Omnidirectional speakers

[jim1274]

I'm not sure of your point here. At no time did I say that the LXMini was a full range omni. In fact I was careful to say that it wasn't. As you state it is omnidirectional up to about the x-over so it certainly has omnidirectional properties, whether conventional box speakers have that property or not is irrelevant and I'd argue that by 400Hz most box speakers are far less omni than a LXMini.

My point is that @jim1274 is interested in speakers that have have 3D imaging and the LXMini excels at that.

So, based on that statement, sounds like I probably should check out the LXMini.

I was just thinking maybe my HEIL ESS AMT-1b should be thrown in the mix too for comparison?
The AMT tweeter is a dipole, and from what I recall, has a pretty low crossover point, so should exhibit much of soundfield effect as other dipole designs? I’ve had them for a while, and can’t recall the specifics of the sound signature, just recalling they had some limitations and never got much solo stereo use. I’m actually using them now as side surrounds, knowing not really the best choice for that application, but could not bear to put them in storage after doing a total restoration (x-over, re-foam 12” woofer and passive radiators, new Mylar ribbons, etc..)

 

[jim1274]

From that kind of measurement, do you really think LXmini is more omnidirectional than KEF LS50 Wireless? Ok in term of strictly omnidirectional LXmini is a bit better (350Hz) when compare to 250 Hz of LS50 wireless. But to call it significant more omni is laughable

Hmmmmm…then maybe LXMini is back to barking up the wrong tree for me…

 

[Burning Sounds]

From that kind of measurement, do you really think LXmini is more omnidirectional than KEF LS50 Wireless? Ok in term of strictly omnidirectional LXmini is a bit better (350Hz) when compare to 250 Hz of LS50 wireless. But to call it significant more omni is laughable

I've never used the word "significant" and indeed the LXMini is a bit better than the KEF LS50 as you correctly state.

But for arguments sake lets say they are near enough the same. Do you really think these graphs describe how these two speakers sound? Of course they don't. It's almost like using a single SINAD score to judge an amplifier. SINAD is useful but it doesn't tell the whole story. These measurements are useful, but they don't tell you which of these two speakers has the more enveloping sound and the larger soundstage and that is what @jim1274 is looking for.

As you've chosen info from Erin let's also take a look at his subjective opinions about the sound of these two speakers.

KEF LS50 wireless:
"With the SPL and low-frequency limitations in mind, I do very much like this speaker. I think it is a fine ‘lifestyle’ speaker for someone who wants a mostly neutral speaker (other than the dip in the 1-3kHz region) and a very deep soundstage. Width of soundstage could be wider but if you have a smaller room that is untreated, this may work to your advantage as the direct to reflected ratio is reasonably high and the off-axis response mimics the direct sound quite well."

Linkwitz LXMini:
"In my opinion, this speaker shines in the soundstage category. In some ways, it reminded me of my experience with the Bose 901 Series V in that both speakers presented a soundstage that exceeds what standard “box” speakers tend to present. The soundstage of these speakers was not “confined” or “boxed in” like most speakers I hear. Rather, it was more “open” and the boundaries didn’t have an exact cutoff; they just extended into the space of the room. Something I really dig. I should clarify this is only a mild similarity with the Bose 901; the LXMini is far better in both imaging precision and tonality."

 

[Sal1950]

In many cases there is a tradeoff relationship between clarity and a sense of envelopment, but Floyd Toole mentions studies showing that reflections can actually improve speech intelligibility. He theorizes that the ear/brain system can better decipher complex sounds when it gets multiple "looks", which implies that those reflections should be spectrally correct. And getting the reflections spectrally correct is something good omnis excel at.

That's one man's opinion.
One that after near 60 years an audiophile, I do not share.
But ya buy your ticket and take your ride

Just to throw another option at you, since you already have an 11.x system, Floyd Toole endorses upsampling 2-channel music to get the immersive efffect. Without trying to look up the exact quotes, I'm pretty sure that his current thinking is that this gives an overall better result than 2-channel with omni speakers.

Of course he does, plain ole 2 channel is boooooring, LOL

 

[Duke]

@Sal1950, I think I see a consistency in your line of thinking, and I think you and I are taking different roads towards the same intended destination:

... any speaker that is going to be reflecting sounds... from numerous points all over the room, just can't be the right way to technically approach things if an accurate reproduction of the recorded source and it's intended soundstage holds any priority in your bias.

