I use two one in each corner as it works better than one.your spot on
The best Dipoles, Dipoles that can do bass?
- Thread starter infinitely baffled
- Start date
Why all the talk about subs. The thread is about Dipoles that can do bass...not subs that can augment dipoles that do bass....
Everyone knows you can add a big sub to get deep bass but I am always skeptical when people claim they have it integrated perfectly...especially when I see the sub several meters from the main speakers. Integrating with a fast bass like a panel or a horn is very hard to do with a conventional sub...even a servo one.
No dipoles can do bass imho like good dynamic speakers except big panels like the magnapan 30.7s
30.7s are not so big...I had significantly larger panels and yes they did amazing bass...
I don't use subs with my speakers.
Learnt that lesson they just aren't necessary and won't blend well anyway.
It is related to dipoles. It's related to their limitations.
I have subs but also don’t use them with my dipoles.i like them best as they are.
Since the topic of subwoofers and dipoles and speed has come up, I hope you all don't mind if I share some alternative views. Consider this to be opinion, and take it with a grain of salt because I'm commercially invested in these ideas.
TLDR version: Dipoles sound faster in the bass region because they have better room-interaction behavior than monopoles, but multiple monopole bass sources used intelligently can match the subjective "speed" of dipoles.
Too long version: "Speed" in the bass region is dominated by the in-room frequency response. At low frequencies speakers + room = a "minimum phase" system (according to Toole and Welti and Geddes and probably others), which means that the frequency response tracks the time-domain response. An in-room frequency response peak sounds "slow", and it is, in the sense that it literally takes longer to decay into inaudibility. The good news is, in the bass region when we fix the frequency response, we have simultaneously fixed the time-domain response (and vice-versa).
The problem at low frequencies is NOT that we have too many peaks and dips - it is that we have TOO FEW. Higher up the spectrum the peaks and dips from reflections are bunched together so tightly that they form a continuum (as far as the ear is concerned), but at low frequencies the peaks and dips are far enough apart that the ear picks up on them, and the peaks in particular stick out like sore thumbs. The ear tends to average out loudness over bands roughly 1/3 octave wide, but if the in-room peaks and dips are further apart than this (as tends to be the case in the bass region), then the ear's "averaging" mechanism cannot help us. (The larger the room the denser the modal patterns in the bass region, thus the more numerous and closer together the room-induced peaks and dips, which results in "faster" bass despite the longer decay times.)
One of the reasons the in-room bass peaks stick out like sore thumbs is that the ear has a heightened sensitivity to changes in SPL at low frequencies. If you look at a set of equal-loudness curves, you will see that they bunch up south of 100 Hz. This implies that a small change in SPL has a disproportionately large effect on perceived loudness, for instance a change of 5 dB at 30 or 40 Hz can be perceptually comparable to a 10 dB change at 1 kHz! Combine this with the mountains and valleys of typical in-room bass and, yuck. Incidentally, this heightened sensitivity to SPL in the bass region is also why it takes so long to dial in the correct level for your subwoofers - a small change in SPL results in a disproportionate change in perceived loudness.
In contrast to the ear's heightened SPL sensitivity in the bass region, the ear has extremely poor time-domain resolution in the bass region. The ear cannot even DETECT the presence of bass energy from less than one wavelength, and must hear multiple wavelengths to detect the pitch. If you think about how long bass wavelengths are relative to the reflection path lengths in our rooms, you'll see that by the time you hear the bass, the room's effects are all over it. Perceptually there is no "direct sound" in the subwoofer region in home-audio-size listening rooms. Why then do people report significant improvement from dialing in the phase and/or arrival times of their subs? I think they are improving the in-room frequency response. The ear cannot hear normal in-room arrival time differences as such, but it CAN hear in-room frequency response extremely well. (Related to this, research has shown that with an in-room peak in the bass region, which corresponds with "ringing" where the peak is, what the ear actually hears is the response peak rather than the ringing.) I have nothing against synchronizing the arrival times of mains and sub(s), BUT I would not compromise smooth in-room frequency response for arrival time coherence.
I realize that my prioritizing frequency response over arrival time in the bass region is probably counter-intuitive at first glance, but consider this: There is NEVER any arrival time coherence between the equally-loud backwave and frontwave of a dipole, yet dipoles sound exceptionally "fast" in the bass region. If arrival time coherence really was what matters most, then dipoles would sound slower than monopoles in the bass region.
