Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Surrounds and DVD-A/SACD

It's a confusing topic, isn't it ? Direct radiating surround speakers are recommended for DVD-A/SACD because the alternative from any other brand is dipoles and they apparently have some major suckage when listening to DVD-A and SACD. The quadpolars (QS's) don't need that out-of-phase wiring so they seem to play well in both worlds.

Engineers do not use diffused sound when mixing a DVD-A or SACD.

The bottomline, it is a preference, and you really should take the time to listen to diffused surrounds vs. direct radiating....especially when it comes to hi-res music.

Agreed. My QS8s only arrived a couple of days ago (replacing M2s) so I don't have any real experience comparing direct vs. quadpolar speakers on DVD-A/SACD.

If you're buying a system exclusively for 5 channel audio then directs are probably the way to go (less expensive, match the equipment used for mixing) but in a combined HT / music system I think the question is "do I need two different sets of surround speakers or can the QSs do a good job with both kinds of content ?".

The answer from other posters so far seems to be "the QSs do a good job with both kinds of content". Does that seem reasonable ?

I agree that some people (Alan included IIRC) actually prefer quadpolars to direct speakers for 5 channel music, but I don't know enough about the issues there to comment intelligently...

Listening to both is always good, but it does help to understand what you are listening for. I picked some really crappy speakers before I learned how to listen for the things I would care about when I got 'em home

In reply to:

---

The answer from other posters so far seems to be "the QSs do a good job with both kinds of content". Does that seem reasonable ?

---

Does that mean direct radiators don't?

I am not argueing which is better for any particular person. For music and movies, there pros and cons for direct vs diffused.

The one consistent piece that I have experienced and read is that diffused is more preferred when placement is an issue.

Even that is a tough question. I think there is pretty good agreement that diffuse surrounds do a better job of delivering what "the system is supposed to do", ie providing the ambience and illusion of a large theater to a listener in a small room.

There is probably much less agreement about what listeners actually PREFER, unfortunately. Some like the effect of direct surrounds, others prefer diffuse surrounds. The QS speakers do seem to give all of the benefits of diffuse surrounds along with many of the benefits of direct surrounds, which seems like a pretty good compromise to me.

I agree wholeheartedly that diffuse surrounds are much more tolerant of placement -- at least the QSs, they're the only ones I have placement experience with.

In reply to:

---

diffuse surrounds do a better job of delivering what "the system is supposed to do"....

---

That is a whole other discussion.
Like I posted before.....DVD-As and SACDs are not mixed with a diffused sound field....a diffused sound is not the intent for hi-rez music.

Sorry, you are correct. I meant "what the system is supposed to do when running as a home theater playing DVD movies".

hehehehe...I still think that is another discussion.

IMO, It is easier to achieve a diffused sound with multiple direct radiating speakers than it is to create pinpoint sound with a single or multiple multi-polar speakers.

I listen to 80% music and 20% HT. The placement will be as described in most diagrams that I have seen (directly to the side of the listener or slightly behind). That is the only place for them due to my room. Also, they have to be pretty small due to wall limitations. I won't be able to have both direct/multipolar (best of both worlds) due to these limitations so I will have to decide which is better.