I've always believed in taking the room out of the equation as much as possible.

Of course [Floyd Toole endorses upsampling 2-channel music to get the immersive effect] , plain ole 2 channel is boooooring, LOL

IF (<- and that's a big "if") I'm following your line of thinking here, you DO NOT like the reflection field that stereo speakers generate in a room, but you DO like the reflection field generated by upmixing 2-channel to multi-channel. Is this correct?

If so, then your preferred approach makes a lot of sense to me.

Viewing your approach through my lense, here is what it looks like to me:

You start out with a very clean first-arrival sound; followed by virtually no early reflections (the room having been taken out of the equation as much as possible); followed by a spectrally-correct reflection field which has been derived from the two channels and delivered by the surround speakers. Is this description pretty close?

If so, I think you and I have some common ground after all: We BOTH want the reflection field to be correct, and we have similar ideas about WHAT a correct reflection field looks like, but we are taking very DIFFERENT approaches to getting that correct reflection field. Let me explain my approach, and I hope you will see the similarities in concept, though obviously not in execution:

My preferred approach uses a directional front-firing array toed-in enough to avoid early lateral reflections (which doesn't "take the room out of the equation", but it largely takes the imo undesirable early reflections out of the equation). Then rear-firing drivers add spectrally-correct, relatively late-onset reflections, which arrive after bouncing off at least two room surfaces. These spectrally-correct, late-onset reflections act as "carriers" for the reverberation tails on the recording, delivering them from many directions. Obviously my approach does not work well with room treatments that primarily attenuate the shorter wavelengths.

I DO NOT claim that what I'm doing with regular 2-channel is as effective as what you can do with upmixing. I do however claim that, when adjusted correctly, and given a good recording, my approach can result in the venue spatial quality on the recording being perceptually dominant. The resulting "immersive effect" varies signficantly from one recording to the next, which makes listening to a variety of recordings that much more interesting.

So to sum up, you and I both want a spectrally correct reflection field that supports an immersive spatial quality, the difference being that you're using upmixing and I'm using what might be called optimized off-axis response. And I understand if you don't believe my approach can work because you really have no reason to believe it could.

But do you see any conceptual common ground between your approach and mine, even though the specifics of our respective approaches are very different?

 

[MarkS]

@Sal1950, I think I see a consistency in your line of thinking, and I think you and I are taking different roads towards the same intended destination:

IF (<- and that's a big "if") I'm following your line of thinking here, you DO NOT like the reflection field that stereo speakers generate in a room, but you DO like the reflection field generated by upsampling 2-channel to multi-channel. Is this correct?

Hey Duke, Sal can respond for himself of course, but I think you've got his opinion wrong. Adopting that "big IF", my understanding is that Sal likes studio-produced soundstages (such as on Roger Waters Amused to Death, a classic of the studio-produced soundstage genre) and wants a system that does that as well as possible, and generally that requires minimizing room reflections.

On this I think he is right. It seems clear to me that lots of room reflections are likely to mess up that studio-produced soundstage.

More generally, I think that the omni-good-or-bad debate really does depend crucially both on the type of music and on one's audio goals (e.g., when is the vise on the listener's head too tight?).

Thanks to you both for an informative discussion!

 

[Duke]

my understanding is that Sal likes studio-produced soundstages (such as on Roger Waters Amused to Death, a classic of the studio-produced soundstage genre) and wants a system that does that as well as possible...

That is my understanding as well. And that is also my preference.

To be clear, I am NOT interested in (nor advocating for) substituting the "small room signature" of the playback room for the spatial signature on the recording. The EARLIEST in-room reflections are the ones most responsible for conveying the playback room's dimensions to the ear/brain system, so they should be minimized (note this arguably departs from the omni paradigm, UNLESS the omnis are in a large room). In contrast the later reflections only weakly convey the playback room's dimensions, but they rather effectively convey the reverberation tails on the recording, provided they are spectrally correct and arrive from many different directions.