As a general principle, the greater the number of widely-distributed in-room bass sources, the smoother the in-room bass - and this matters because SMOOTH bass is FAST bass. Each will interact with the room differently because it is in a different location, and the sum of these multiple dissimilar curves is smoother than any one alone. And this improved smoothness - speed - tends to hold up throughout the room, rather than being confined to a relatively small sweet-spot area. In fact what we end up with is more numerous but smaller in-room peaks and dips, which are closer together, and therefore the ear's averaging mechanism is more likely to come into play.
A word about other techniques for smoothing the in-room bass: EQ is great, but if you're EQing a single sub, the EQ will tend to only be beneficial in a relatively small sweet-spot area. Outside of that area EQ will tend to make the response worse, as the in-room peaks and dips will have shifted in frequency such that the EQ is boosting and cutting the wrong regions. Bass traps are also great, and primarily work in the time domain by reducing the decay times. This shows up as an improvement in the frequency response, as would be expected for a minimum-phase system.
In general, whatever you do that improves the in-room frequency response in the bass region pays disproportionately large dividends, whether it be adjusting placements or dialing in the controls or EQ or bass trapping or multi-subbing or combinations or whatever. The ear's heightened sensitivity to changes in SPL in the bass region makes small improvements more audible than one would expect from eyeballing before-and-after curves. Incidentally EQ works really well with a distributed multi-sub system, as the bass response is much more similar throughout the room so EQing a problem is probably addressing a problem that exists throughout the room.
Okay, now let's finally talk about dipoles specifically. You can think of a dipole as two monopoles, back-to-back, separated in PHASE (by 180 degrees) rather than in PHYSICAL DISTANCE. And as this model would suggest, a dipole has smoother (i.e. "faster") in-room bass than does a monopole. This is why most people who try to integrate a single sub with a pair of dipoles can hear too much of a discontinuity and usually get rid of the sub (or only use it for movies). And this is why maybe half of the people who try two subs with their dipoles do end up keeping them - the discontinuity is significantly less.
(When I designed a subwoofer system specifically to "keep up with" dipoles, I went with four monopole subs, as they can approximate the in-room smoothness of two dipoles. And in fifteen years of doing this, I've had zero returns... i.e. the concept seems to work. A distributed multi-sub system can be implemented with a wide variety of subwoofers, not just mine.)
So, finally getting back to @infinitely baffled's situation, he has four subs if I understand correctly. I don't know how they are set up, but he has what it takes to "keep up with" dipole main speakers. The place where ime dipoles may fall short of his Stellas is in impact. A good big dipole just does not convey the physical sensation of impact that a good big monopole does, and I think this is because the net in-room pressure sums to zero with a dipole, but not with a monopole.
Imo, ime, ymmv, etc.
TLDR version: Dipoles sound faster in the bass region because they have better room-interaction behavior than monopoles, but multiple monopole bass sources used intelligently can match the subjective "speed" of dipoles.
Too long version: "Speed" in the bass region is dominated by the in-room frequency response. At low frequencies speakers + room = a "minimum phase" system (according to Toole and Welti and Geddes and probably others), which means that the frequency response tracks the time-domain response. An in-room frequency response peak sounds "slow", and it is, in the sense that it literally takes longer to decay into inaudibility. The good news is, in the bass region when we fix the frequency response, we have simultaneously fixed the time-domain response (and vice-versa).
The problem at low frequencies is NOT that we have too many peaks and dips - it is that we have TOO FEW. Higher up the spectrum the peaks and dips from reflections are bunched together so tightly that they form a continuum (as far as the ear is concerned), but at low frequencies the peaks and dips are far enough apart that the ear picks up on them, and the peaks in particular stick out like sore thumbs. The ear tends to average out loudness over bands roughly 1/3 octave wide, but if the in-room peaks and dips are further apart than this (as tends to be the case in the bass region), then the ear's "averaging" mechanism cannot help us. (The larger the room the denser the modal patterns in the bass region, thus the more numerous and closer together the room-induced peaks and dips, which results in "faster" bass despite the longer decay times.)
