Recommendations for surrounds without breaking the bank?

**Rancho5** · **10-04-09, 11:52 PM**

I've got SVS SCS-01's for fronts and an SVS sub. I'm using my old surrounds for now but was wondering what is considered a great bang for the buck (Like my SVS's) in surround speakers. Budget is maybe three hundred bucks for both, at the absolute most, since the ones I use now are decent.

Any thoughts?

**SteveCallas** · **10-05-09, 12:54 AM**

Surround sound quality is negligible. You mention the ones you use now are decent - as long as they aren't satellites and actually have a seperate tweeter and woofer, I'd say stick with them and save your money.

Just out of curiosity, because you were willing to spend $300, wouldn't the pair of SCS for mains have run about $350?

**recruit** · **10-05-09, 02:15 AM**

I'd agree with steve, if you say the surrounds you have are decent then why change? on the other hand though if you were to change just match the rears with some more SVS speakers, which makes sense then, and that would be the best solution....

**Jungle Jack** · **10-05-09, 10:08 AM**

Hello,
I agree with John (Recruit). It is nice to have matching tweeters on all of your speakers so the SVS would be a good call. That would give you true timbre matching. Because the Cambridge are so tiny, it might be worthwhile to go ahead and upgrade. Though I would not think it essential.
Cheers,
JJ

**Rancho5** · **10-05-09, 11:56 AM**

The side surrounds are Cambridge Soundworks S200's and the rears are MC200's.

Here is a link for the surrounds. http://cambridgesoundworks.com/store...=53CW0010AA001

Although this link is for 205, it is basically a 200 from what I could find.

I am kind of a newb and one thing I did notice... Audessey put my surrounds at 150hz. According to the specs on the link, what should I set these side surrounds at on my Onkyo 705?

**recruit** · **10-05-09, 12:29 PM**

Quote:

Rancho5 wrote:

I am kind of a newb and one thing I did notice... Audessey put my surrounds at 150hz. According to the specs on the link, what should I set these side surrounds at on my Onkyo 705?

Audyssey is usually pretty good with detecting the xovers on speakers although running the xover that high can usually lead to the subs location being more audible, the specs say 100hz so I would set it to that and see how you get on...remember xovers are not brickwalls and they roll off at the given frequency so output is still being reproduced below the 100hz...

**JCD** · **10-05-09, 05:56 PM**

I'd get the SBS from SVS. It has the same tweet and woofer I think and runs $225/pair.. scratch that, they're now $209/pair.

I know that the surrounds aren't as important, but I think with these, the tonal balance should be a pretty good match so when you pan from behind forward, it should blend well. SCS's would be even better IMO, but if you're looking to stay on the cheap, I think the SBS is the way to go.

**Rancho5** · **10-05-09, 06:30 PM**

Forgive my ignorance please but I thought side surrounds had to be triangular-ish with speakers facing each way whereas the SCS's are direct facing.

**Jon Liu** · **10-05-09, 06:38 PM**

No, the "triangular-ish" speakers you are talking about are multipolar speakers. They are an individual preference, but not necessary for everyone. I would definitely look into getting the SCS for surrounds as everyone else has said.

**Rancho5** · **10-05-09, 07:50 PM**

What are the benefits/drawbacks of multipole vs standard?

**JCD** · **10-05-09, 08:05 PM**

Those bi-pole designs I think had their place back in the prologic days when the back channel was a single source. With discrete signals for the surrounds with DD and DTS, I think a traditional forward firing speaker makes more sense.

There are some that will argue that the bi-poles make a better surround, but I'm of the opinion that the regular speaker is better. They're easier to set up, they cost less (few drivers), they're smaller, and they're going to image better.

There may be an argument for a diffuse sound with the bi-poles/di-poles, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.

If you look at the SVS 5.1 package, they use the SBS speakers as surrounds while using the SCS's up front. I know that a lot of the pacakges use the bi-poles in the back, but I think that has more to do with marketing than and real benefit.

Again, it's just my opinion and others may tell you otherwise. They'd be wrong of course..

**JCD** · **10-05-09, 08:12 PM**

Here is a short article that gives a fairly balanced comparison between the two formats. One note, I thought, and still do, that the di-poles had a harder time with their placement whereas the author of the attached article thinks the di-poles are easier.

I'm sure you can find a gajillion similar articles on the net if you'd like a more in-depth answer.