Have you ever observed this phenomenon: You start with the speakers about one foot in front of the wall, and your soundstage is about two feet deep. You move the speakers out three feet in front of the wall, and your soundstage is now about six feet deep. Then you move the speakers out about six feet from the wall, and suddenly the soundstage is as deep as the venue signature on the recording... ten feet deep, twenty feet, a hundred feet, whatever. What's happening is, you transitioned from the "small room signature" of the playback room being dominant, to the "venue spatial cues" on the recording being dominant. And you did this by introducing a sufficently long time gap between the first-arrival sound and the onset of reflections from that direction.

... and generally that requires minimizing room reflections.

Perhaps generally, but imo not necessarily always.

Note that the upmixed signal delivered by the surround speakers is playing the role of the in-room reflections better than the in-room reflections generally do. I am substituting spectrally-correct late-onset reflections (which are a bit of a rarity in home audio) for the upmixed signal that the surround speakers deliver.

 

[ShadowFiend]

I've never used the word "significant" and indeed the LXMini is a bit better than the KEF LS50 as you correctly state.

But for arguments sake lets say they are near enough the same. Do you really think these graphs describe how these two speakers sound? Of course they don't. It's almost like using a single SINAD score to judge an amplifier. SINAD is useful but it doesn't tell the whole story. These measurements are useful, but they don't tell you which of these two speakers has the more enveloping sound and the larger soundstage and that is what @jim1274 is looking for.

As you've chosen info from Erin let's also take a look at his subjective opinions about the sound of these two speakers.

KEF LS50 wireless:
"With the SPL and low-frequency limitations in mind, I do very much like this speaker. I think it is a fine ‘lifestyle’ speaker for someone who wants a mostly neutral speaker (other than the dip in the 1-3kHz region) and a very deep soundstage. Width of soundstage could be wider but if you have a smaller room that is untreated, this may work to your advantage as the direct to reflected ratio is reasonably high and the off-axis response mimics the direct sound quite well."

Linkwitz LXMini:
"In my opinion, this speaker shines in the soundstage category. In some ways, it reminded me of my experience with the Bose 901 Series V in that both speakers presented a soundstage that exceeds what standard “box” speakers tend to present. The soundstage of these speakers was not “confined” or “boxed in” like most speakers I hear. Rather, it was more “open” and the boundaries didn’t have an exact cutoff; they just extended into the space of the room. Something I really dig. I should clarify this is only a mild similarity with the Bose 901; the LXMini is far better in both imaging precision and tonality."

I owned LXMini as well as LX521.4 before so I know them well enough. The advantage in terms of soundstage from LXmini have nothing to do with its omnidirectional dispersion. It is because of the dipole dispersion from 1-5 kHz. I know it because the same quality of soundstage is also existed in LX521.4, which is fully dipole.

The showing of graph is only to demonstrate that the LXmini doesn't have any virtue in terms of omnidirectional dispersion when comparing to normal box speaker, nothing more.

 

[jim1274]

I've never used the word "significant" and indeed the LXMini is a bit better than the KEF LS50 as you correctly state.

But for arguments sake lets say they are near enough the same. Do you really think these graphs describe how these two speakers sound? Of course they don't. It's almost like using a single SINAD score to judge an amplifier. SINAD is useful but it doesn't tell the whole story. These measurements are useful, but they don't tell you which of these two speakers has the more enveloping sound and the larger soundstage and that is what @jim1274 is looking for.

As you've chosen info from Erin let's also take a look at his subjective opinions about the sound of these two speakers.

KEF LS50 wireless:
"With the SPL and low-frequency limitations in mind, I do very much like this speaker. I think it is a fine ‘lifestyle’ speaker for someone who wants a mostly neutral speaker (other than the dip in the 1-3kHz region) and a very deep soundstage. Width of soundstage could be wider but if you have a smaller room that is untreated, this may work to your advantage as the direct to reflected ratio is reasonably high and the off-axis response mimics the direct sound quite well."

Linkwitz LXMini:
"In my opinion, this speaker shines in the soundstage category. In some ways, it reminded me of my experience with the Bose 901 Series V in that both speakers presented a soundstage that exceeds what standard “box” speakers tend to present. The soundstage of these speakers was not “confined” or “boxed in” like most speakers I hear. Rather, it was more “open” and the boundaries didn’t have an exact cutoff; they just extended into the space of the room. Something I really dig. I should clarify this is only a mild similarity with the Bose 901; the LXMini is far better in both imaging precision and tonality."