One of the reasons the in-room bass peaks stick out like sore thumbs is that the ear has a heightened sensitivity to changes in SPL at low frequencies. If you look at a set of equal-loudness curves, you will see that they bunch up south of 100 Hz. This implies that a small change in SPL has a disproportionately large effect on perceived loudness, for instance a change of 5 dB at 30 or 40 Hz can be perceptually comparable to a 10 dB change at 1 kHz! Combine this with the mountains and valleys of typical in-room bass and, yuck. Incidentally, this heightened sensitivity to SPL in the bass region is also why it takes so long to dial in the correct level for your subwoofers - a small change in SPL results in a disproportionate change in perceived loudness.
In contrast to the ear's heightened SPL sensitivity in the bass region, the ear has extremely poor time-domain resolution in the bass region. The ear cannot even DETECT the presence of bass energy from less than one wavelength, and must hear multiple wavelengths to detect the pitch. If you think about how long bass wavelengths are relative to the reflection path lengths in our rooms, you'll see that by the time you hear the bass, the room's effects are all over it. Perceptually there is no "direct sound" in the subwoofer region in home-audio-size listening rooms. Why then do people report significant improvement from dialing in the phase and/or arrival times of their subs? I think they are improving the in-room frequency response. The ear cannot hear normal in-room arrival time differences as such, but it CAN hear in-room frequency response extremely well. (Related to this, research has shown that with an in-room peak in the bass region, which corresponds with "ringing" where the peak is, what the ear actually hears is the response peak rather than the ringing.) I have nothing against synchronizing the arrival times of mains and sub(s), BUT I would not compromise smooth in-room frequency response for arrival time coherence.
I realize that my prioritizing frequency response over arrival time in the bass region is probably counter-intuitive at first glance, but consider this: There is NEVER any arrival time coherence between the equally-loud backwave and frontwave of a dipole, yet dipoles sound exceptionally "fast" in the bass region. If arrival time coherence really was what matters most, then dipoles would sound slower than monopoles in the bass region.
As a general principle, the greater the number of widely-distributed in-room bass sources, the smoother the in-room bass - and this matters because SMOOTH bass is FAST bass. Each will interact with the room differently because it is in a different location, and the sum of these multiple dissimilar curves is smoother than any one alone. And this improved smoothness - speed - tends to hold up throughout the room, rather than being confined to a relatively small sweet-spot area. In fact what we end up with is more numerous but smaller in-room peaks and dips, which are closer together, and therefore the ear's averaging mechanism is more likely to come into play.
A word about other techniques for smoothing the in-room bass: EQ is great, but if you're EQing a single sub, the EQ will tend to only be beneficial in a relatively small sweet-spot area. Outside of that area EQ will tend to make the response worse, as the in-room peaks and dips will have shifted in frequency such that the EQ is boosting and cutting the wrong regions. Bass traps are also great, and primarily work in the time domain by reducing the decay times. This shows up as an improvement in the frequency response, as would be expected for a minimum-phase system.
In general, whatever you do that improves the in-room frequency response in the bass region pays disproportionately large dividends, whether it be adjusting placements or dialing in the controls or EQ or bass trapping or multi-subbing or combinations or whatever. The ear's heightened sensitivity to changes in SPL in the bass region makes small improvements more audible than one would expect from eyeballing before-and-after curves. Incidentally EQ works really well with a distributed multi-sub system, as the bass response is much more similar throughout the room so EQing a problem is probably addressing a problem that exists throughout the room.
Okay, now let's finally talk about dipoles specifically. You can think of a dipole as two monopoles, back-to-back, separated in PHASE (by 180 degrees) rather than in PHYSICAL DISTANCE. And as this model would suggest, a dipole has smoother (i.e. "faster") in-room bass than does a monopole. This is why most people who try to integrate a single sub with a pair of dipoles can hear too much of a discontinuity and usually get rid of the sub (or only use it for movies). And this is why maybe half of the people who try two subs with their dipoles do end up keeping them - the discontinuity is significantly less.
(When I designed a subwoofer system specifically to "keep up with" dipoles, I went with four monopole subs, as they can approximate the in-room smoothness of two dipoles. And in fifteen years of doing this, I've had zero returns... i.e. the concept seems to work. A distributed multi-sub system can be implemented with a wide variety of subwoofers, not just mine.)
So, finally getting back to @infinitely baffled's situation, he has four subs if I understand correctly. I don't know how they are set up, but he has what it takes to "keep up with" dipole main speakers. The place where ime dipoles may fall short of his Stellas is in impact. A good big dipole just does not convey the physical sensation of impact that a good big monopole does, and I think this is because the net in-room pressure sums to zero with a dipole, but not with a monopole.