**Rancho5** · **10-05-09, 08:28 PM**

I sure do appreciate all the information. Let me ask you this. If I purchase the SBS for sides, (and my wife just suggested that I do. I told her Harry Potter and Ever After would be more realistic) would it be wise to place the dipoles/bipoles in the back? They'd be more powerful than the SC200's I have there currently.

**JCD** · **10-05-09, 08:35 PM**

That's a good question -- that I don't know the answer to.

My gut tells me that the speakers closest to the listening position should be the di-poles -- this is pseudo based on the article I linked to.

You know what I would do is contact SVS directly with your question. Tell them about the room you're in and the exact model speakers you're using and ask what they'd to. I'd be shocked if you don't get an answer within 24 hours. , I'd go ahead and post your question on the sub-board for SVS here. I'll admit I don't know how often they check the board, but I'm sure there is some regularity.

**Rancho5** · **10-05-09, 08:44 PM**

Great article on that link. Thank you. My theater is rather small (10x22) and the sofas are about 7 ft wide so it is thin. I do have the surrounds high and back a tad. With the room being so narrow, what should I think about direct radiating speakers needing more space to image? I really don't have that much space.

PS. What is the difference between bipole and dipole? My speakers let me switch between the two.

**JCD** · **10-05-09, 09:17 PM**

Some quick comments..

I don't think you're too small for a direct radianting speaker
Dipole vs bipole -- here's a link for your reading pleasure. Which one is best for your situation? Don't know, but if it's as easy as a switch, I'd experiment and see what you think sounds best.

**Rancho5** · **10-05-09, 10:24 PM**

Another great read. Thanks. Looks like I have some experimenting to do.

**SteveCallas** · **10-06-09, 01:18 AM**

A 4" midwoofer is definitely not up to task, so knowing what surrounds you are using now, yes, I would get something better. I still wouldn't spend a few hundred though, as you could have put that money towards better mains. You'd have to live with that guilt everytime you look at your surrounds.

**recruit** · **10-06-09, 03:24 AM**

I used for many years a pair of Boston Acoustic Dipoles VRS IIRC as my rears in the days of Prologic Surround and they gave me fantastic performance when mounted correctly, a lot people who are more interested in multichannel audio do not like using this type of speaker as they give a diffused sound rather than the direct radiating speaker, but if movies are what interests you then they certainly give a good sound, I now use tripoles which actually work even better than dipoles and give an enveloping sound which really needs to be listened to, to appreciate the quality of surround sound they can give !

**walmat** · **10-06-09, 05:11 PM**

In order to use dipole or bipole how much does the room dimensions, walls etc play a part in their effectiveness? Should this question be on another thread??

**Jon Liu** · **10-06-09, 06:52 PM**

Room size, not so much, but solid walls play an important role. Multi-polar speakers rely a decent amount on the sound being reflected off the wall.

**recruit** · **10-06-09, 06:52 PM**

Quote:

walmat wrote:

In order to use dipole or bipole how much does the room dimensions, walls etc play a part in their effectiveness? Should this question be on another thread??

Dipoles work well when mounted either ear height on the side walls or just above the listener, obviously all rooms are different and you have to take into account placement and how affective they will be for each individual situation, for example in a 7.1 setup you could use dipoles for the sides of the seating positions and then direct radiating speakers for the rear channels, this will give good results as the dipoles can fire sounds along the walls and then the direct radiating speakers for rear effects, once again it does depend on the room and placements for them to work well enough and give a convincing rear soundstage...

**walmat** · **10-06-09, 07:36 PM**

In my case I have a 5.1 set up and due to aethetics I have direct radiating speakers mounted on the back wall elevated and aimed down and toward the listeners. Both speakers are about 18" away from the side walls. I don't know if replacing these rears with bipoles would make a positive improvement or not.

**recruit** · **10-07-09, 01:29 AM**

Quote:

walmat wrote:

In my case I have a 5.1 set up and due to aethetics I have direct radiating speakers mounted on the back wall elevated and aimed down and toward the listeners. Both speakers are about 18" away from the side walls. I don't know if replacing these rears with bipoles would make a positive improvement or not.

It depends as you are used to the sound with the speakers you have, and using something like dipoles or tripoles for that matter you might not like the sound it creates, although I have always had good results with the both sets of speakers, maybe you could speak with a local dealer and they could lend you some to try out?

**deafbykhorns** · **10-09-09, 07:43 PM**

I had Phase Technology and settled with speaker craft, great sound at a fair price. Many models to choose from

Advertisement