Your last sentence “LXMini is far better in both imaging precision and tonality” doesn’t speak to the “enveloping sound and the larger soundstage and that is what user jim1274 is looking for” mentioned earlier in your reply. Some imaging precision is compromised with Omnis as noted before. As noted much earlier, I rotated in several forward firing designs for a quick comparison:

BMR Monitors
Energy 22 Reference connisuers
CLEARWAVE 4T Towers

(The towers are the front left and right on my 11.1 home theater system. It’s a DIY build from about 2008. At that time, I wanted a large very high SPL center channel, literally nothing found in commercial offerings, so built my own front stage. The towers are exactly the same the same as the center here, except for different driver positioning for vertical towers vs horizontal center: https://www.highfidelityreview.com/diy-center-channel-speaker-the-true-heavyweight-champion.html)

It was a quick rotation, just to compare soundstage and general sound impression, to look for Omni shortcomings on other sound factors like timbre, low level detail resolution and such. In a nutshell, I found that the soundstage collapsed, especially in depth, with all the non-Omni speakers. The Omnis really didn’t give up much, if any, on timbre and such, at least not on my quick comparison . I’m going to do another more extended comparison to look closer for flaws in the Omnis. After taking the Enterprise Omnis out of the system for a couple days and using my home theater towers, it was like the whole envelopment and immersive sound came to life when Omnis were put back.

 

[jim1274]

I’ve obviously been following this carefully, my seemingly mundane post after 6 years of thread inactivity creating a lot of debate and dialogue.

Something Duke mentioned a few posts back:

“Have you ever observed this phenomenon: You start with the speakers about one foot in front of the wall, and your soundstage is about two feet deep. You move the speakers out three feet in front of the wall, and your soundstage is now about six feet deep. Then you move the speakers out about six feet from the wall, and suddenly the soundstage is as deep as the venue signature on the recording... ten feet deep, twenty feet, a hundred feet, whatever. What's happening is, you transitioned from the "small room signature" of the playback room being dominant, to the "venue spatial cues" on the recording being dominant. And you did this by introducing a sufficently long time gap between the first-arrival sound and the onset of reflections from that direction.”

That made me think about my placement of the 3 conventional front-firing speakers used for a quick comparison. I actually put the “box” speakers even further out into the room than the Omnis by another coupe of feet relative to wall behind. So, that was about 6’ into the room, which should have given me a pretty deep soundstage, more similar to the Omnis? I definitely noticed a big soundstage collapse when the towers were moved back to their 11.1 home theater position near wall. My array of home theater gear across the whole wall behind should also break up rear reflections? Maybe a photo would help? The only highly reflective surface is the TV display:

 

[Duke]

That made me think about my placement of the 3 conventional front-firing speakers used for a quick comparison. I actually put the “box” speakers even further out into the room than the Omnis by another coupe of feet relative to wall behind. So, that was about 6’ into the room, which should have given me a pretty deep soundstage, more similar to the Omnis? I definitely noticed a big soundstage collapse when the towers were moved back to their 11.1 home theater position near wall. My array of home theater gear across the whole wall behind should also break up rear reflections? Maybe a photo would help? The only highly reflective surface is the TV display

The effective distance behind the speakers would have been the distance to the TV display, and "6 feet" may not have been enough. But as you noticed, there was a significant improvement in the soundstage when the first reflections off the wall behind the speakers was pushed back in time.

Imo the Omnis would probably still do better because their reflection field is spectrally correct. Imo the reflections, in particular the later-arriving ones, act as "carriers" for the reverberation tails on the recording. And if the spectral balance of those later-arriving reflections is too dissimilar from the first-arrival sound the ear/brain system can no longer correctly classify them as reflections, so they cease to be "signal" and become "noise". The consequences of spectrally incorrect reflections also show up when we compare the timbre of a speaker that gets the reflections correct versus a speaker that does not. From a timbral standpoint, imo better to have no reflections than to have bad ones.

I happen to think there is a "best of both worlds" scenario wherein you get precise imaging AND envelopment/immersion simultaneously, along with rich timbre.

 

[Newman]

In a nutshell, I found that the soundstage collapsed, especially in depth, with all the non-Omni speakers.

Do you really want to call that 'soundstage'?

What really happens with omnis is that the soundstage in the recording is completely lost, and buried in listening room sound.

