One More Time: Dipole Vs. BiPole

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 2661 times.


  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 255
One More Time: Dipole Vs. BiPole
« on: 29 Dec 2003, 12:38 am »
Now, which config has the drivers working against each other ( > <), and which has them working together ( > > )?

What is the advantage of either?  I got lost in the discussion below.


  • Full Member
  • Posts: 9137
  • The elephant normally IS the room
One More Time: Dipole Vs. BiPole
« Reply #1 on: 30 Dec 2003, 01:24 am »
I had to get this straight in my head too.  Here's Louis' answer to my same question from months ago:

"The bipole is when the front driver is in phase with the rear driver. They have a very wide soundstage and tend do dissapear in the room. In Bipole the sweet spot in front of the speakers is wider.

The Dipole is when the drivers are out of phase. Both versions will give a greater soundstage and much wider and deeper than monopoles. The dipoles will have a bit more focus and clarity due to the side cancellations or nulls, but the sweet spot is a bit narrower than the Bipole."

If you'd like lots of dipole theory try Linkwitz:

From my puny understanding a bipole would simulate a point source that some say would provide perfect imaging and a dipole (because front and back waves cancel each other out as larger/lower frequency signals meet at the sides/top/bottom of the speaker) interact with the room less, but result in severe bass roll off at lower frequencies (perhaps lower than the Super 3 BPC can play anyway).

Louis O

One More Time: Dipole Vs. BiPole
« Reply #2 on: 31 Dec 2003, 03:34 pm »
Thanks JLM,

Your right about the dipole and bipole configurations. One thing in Dipole the bass is very lean and is audible. I do prefer Bipole because of this, if your not using a sub. In Bipole no sub is required as the speaker does have plenty bass.

I will be coming out with a dual front driver TS3 after the show. This speaker will be switchable between 4 and 16 ohm and cost way under $1000. I keep you posted.

Thanks again,