression of the education process of the ears and mind. You can listen and look at maps of the frequency response in the room, and learn how to discern the various sonic artifacts that my be created along the way. Through successive modification one may eventually understand the room well enough to configure it 'ideally'.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

Zeitgeist said:


> Sir Terrence,
> As always thank you for your extremely informative and detailed post.
> 
> I figured that the DTS/DD recommendations had something to do with "typical consumer audience". I guess I'm just surprised that I've never seen anything that is a little more comprehensive? For advanced consumers or something. I mean, if you're building a larger theater with multiple side surrounds, it seems like there aren't many places to find recommendations.... unless you start looking at commercial theater design specs. I'm curious how many home theater installers would place multiple side surrounds without much real logic. This ties in well with what you said about "based on what people 'think' versus actually tested.." No doubt dispersion patterns are vital in determining that spacing.


When I put together my first large size hometheater, the only place I could find information on how to set it up and calibrate it was from THX spec for commercial theaters. Nobody was doing home theaters at that size(30 seats), and there was no information to be found on the subject. So what I did was look at the dubbing stages as my example. It was closer to the size of my home theater at the time, and really the only thing I had as an example that would work for my room. After tons of experimentation, I finally found the right specs for very large home theaters. 



> I thought that a theater was a compromise (in terms of large number of surrounds) - because of the logistics of covering such a large room. I incorrectly assumed that there had to be some sort of penalty for having to cover such a wide area - and attempt to convey the same spatial audio to nearly all the seats.


Nope, there is no compromise. The dubbing stage is the place where the mixes are created, and they are modeled after movie theaters. The only so called compromise is not compromise at all. You don't get phantom imaging between channels in movie theaters, and don't need to. 



> I feel like some of my feelings about commercial theater audio are a little jaded - because a theater that I've been to - too many times... seems to have a number of shortcomings. I swear their smaller theaters lack rear surrounds all together!


I am very fortunate in that I split my time and living arrangements between three regions - the bay area, Los Angeles, and Orlando. All three of these areas have state of the art movie theaters, and one even has the grand daddy of all movie sound systems, the HPS-4000 sound system. 



> I actually had no idea what arrangement dubbing stages used. As much as I knew was that Genelecs were somewhat popular for dubbing stage speakers and that they weren't huge rooms (but you'll probably surprise me with how big they are  ) . Knowing how dubbing stages are configured actually helps me a great deal with understanding how movies are *designed* to sound.


Here are some older pictures of our dubbing stages(they have since been redecorated). Take note of the equipment used(the same as a movie theater), the sizes of the rooms(same as a medium or large theater), and how many surrounds each have. 

http://studioservices.go.com/postproduction/adr_stages_main.html

We use Genelec speakers(and M&K as well) not in our dubbing stages, but in our edit rooms. The dubbing stages exclusively use JBL's theater speakers, much like most movie theaters all over the world. 




> I think you've mentioned it before - but how large is your room?


I have several very large rooms. One 20x34x16ft, another 22x38x16ft, and another at 24x40x18ft. The first is my personal home theater, the second two are dubbing stages within my post production facility. 




> I've been probably as confused about surrounds as I have about ideal room volumes. I found some SMPTE doc that applied to rooms larger than about 4000 cuft - but was curious at what volume the logistics of multiple surrounds and the "big" room acoustics start really being relevant. I don't mean to get OT. Just seems like there is a threshold at which 2 side surrounds is required, and below that where 2 side surrounds is overkill.


It is all about scaling the size of the speakers to the room. Even a much smaller room than mine can have multiple side and rear surrounds. In a relatively small 14x17x8 room, I installed 3 Klipsch quintets on each side and rear wall. It worked out well because these speakers are tiny, and their dispersion pattern could work with the Allen Array formula. The larger the room, the larger the surround speakers have to be. 



> I imagine if you only have 1 row of seats, having more than one side surround speaker is probably not worthwhile, as long as the dispersion pattern fully encompasses that row? (Which I imagine would basically have to... since that's a narrow area to cover)


You are correct!



> But.... I realized that statement doesn't agree with a dubbing stage layout. A dubbing stage has multiple side speakers.......even though the dubber (correct term?) sits in a single spot? I imagine the closest side surround would be loudest, but would get some coverage from other sides that are less audible? I guess it goes back to.......ideally you want a wall of sound even if you have 1 row -- as long as the room isn't real small.


We sit exactly between the two side arrays, and since there is three of us always working simultaneously, two people have to sit closer to the side arrays than on person does. It does not matter all that much, as the way the array is tuned, you really have to sit REALLY close to a speaker before it is heard as a singular source. 

Re-recording mixers work on dubbing stages.