That's a big loss, to be honest, along with most other imaging attributes in the recording.

And there's the rub: like Toole points out, essentially no recordings are mastered with omni speakers, so what you are hearing with omnis is not what they produced, in almost every way. That's why he correctly describes omnis as sound effect generators.

Add to that the abysmal frequency response of the Duevel Venus as per the review posted in this thread...if your Enterprises are anything like that....not good.

Toole does point out (and research shows) that what we do value positively in relation to ambience, is 'envelopment' and 'apparent source width'. Ahh, so that's what omni does so satisfyingly?

Not really. Turns out that 'listening room sound' isn't very desirable sound, because listening rooms are too small to have much positive in their inherent sonic signature. The delays are too short. Reflected sound is too dominant over diffuse sound. The positive envelopment and ASW attributes are to be found in large rooms: performance spaces.

So we want to capture in the recording, and preserve at home, the venue sonics. So why is the sound at home not doing that? Because of stereo sound. It's severely compromised in its ability to do that. That's why stereo recordings at home are generally enhanced by permitting first reflections of the walls near to the speakers. It's not a great thing to do, but it's a kludge that helps with a shortcoming of stereo. Omnis are a very extreme version of that small kludge, and there is good reason to say it is excessive, swamping so many attributes of the production in 'home room sound', which as I said, is no paradise.

The way forward, beyond kludges on kludges, is multichannel sound. Of course, it still has to be done well, both in recording and in playback.

cheers

 

[jim1274]

The effective distance behind the speakers would have been the distance to the TV display, and "6 feet" may not have been enough. But as you noticed, there was a significant improvement in the soundstage when the first reflections off the wall behind the speakers was pushed back in time.

I’ll try the “box” speakers even further from “back wall” effectively the TV and other gear along the wall (roughly in the same plane) in round 2 testing. I might as well throw my Heil ESS AMT 1b in the mix for soundstage evaluation of a bipolar radiation pattern. In the case of a bipolar, I should start well into the room too to avoid excess early reflections?

Imo the Omnis would probably still do better because their reflection field is spectrally correct. Imo the reflections, in particular the later-arriving ones, act as "carriers" for the reverberation tails on the recording. And if the spectral balance of those later-arriving reflections is too dissimilar from the first-arrival sound the ear/brain system can no longer correctly classify them as reflections, so they cease to be "signal" and become "noise". The consequences of spectrally incorrect reflections also show up when we compare the timbre of a speaker that gets the reflections correct versus a speaker that does not. From a timbral standpoint, imo better to have no reflections than to have bad ones.

I happen to think there is a "best of both worlds" scenario wherein you get precise imaging AND envelopment/immersion simultaneously, along with rich timbre.

The Omnis seem to sound about the same in various positions, but I’ll test that independently for soundfield effect as well as timbre and such.

This has made me think more about speaker placement and impact on sound. I knew and experienced the importance of listening room acoustics beyond room frequency peaks/dips and live/dead overall damping, but
did not think as much about early rear reflection, focusing more on importance of keeping speakers away from side wall early reflections. Now that I think about the best listening room sound ever experienced, I recall they had the rear wall (fully?) covered with Sonex foam wrapping around and then less and less moving back. They obviously put a lot of work on room tuning and acoustics, and it paid off. After to listening to much more expensive and highly lauded speakers that day, the maybe $1500 or so 2-way small floor standers in the “perfect” room bested all comers that day. I related in another thread that we also listened to some Wilson WAMMS that day, I think something like a $30k speaker even in 1984. Maybe I’m off, but they were very expensive. They could not have been positioned any worse angled in a corner and in a much worse “listening room”. They obviously excelled in some things like dynamics, bass extension and such, but recall my buddy was not impressed either. When we recapped our experience that day, the $1500 or so speakers, hands down, sounded the best. THE ROOM. You may question memory recall that long ago, but those two were so notable, it’s hard to forget. When walking into the room for the $1500 speakers, I was struck by all the Sonex foam and just the two speakers, a couple of folding chairs, and the electronics with Linn turntable on the rear wall. Now that I think about it, even with heavily treated rear wall, the $1500 were still pretty far into the room. The WAMMS were at a dealer I visited many times, buying my system there and taking a half dozen friends to buy the same or similar, so I had many listening sessions for the WAMMS, sitting on a couch so ratty, it would not be used even in any basement. I was speechless when seeing a $30k speaker buried in the corner of the back room, literally a workshop with crap all over. He said the Wilson rep required displaying their flagship product, and when he said they won’t sell in this shop, they said too bad. He said, since he spends 90% of his time in the workshop assembling Dynaudio kit speakers that was over half his sales, might as well put in back to enjoy where he could take breaks or naps and listen to the WAMMS. There was maybe no audio joint on the planet like this place, beyond a dive in kind of a bad neighborhood, run/owned by a true mad scientist. How many places ask you if you like beer shortly after you arrive,, then say there is liquor store two doors down, and if you are gonna hang a while and listen to the WAMMS, wouldn’t it be better with some brews. No exaggeration. When we walked in, we thought gotta be in the wrong place, just a handful or speakers and electronics on some rickety shelves in his “showroom”. We went there intially for Superphon preamp and a Systemdek turntable, two items on my shortlist from reviews in “The Sensible Sound”, kinda the pre-internet printed version of reviews on this forum. Sorry—I got WAY off topic—carried away in just making the listening room acoustics point (which everyone here already knows..)