Imo, ime, ymmv, etc.
Last edited:
You could add Distributed mode loudspeakers ( DML ) in the background and this will possibly full-fill your needs! I guess you crave for that Alon Phalanx sound!! blended with what you have.
Yes Duke, the Stellas receive a full range response with the subs lending their weight below 40hz. I took a philosophical decision that i want my main speakers to go as deep as possible so that the subs were only acting as true subwoofers, i believe this provides the best integration having played a bit with satellites and subwoofers, and gives the best mid-bass slam.
The dilemma i have is that i definitely prefer the sound of a dipole for the upper bass, mids and treble. (Regrettably i have never experienced OB - dipole or omni sub- bass. The closest i came was preparing my room structurally for installation of an Infinitely Baffled sub bass manifold in the loft space above the listening room in my current address. Once i had moved in i then realised i wanted to orientate my system the opposite way across my room, so that i would look out of my patio windows when playing music.
But there is a flat roof above this end of my listening room, ruling out my IB plans for the time being).
And as has been observed by those on this thread with experience, open baffle planar loudspeakers and sustained club- level sound pressure levels do seem incompatible. With both pairs of Alons the dynamics were excellent, but it took a toll on the drivers running them that hard, and i had to replace every single drive unit in my Alon iv's, and then also with my Alon Phalanx.
When i made the switch to the Stellas their effortless ability to power the room was revelatory, but the feeling I'd lost half the music without the dipole effect was less welcome.
And to be fair to the Focals, over time i found the tonality of the Utopias to be superior, at least to my hot-rodded Alon iv's that i have kept as my back- up speakers
However the big difference now, as has also been pointed out, is that i have subwoofers.
What this approach gives with one hand it takes with the other; since i no longer have to drive my main speakers so hard to get the sub-bass response i adore they would likely be less stressed this time around, but on the debit side integrating dipole bass with sealed-box planar subs would be a challenge.
But given that my beloved Alon speakers did exactly the same, so that the lowest frequencies came from a sealed enclosure, it must be possible?
So i do feel that the subs liberate me to consider main speakers without the awesome power handling of the Focals, i have learned from some forum members' experiences with the Pnoe horns, and from ribbon acolytes their description of the 'wall of bass' effect from big Apogees that it may not be that simple- the manufacturer of the Pnoe horns strongly advised against their use with subs, and the ribbon wall of bass effect would clearly be muddied by planar subs operating at the same frequencies.
But then again, the Apogee Grands employ sealed planar bass, so why not supplement my subs with some rebuilt Divas?
So as of now, with my ongoing major purchases (2160, G1 clock, Tripoint Elite) ruling out a big investment in speakers I'm restricted to playing at or about what i could get for my Stellas. Within those parameters contenders are:
Pre owned Nola Concert Grand Reference Gold
Apogee, type tbd
SoundKaos dipoles
I was very intruiged by the Bohne, but then Shakti played with some and was underwhelmed, but iirc there may have been room compatibility issues, so they remain on my radar
Goebel Aeon are for now out of my price range, and I'm not sure if they pass the 'looks right' standard. The Divin line, no doubt whatsoever they can move plenty of air, but could the dipoles?
My first experience with 2060 was a revelation. Then as Boulder looked after me and rebuilt it with 2160 components i became utterly hooked.
But you could say that I'm still searching for the perfect pre-amp to partner it. The Wavac is utterly seductive, beautiful tonality, coherence and focus, plus warmth and humanity; the difference between playing a cd or attending an intimate jazz club. But Wavac has very different ideas about balanced signal to Boulder, so if i could i would find something with the same character but that also played nice with components upstream and downstream. I have to convert my balanced Boulder phonostage to single ended or the Wavac doesn't like it, and Boulder have said that the Wavac's idea of balanced output isn't really compatible with their power amps and they are surprised i get such satisfying results from the combo.
But I've compared with a Boulder 2110- astonishing dynamics, sub bass, immdediacy and everything macro, but a loss of life, warmth intimacy and texture compared to the valve Wavac.
Also with a Vitus Masterpiece pre- it had texture, but was strangely passion-less.
I would like to experience the Tenor pre, and i have a VAC itch I'd like to scratch as well.
Theoretically i would prefer matched power and pre from the same manufacturer, but my gut says that i just prefer to have a valve pre and a solid state power amp.