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

Sir Terrence, 
Thanks again for your input.

Thanks to you - I've spent too much time poking around the post-production section of gearslutz.com (where a number of re-recording mixers hang out) and listening to a couple pod-casts and poking around the CAS web site. Your posts peaked my curiosity regarding post-production - and I'm just starting to have some clue about how much I don't (and many) people don't know about post-production. There is definitely a lot of artistry and science that goes into creating a mix. Feels like I just scratch the surface - when listening to a mix... and fidgeting with things like absorption and speaker layout.

Sounds like you have some nice toys  Thanks for sharing your professional experiences and knowledge! Much more helpful than reading some editorial or white paper.


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

I figured out one reason why I was thinking Genelecs for dubbing stages... I think the key is "HOME THEATER" printmasters... and the dubbing stage below wouldn't reflect the specs of a typical theater dubbing stage.

Sony Pictures Entertainment's “SPE Specifications for the Creation of Home Theater Printmasters” covers the creation from theatrical stems of both 5.1 and Lt/Rt (for Pro Logic) print masters that “optimize a film soundtrack for home presentation.” The specifications define requirements and setup for a home-theater remix on a full mixing stage. In terms of near-field speaker placement, SPE calls for the three front speakers to be set in an arc 7 to 8 feet in front of the mix position, with Left and Right each 3.5 to 4 feet out from Center. The speakers are placed on stands adjusted to 6 to 8 inches above the console meter bridge and angled down toward the mix position. Left and Right Surrounds, meanwhile, are placed 4 to 6 feet behind and to the sides of the mix position at an angle of 110 degrees. The front and surround speakers are each calibrated fo 80 SPL, C-weighted, using a spectrum analyzer. As for the sub, it generally goes in front, but may be positioned as needed to achieve the desired response. Subwoofer calibration is +10 dB higher in its passband, relative to the average spectral balance of the near-fields.
Regarding the speakers employed, SPE's spec requires Genelec 1031A self-powered speakers and a Genelec 1094A self-powered subwoofer, or similar. The 1031As are to be used with the -2dB roll-off switch engaged on the tweeter only, with all other switches in flat position. “The -2dB switch,” says Sony's Brian Vessa, “puts a gentle shelf on the top. It doesn't let the response just go wide open out to the sky, because you would never have that at home.”


----------



## pmcneil (May 29, 2010)

*I've done the experiment, 3 side monopoles*

Well, I have followed Sir Terrence's recommendation, that I replace my motley crew monopole/bipole side surrounds with three monopoles.

I purchased online five used Klipsch KSB 3.1s for $175, and had lying around an unused Infinity Primus (which I intend to replace with a KSB 3.1 as soon as I find one at reasonable cost).

So now I've got 6 monopoles, three each side, one in pair in front of the listening position, one in line with this position, and one behind. 

How does it sound? Fantastic! This is the single biggest improvement in sound that I have made since going to infinite baffle subs, and that's saying something, believe me.

Enhanced detail and impact from discrete material on the sides (the most noticeable benefit, in movies such as Lord of the Rings, blu-ray), and improved ambience as well! And there is improved clarity in the front sound stage (dialogue especially), something I did not expect.

Although I am using three on each side, two may be enough, based on the experimentation I did while setting up, BUT NOT ONE PAIR! The sound than becomes localizable to the single monopole.

Thank you Sir Terrence!


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: I've done the experiment, 3 side monopoles*



pmcneil said:


> Well, I have followed Sir Terrence's recommendation, that I replace my motley crew monopole/bipole side surrounds with three monopoles.
> 
> I purchased online five used Klipsch KSB 3.1s for $175, and had lying around an unused Infinity Primus (which I intend to replace with a KSB 3.1 as soon as I find one at reasonable cost).
> 
> ...


No problemo! Your observations are like an echo of the owners of previous installs and redo's I have done. I am glad it worked out!

If you find you only need two side speakers, move the third set to the rear wall. This will improve the sense of envelopment in the sound track.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

Very informative thread. I should probably read it through again before planning anything serious, but for the basement HT room I want to build I had been thinking about using 1 set of side surrounds for each of the 2 rows of seating, and then the standard 2 rear surrounds at the back of the room. I think this will avoid having to compromise on the location and having people in the back row getting surround information from in front of them.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

This is something I've also been considering for awhile, but the wiring of 3 sets of surrounds has me a bit confused..
Are all your speakers 8 ohm. and if so how did you wire them to arrive at a final impedance of 6-8 ohms?


----------



## pmcneil (May 29, 2010)

I have separate power amps for each of the three channels, and split the low level rca level for the side channels into those amps.


----------