 

[jim1274]

Do you really want to call that 'soundstage'?

Maybe?

If this below is a accurate (plagiarized) definition, then I’d say the Omni does this better than any “box” speakers compared, at least in my living room acoustical environment.

“Soundstage refers to the perceived location and width of sound in a recording. The sense of space and depth makes it feel like you’re listening to a live performance rather than a recording. Soundstage is created by a combination of factors, including the recording techniques used, speakers’ placement and quality, and the listening environment’s acoustics”

What really happens with omnis is that the soundstage in the recording is completely lost, and buried in listening room sound.

That's a big loss, to be honest, along with most other imaging attributes in the recording.

I will say if more precise location of instruments is critical factor, then some imaging is compromised. You still get the placement afforded by stereo signal as in a box speaker, but not as precise.

And there's the rub: like Toole points out, essentially no recordings are mastered with omni speakers, so what you are hearing with omnis is not what they produced, in almost every way. That's why he correctly describes omnis as sound effect generators.

Add to that the abysmal frequency response of the Duevel Venus as per the review posted in this thread...if your Enterprises are anything like that....not good.

Well, I clearly need to do an in room response test. An abysmal frequency response should be clearly audible, correct? I’m not finding that. Also, I’m using the Enterprise, not Venus model. I must have referred to that for another reason—will go back and check the context.

Toole does point out (and research shows) that what we do value positively in relation to ambience, is 'envelopment' and 'apparent source width'. Ahh, so that's what omni does so satisfyingly?

I would say yes to that, but I’m not yet finding the downside…so far…. This is going to get a more critical look second time around vs the “box” speakers.

Not really. Turns out that 'listening room sound' isn't very desirable sound, because listening rooms are too small to have much positive in their inherent sonic signature. The delays are too short. Reflected sound is too dominant over diffuse sound. The positive envelopment and ASW attributes are to be found in large rooms: performance spaces.

So we want to capture in the recording, and preserve at home, the venue sonics. So why is the sound at home not doing that? Because of stereo sound. It's severely compromised in its ability to do that. That's why stereo recordings at home are generally enhanced by permitting first reflections of the walls near to the speakers. It's not a great thing to do, but it's a kludge that helps with a shortcoming of stereo. Omnis are a very extreme version of that small kludge, and there is good reason to say it is excessive, swamping so many attributes of the production in 'home room sound', which as I said, is no paradise.

The way forward, beyond kludges on kludges, is multichannel sound. Of course, it still has to be done well, both in recording and in playback.

cheers

At risk of getting hammered, I’m going to say this anyway:

When you listen to any speaker in YOUR room, do you have a reaction like “this sounds really good” or “I need to take these speakers back”? The initial impression, for me at least, is the overall “sound”. Later I notice, for good or bad, things like timbre, detail resolution, soundstage and such, but intially it’s all those things contributing to the overall sound. Well, my first taste Omni (with lesser Planets model) was the immersion or whatever was like nothing heard before. I literally took the boxes from the hand of the UPS guy, put them on the ground ne

 

[jim1274]

My finger brushed “post reply” before I finished (an omen, telling me to shut up?).

Briefly this time, I had the planets unboxed and just plopped down in front of the garage cabinet housing my prior AV receiver, grabbed a nearby set of speaker cables, connected to zone, and fired them up. The initial reaction was positive, an enveloping, immersive, or whatever it should be called. The speakers were only a few point apart and just pulled up a folding chair and listened for quite some time, thinking what the heck is going on here. It was not long before I ordered the next model up, the Emterprise.

So, go ahead and hammer me, but the Omnis have a “sound” never heard on any box speaker.

 

[Keith_W]

So, go ahead and hammer me, but the Omnis have a “sound” never heard on any box speaker.

Don't worry, many of us support you. Even Linkwitz was a fan of omnis, I mean ... what does he know, eh?

Yes, Toole disagrees with Linkwitz. It's a pity that I have never seen a debate between these two giants about omnidirectional speakers, that would have been really enlightening.

 

[Sal1950]

What really happens with omnis is that the soundstage in the recording is completely lost, and buried in listening room sound.

That's a big loss, to be honest, along with most other imaging attributes in the recording.

You hit the nail right on the head there @Newman
That's also exactly the way I see it.
But there's no real sense in debating it here.
We won't change their minds and they won't change ours.
I don't know why they keep quoting Floyd Toole, he runs Revel Salon 2's LOL
Ya buy your ticket and take your ride.

 

[jim1274]

Don't worry, many of us support you. Even Linkwitz was a fan of omnis, I mean ... what does he know, eh?

Yes, Toole disagrees with Linkwitz. It's a pity that I have never seen a debate between these two giants about omnidirectional speakers, that would have been really enlightening.

Obviously, I’ve been thinking a lot about all the feedback here, some maybe not fully understood, but a good part of it, enough to get the arguments critical of Omni dispersion speakers. My goal now is to nit-pick what I’m hearing in my room from my Duevel Enterprises, looking closely for the flaws and trade-offs. Maybe “golden ears” would hear something I’m missing or glossing over. In the meantime, I’m playing them 14 hours a day and enjoying a lot. I know subjective phrases get eye rolls, but musical, non-fatiguing, comes to mind. The total “sound” is different than a forward firing speaker and preferable to at least me. I’m sounding like an Omni fanboy, which I guess is true to an extent. I’ve had quite a few speakers over 5 decades, so not like I’m lacking a basis for comparison. The theory is fine and dandy, but like you said, even experts in the field are not in agreement. Until I find something to change my mind, I’m going further down this Omni path, at least compared to seeking “better” conventional speakers.

All the arguments against Omni are good to hear, making me look even harder for the flaws in what I’m hearing in my room.

 

[MarkS]

like Toole points out, essentially no recordings are mastered with omni speakers, so what you are hearing with omnis is not what they produced, in almost every way.

Does Toole also point out that essentially no recordings are mastered with upmixing to multi-channel (his preferred method), so what you are hearing with upmixing is not what they produced, in almost every way?

That's why he correctly describes omnis as sound effect generators.

Upmixing to multichannel is also correctly described as a sound effect generator.

 

[jim1274]

You hit the nail right on the head there @Newman
That's also exactly the way I see it.
But there's no real sense in debating it here.
We won't change their minds and they won't change ours.
I don't know why they keep quoting Floyd Toole, he runs Revel Salon 2's LOL
Ya buy your ticket and take your ride.

Maybe everyone is right here, just a personal preference of the way the soundstage is reproduced? From my comparison, in THIS particular room, I find the soundstage to collapse with box speakers vs Omnis. Maybe the more precise localization of instruments with conventional speakers is a bigger factor to some, the aspect of width and depth more important to others? Maybe I just prefer the trade-off?

Wikipedia:

Stereo imaging refers to the aspect of sound recording and reproduction of stereophonic sound concerning the perceived spatial locations of the sound source, both laterally and in depth. An image is considered to be good if the location of the performers can be clearly identified; the image is considered to be poor if the location of the performers is difficult to locate. A well-made stereo recording, properly reproduced, can provide good imaging within the front quadrant. More complex recording and reproduction systems such as surround sound and Ambisonics can offer good imaging all around the listener and even including height information. Imaging is usually thought of in the context of recording with two or more channels, though single-channel recording may convey depth information convincingly. Wikipedia