Dear JohnK,
Good points :)
The outlook for dipoles is not too bleak though. :)
I've found that dipoles "drive" my room more sympathetically than dynamic designs I've owned. The front wave has narrow dispersion and I beam much of this through a wide archway into an adjoining room. The rear wave is mostly absorbed (at most frequencies) by curtains positioned symmetrically behind the speakers.
There are 2 listening positions I use : nearfield - (8 feet away)which gives massive detail and a very intimate sound and farfield (18 feet away in a secondary "sweetspot") in which images tend to coalesce more coherently but are understandably not so "up close and personal", while remaining very detailed.
(Please note I use the term "nearfield" very loosely as true nearfield must be far closer than this :^)
Cheers!
Good points :)
The outlook for dipoles is not too bleak though. :)
I've found that dipoles "drive" my room more sympathetically than dynamic designs I've owned. The front wave has narrow dispersion and I beam much of this through a wide archway into an adjoining room. The rear wave is mostly absorbed (at most frequencies) by curtains positioned symmetrically behind the speakers.
There are 2 listening positions I use : nearfield - (8 feet away)which gives massive detail and a very intimate sound and farfield (18 feet away in a secondary "sweetspot") in which images tend to coalesce more coherently but are understandably not so "up close and personal", while remaining very detailed.
(Please note I use the term "nearfield" very loosely as true nearfield must be far closer than this :^)
Cheers!