Hi badger98,
The writer is correct in noting the development of dipole radiators to compensate for the old Dolby Pro Logic surround channels, which indeed were mono, and, if you happened to sit equidistant between a pair of direct radiatior surrounds, would often image the surround material in the middle of your head--very annoying, to say the least.
So THX (Tom Holman) recommended dipoles located at each side of the listening area, which produced a "diffuse, directionless" effect when you sat in the null area (your couch). This greatly reduced the problems of the mono surround channel. THX processors also introduced a "decorrelation" circuit that artificially created a quasi-left and quasi-right "stereo" surround signal. That also helped.
The writer is correct in that dipole surrounds are no longer required (nor is decorrelated information in the surround channels) because Dolby Digital/dts both deliver 5.1 discrete channels of full-fidelity sound. (the frequency response of old DPL systems rolled off at 7 kHz in the surround channels).
The QS8 drivers wired in phase qualify it as bipolar or "quadpolar" speaker, as has been noted. In comparison tests we did at Axiom between quadpolar QS8s and direct radiating surrounds, if you sat exactly in the sweet spot, there was little or no perceptible difference (insofar as one being "better" than the other) between the QS8s and forward-radiating surrounds. BUT, as soon as our listening panel members moved out of the sweet spot and sat anywhere else in the room, even to one side of the couch, the QS8s were judged and ranked greatly superior (these were double-blind tests).
The writer is also wrong in stating that Dolby Digital sound in cinemas is "awful." Sometimes it can be excellent; it depends on the theater. And of course you can often achieve superior performance in a domestic home theater where you can control not only your seating arrangement but the exact locations of the speakers relative to your seat.
The virtue of the QS8's multipolar dispersion is that it makes the speaker very forgiving of asymmetrical placement, and it nicely mimics the mix of reflected and direct sound that indeed was intended by engineers mixing movie soundtracks. In fact, I've heard the QS8s deliver an enveloping surround field when placed in far-from-ideal locations.
I've attended movie soundtrack mixes in the Alfred Hitchcock mixing theater at Universal in Hollywood, as well as sessions in New York, and I can report that the director and sound engineer precisely adjust the surround channel levels to achieve envelopment with some directionality. But there seems to be a consensus that "hard-mixed" surround effects should be used sparingly, such that they should never distract your attention from what's happening on-screen. After all, the idea is to enhance your involvement in the drama and sense of place occurring on-screen. Anything that removes you from that experience is deemed to be distracting. Plane and spaceship flyovers are fine, as are off-screen sounds like crickets, crows, lightning (if a thunderstorm is in progress), and an off-screen knock on a door. Moving vehicle sounds also work well, and artillery from all directions seem entirely appropriate in war movies.
Likewise, I would submit that for multichannel music purposes, the greatest effect is achieved when you are swept up in the musical experience. If your attention is distracted by a backup chorus mixed "hard right", it's an interesting effect, but unnecessary in my view. This is where things get controversial.
Personally, I don't want to feel plunked down in the center of the band, but I admit there are certainly occasions with lots of pop-music mixes where anything goes. I do draw the line, however, at mixing Neil Young's vocals into the rear channels!
Regards,