There's also a wildcard which would be Lee Dalby's pre amp
Last edited:
I'm working with my sound system owning friend on some front loaded horns to complement my outdoor system, based around the EAW 4947 thx rated full range horns built for cinemas. The results of my straw poll - bench shootout between the EAW 883 Levan aka Big Bertha subs, as used in the Ministry of Sound when it's system ruled the world, and the Danley Labhorns. Back in the rave days the Big Berthas were favoured, but with modern bass driven music now extending much deeper the Labhorns have moved into clear ascendance.
But even by my current standards, those speakers are BIG
One of the 18 inch dual woofer bass horns in heard had the midbass cabinet 1.35*1*1 meter.
That's 2.5 times the depth of focal maestro utopia thrice the width, I think
Eaw bh882 aka Levan aka Big Bertha. Twin 18's
Danley Labhorn
Did you consider the SMC Interocitor transformer designed by Steve McCormack? I bought one to use with the cj premier 350, a friend borrowed it and never returned it - although he paid me for it, surely! See:
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/rmaf-the-interocitor-saved-my-life.4248/
We have similar but not identical approaches. I also prefer that the mains receive a full-range signal, as otherwise I'd have to put something in their signal path to roll off their bottom end, which I'd rather not do. I prefer the mains to naturally roll off between 60 and 80 Hz, as imo the distributed multiple subs I use do a better job up there, mostly for reasons described in my TLDR post above, but also because of the ability to manipulate the phase in that region to enhance spaciousness if your subs have continuously-variable phase controls (more on this if you'd like).
Once I understood the type of presentation you are looking for north of the subwoofer region (including but not limited to envelopment + dynamics), what came to mind was, polydirectionals (credit to the late, great Richard Shaninian for coining that term). By "polydirectional" I mean wholly or partially dipole, bipole, omni, Shaninian-like, or otherwise manipulating the radiation pattern to provide more beneficial late-onset reverberant energy than a normal monopole would. In other words, I think there are approaches other than a fullrange dipole which will deliver good results.
If your big Alons were failing over time, that is a very valuable data point. I don't think fullrange planar speakers would last any longer. Nor do I think a single fullrange driver in a really sweet back-loaded horn would be up to the challenge of heavy electronica, especially if it received a fullrange signal.
Twenty years ago as an enthusiastic new SoundLab dealer I went to CES and was blown away by the big Classic Audio ("Classic Audio Reproductions" at the time) speakers. They did things my beloved SoundLabs could not do, and vice-versa. Desiring to offer the best of both worlds, several years later I started building polydirectionals (bipolars at first, other configurations later) using studio-quality prosound drivers. So I think I "get" what you're looking for, but I'm too far away for an audition to be practical.
Well, if your mains would be getting a fullrange signal, and if you want to play as loud as the Focals play now, then they would need to be able to handle that fullrange signal at that sound pressure level. So if you do go with speakers that have less power handling, imo they need to make up for it by being more efficient, while still being sufficiently robust. To put it another way, I don't think your quartet of subs would have saved the Alons, unless the subs resulted in your tuning the volume down.
I would have expected the Bohnes to be very strong contenders, just eyeballing them from a distance, and considering what your goals are... what were Shakti's critiques, and what were the possible room compatibility issues, if you don't mind? I'm kinda into speaker/room interactions, so maybe something will jump out at me.
If you could combine the bass and midbass of the Focals with the dipole-ness of your Alons, might that work for you?
Maybe you've done so already and I've overlooked it, but can you briefly describe your room?
Last edited:
Similar threads
Members online
- escultor
- Long Live Analog
- Mike Lavigne
- audioblazer
- Phantom-Audio
- rad
- suletata
- bonzo75
- sippy2
- brad225
- tkcha
- Mrmb
- defride
- Ron Resnick
- poonbean
- thekong
- 3776Meters
- GroovySauce
- JohnAC
- Armsan
- Dimfer
- P-pan
- QuadDiffuser
- WADAX
- songeraudio
- Florian
- Stormcat
- SlapEcho
- MarkusBarkus
- cmarin
- tsaett
- gleeds
- ticktock
- Mamon
- willgall
- bozebuttons
- Puma Cat
- joaovieira
- dminches
- Król_Artur
- Argonaut
- dcathro
- mtemur
- alecm
- Rexp
- Kingrex
- jadis
- christensenleif@msn.com
- Dogberry
- gajgmusic
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |