omnidirectional loudspeakers = best design available

[david moran]

I owned Ohm F speakers for a number of years and came to regret selling them soon after.

... But then that was a long, long time ago, over 40 years. I would not buy omnis today.

Many do not enjoy equi-omni radpat (I among them) for a range of reasons, imprecision and similar, but the thing w Fs was that no two were close to the same. I did a crude room measurement of a pair 40y ago, not from far away, and was very surprised at how rough the FR was and even more at how different it was, L and R.

 

[fpitas]

I think the thing for many planar listeners is the float, typically in the space behind the speakers, depending on front wall hardness. I find it a little disorienting w planars, but many do not.

I was first exposed to KLH 9s in 1970, a double-pair in a stereo store where I was working. Yeah, you need a sub, though more with some than others. I would not favor a float or radpat like that, myself.

I more recently auditioned a nice big pair of Acoustats, and sometime after big Mags, both in bespoke rooms, and found the presentation similarly odd unless I sat right in front.

The thing that I and many other owners intensely favor w Allisons and dbxes and a few other designs, and what I thought this thread might be about, is 'getting the music up in the air', as Roy Allison once put it. I have known serious listeners (never working musicians, however) who found the scale of my dbx SF1A system simply too much, though.

My 511s also do a good job of floating music in the air. But I've been repeatedly told they are not accurate, and I'm wrong to like them

 

[david moran]

My 511s also do a good job of floating music in the air. But I've been repeatedly told they are not accurate, and I'm wrong to like them

Har.

Don't know what that is ... Piega?

Given the myriad vagaries of miking and venue, I don't know how anyone can say a speaker is not accurate except in terms of in-use FR (tonal balance), which is easily checked with pink noise and a smartphone rta app (the built-in smartphone mikes are plenty flat enough). Quite aside from the moral judgment, har. If a guest (hopefully timbre-experienced) claims they hear lower-mid absence (Allison effect) below middle C, and/or excess at 90Hz or 1k or 5k, that will be easy to see on any rta temporally and spatially averaged measurement. Not from too far away.

Everyone here opining on speaker should have subjected themselves to a basic solfege test using the Harman or Moulton (or similar) programs. Quite humbling for most of us.

After listening room, which typically cannot be specified with complete freedom, and likely listening distance, the first criterion (WAF aside) for speaker selection should be radiation pattern, esp horizontal. And the first criterion there will probably be treble-beamy or more widely dispersed. And then all the refinements ensuing.

 

[fpitas]

Har.

Don't know what that is ... Piega?

Given the myriad vagaries of miking and venue, I don't know how anyone can say a speaker is not accurate except in terms of in-use FR (tonal balance), which is easily checked with pink noise and a smartphone rta app (the built-in smartphone mikes are plenty flat enough). Quite aside from the moral judgment, har. If a guest (hopefully timbre-experienced) claims they hear lower-mid absence (Allison effect) below middle C, and/or excess at 90Hz or 1k or 5k, that will be easy to see on any rta temporally and spatially averaged measurement. Not from too far away.

Everyone here opining on speaker should have subjected themselves to a basic solfege test using the Harman or Moulton (or similar) programs. Quite humbling for most of us.

After listening room, which typically cannot be specified with complete freedom, and likely listening distance, the first criterion (WAF aside) for speaker selection should be radiation pattern, esp horizontal. And the first criterion there will probably be treble-beamy or more widely dispersed. And then all the refinements ensuing.

Altec 511 horns, dredged from the mists of time and updated with TAD drivers. DIY speakers, which I check against reference headphones for accuracy, tonality etc.

 

[david moran]

Altec 511 horns, dredged from the mists of time and updated with TAD drivers. DIY speakers, which I check against reference headphones for accuracy, tonality etc.

ah; sorry. Well, give them a noise measure and check it out !

You probably read all this already:

Altec 511B Horn, Can It Be Tamed?

More than a few of us have encountered or currently posses them. I’ve read mixed reviews, from greatest to worst horns altec made. Being a new owner of a minty set, I’d like to give them a fair shake before moving them on. Any thoughts on what has or has not worked for some? Here are a few...

hifihaven.org

 

[fpitas]

ah; sorry. Well, give them a noise measure and check it out !

You probably read all this already:

Altec 511B Horn, Can It Be Tamed?

More than a few of us have encountered or currently posses them. I’ve read mixed reviews, from greatest to worst horns altec made. Being a new owner of a minty set, I’d like to give them a fair shake before moving them on. Any thoughts on what has or has not worked for some? Here are a few...

hifihaven.org

Yeah, what I'm doing is pretty unique. I haven't seen anyone put TAD TD2002 drivers on them, nor use DSP crossover, digital delay and EQ. Nor put them in an MTM.

 

[mhardy6647]

511Bs are... controversial.

Had a pair here for a while (which I acquired quite inexpensively) and I did spend some quality time with them. They're long gone, though.

Besides the ringiness, which is legendary , albeit somewhat tame-able, I think most of the issue with the 511B (even more than the 811B, which I find aurally acceptable -- though many don't) is that long, skinny, pinched throat.



I will say this -- fiddlin' with the 511Bs got me attuned to the notion of using far lower XOs from "woofer" to treble driver/horn (that, and the counsel of some regional horn luminaries).


I far prefer the multicell Altecs, but NO WAY can I afford a pair.
I make due with EMILAR EH500-2, which are... well... quite nice really.
Way more cost-effective than a pair of 1505s at this point in time.

 

[mhardy6647]

I'd say that I would have hung on to the 511Bs but they took up too much space...



but, inexplicably, I do still have these.





The Community BRH-90s are EDIT: seem to be better behaved than 511Bs, though -- i.e., they'd need considerably less mucking about with to produce hifi treble. They are 2 inch horns, and are better suited to a good 2"driver, sans adaptor.

 

[fpitas]

I'd say that I would have hung on to the 511Bs but they took up too much space...



but, inexplicably, I do still have these.





The Community BRH-90s are EDIT: seem to be better behaved than 511Bs, though -- i.e., they'd need considerably less mucking about with to produce hifi treble. They are 2 inch horns, and are better suited to a good 2"driver, sans adaptor.

I've tamed the ringing just fine. Cut the vanes, added goop etc. Filled the bells and coated the whole body with polyurethane. The TAD TD2002 drivers on them take some EQ, even beyond the 802, but I have plenty of spare EQ in my DX 2006.

 

[mhardy6647]

I've tamed the ringing just fine. Cut the vanes, added goop etc. Filled the bells and coated the whole body with polyurethane. The TAD TD2002 drivers on them take some EQ, even beyond the 802, but I have plenty of spare EQ in my DX 2006.

EDIT: Come to think of it, we're way too offtopic for an omnidirectional loudspeaker thread.

We'll talk 500 Hz horns elsewhere and/or elsewhen.

 

[Westsounds]

The most important aspect of home audio reproduction, is the role of the loudspeaker. Omnidirectional loudspeakers produce the most realistic musical soundstage in the home; however they remain the least understood by the public and audiophools alike. The superiority of the design is easily heard when in person, and when measured, particularly in the off-axis domains both vertically and horizontally. Live music and therefore sound propogation happens omnidirectionally, and is how our ear-brain mechanisms have evolved to understand sound. 98% of loudspeakers are designed incorrectly; yes you read that right and it's easily verifiable w/ measurements. Most loudspeakers beam the sound toward the listener in a totally unnatural way, and suffer what are called 'lobing effects' and again, are easily measured particularly when you start to move off-axis. (marketing department of companies don't measure nor publicize these measurements once out of the sweet spot, because they are horrible). These concepts have been substantially explored by the late Sigfried Linkwitz of Linkwitz Labs; I believe all his research and papers are available at the website. Further explanation is available at the website of Morrison Audio loudspeakers, highly recommended. It is important to note, that there is major distinction between polydirectional speakers, and omnidirectional.

Makers of omnidirectional loudspeakers include:

Ohm Acoustics
German Physiks
MBL
Mirage (out of business; still available used)
Linkwitz Labs (LX Mini is a hybrid omni)
Duevel
Morrison Audio

I would encourage anyone who is serious about music, and wants the most realistic soundstage in their home, to pursue omnidirectional loudspeakers. Contrary to audiphool misunderstanding, they actually excite the listening room LESS than conventional speakers, and require LESS or no special room treatments.

Rules for making a great omni:

-design should be 2-way. Single driver is inadequate; 3-way is unnecessarily complicated
-woofer driver should face UP, with lots of room behind it to reduce or eliminate back wave from radiating back out the cone
-tweeter should also be facing UP
-both woofer and tweeter should be place immediately together, and with dispersion caps or guides to disperse the outgoing sound both vertically and horizontally
-cabinet should be totally inert, as measured by accelerometer
-speaker should be able to be driven using either a passive or active crossover
-inputs should be Neutrik Speakons; Benchmark Media has measured conclusively the lowered distortion of Speakons compared to binding posts (spades or bananas)
-listening height of drivers should be at listener's seated ear level OR LOWER

This considered, the 2 best omni designs, and therefore the 2 best loudspeaker designs in the world right now, are from Duevel in Germany, and Morrison Audio in Canada. All others on the list are "honorable mention".

This is what I don't understand about the (small) audiophile religious following of 'omnidirectional' speakers.

The way people talk about them is almost religious where nothing else will do. I owned some Shainians once and they were ok, different, but this realism that other speakers can't manage that many talk about is not real. They are orientated in the room to deliver sound differently but are certainly not any better for doing so.

Sound is directional and if you went to watch someone singing and they laid on their back it would sound different if they were facing you. If you're critical listening the speaker aiming towards the listener has to be the best option surely, room dependant of course.

I had fun with the Shahinians but they were sold eventually because I feel there are far better speakers out there, with better drivers and for a fraction of the money.

If you want to add the effect of omni, there are many atmos speakers out there now who could add it, if you want to wear a hat on your speakers

 

[fpitas]

This is what I don't understand about the (small) audiophile religious following of 'omnidirectional' speakers.

The way people talk about them is almost religious where nothing else will do. I owned some Shainians once and they were ok, different, but this realism that other speakers can't manage that many talk about is not real. They are orientated in the room to deliver sound differently but are certainly not any better for doing so.

Sound is directional and if you went to watch someone singing and they laid on their back it would sound different if they were facing you. If you're critical listening the speaker aiming towards the listener has to be the best option surely, room dependant of course.

I had fun with the Shahinians but they were sold eventually because I feel there are far better speakers out there, with better drivers and for a fraction of the money.

If you want to add the effect of omni, there are many atmos speakers out there now who could add it, if you want to wear a hat on your speakers

I think you get it, or you don't. I'm not a fan of the idea, either. Obviously there is spaciousness that comes from flinging sound everywhere. Just as obviously, that depends entirely on your listening room.

 

[Thomas_A]

Question has been raised before, but for lateral dispersion, the human voice seems quite wide. A human singing placed 5 m from you in a room 5 meters wide how would the sound from the first lateral reflections look like compared to the direct sound?

 

[mhardy6647]

This is what I don't understand about the (small) audiophile religious following of 'omnidirectional' speakers.

Pretty much analogous to all other cult items/objects/ideas in audiophilia.

 

[KA7NIQ]

My 40 year old Son was over my house yesterday. I was not home. He saw my Computer was displaying this forum, so he started reading this forum! I was so proud of him when he told me he read this forum! So, I asked him what he thought about it ?
He said "Dad, that forum is simply a bunch of old Men, arguing about their stereos"

 

[Thomas_A]

My 40 year old Son was over my house yesterday. I was not home. He saw my Computer was displaying this forum, so he started reading this forum! I was so proud of him when he told me he read this forum! So, I asked him what he thought about it ?
He said "Dad, that forum is simply a bunch of old Men, arguing about their stereos"

Well it is good that we all have different interests.

 

[MattHooper]

This is what I don't understand about the (small) audiophile religious following of 'omnidirectional' speakers.

I haven't seen that religious following of omnis. May have missed it though.

The way people talk about them is almost religious where nothing else will do. I owned some Shainians once and they were ok, different, but this realism that other speakers can't manage that many talk about is not real. They are orientated in the room to deliver sound differently but are certainly not any better for doing so.

Sound is directional and if you went to watch someone singing and they laid on their back it would sound different if they were facing you. If you're critical listening the speaker aiming towards the listener has to be the best option surely, room dependant of course.

I had fun with the Shahinians but they were sold eventually because I feel there are far better speakers out there, with better drivers and for a fraction of the money.

If you want to add the effect of omni, there are many atmos speakers out there now who could add it, if you want to wear a hat on your speakers

Ok.

I've owned tons of different speakers (and like most audiophiles, have heard most type of designs). My personal experience owning MBL omnis (stand mounted 121) is that they did indeed provide the spookiest, most "real" seeming presentation I've heard from any other speaker I've owned or auditioned (save the larger MBLs). I am able to control the reflectivity in my room fairly well, so dialed them in nicely. I did not find this 'too diffuse sound' thing that most people complain about. Vocalists, instruments were nicely focused, but with a sense of 3 dimensionality and utter lack-of-mechanical sensation impeding them (no coming from a box sound at all). Absolute realism may be a pipe dream, but towards that direction, nothing sounded more like performers beamed in to my room than the MBLs. YMMV of course.

 

[KA7NIQ]

511Bs are... controversial.

Had a pair here for a while (which I acquired quite inexpensively) and I did spend some quality time with them. They're long gone, though.

Besides the ringiness, which is legendary , albeit somewhat tame-able, I think most of the issue with the 511B (even more than the 811B, which I find aurally acceptable -- though many don't) is that long, skinny, pinched throat.



I will say this -- fiddlin' with the 511Bs got me attuned to the notion of using far lower XOs from "woofer" to treble driver/horn (that, and the counsel of some regional horn luminaries).


I far prefer the multicell Altecs, but NO WAY can I afford a pair.
I make due with EMILAR EH500-2, which are... well... quite nice really.
Way more cost-effective than a pair of 1505s at this point in time.

There are a pair of Altec 511 Horns for sale locally w/o driver for 200.00
One has to be careful taking any horn down too low in Frequency, because not only will they lose pattern control, worse yet many will Honk!

 

[Westsounds]

I owned some weird single driver speakers similar in shape to the Shahinian Compass and they did sound more convincing with solo guitar, violin or cello than conventional boxes and horns.

The fact is all speakers are flawed. Some also do things better than others. The real sound is gone after the recording, and the recording is all we have left of that real sound/event. There maybe certain aspects of the recording that come through better on the myriad of equipment that's out there. All hifis are in essence effects machines to the recorded sound. A small percentage of that sound may actually be represented in a exact way as the actual sound it recorded.

If there was an absolute way to reproduce the original sound scientifically, we'd have all advanced to having the exact same speakers that could do it. But nobody can agree with speakers and we have a sea of them as a result. Generally though they are box shaped and point forwards towards the listener, that's one formula that's been by far the most successful

 

[MattHooper]

The fact is all speakers are flawed. Some also do things better than others.

Agreed, that is my perception too.

However, with a caveat. If you adopt a certain goal for speakers (which of course can be well justified via research and engineering), one which many here have adopted, it's certainly easier to say some speaker are far closer to "lacking flaws" and others significantly "more flawed."

On the other hand, especially if you take a bigger picture view, or if you are thinking about how reproduced sound compares to live sound, I think that especially draws out the "some speakers do things better than others." (Or, even if we are talking about personal taste).

So for me when I'm reading speaker reviews or reports that come from someone with very specific technical expectations for a speaker, that person may hear a certain deviation from that goal or two and basically dismiss the speaker for this. Whereas that speaker, while having those flaws, may do some things that I really value, and I would not have dismissed them for certain transgressions.

This is why I personally still find some subjective reviews, and reports from other audiophiles, to be of value. If I notice someone seems to be listening for what I listen for, caring about what I care about, and noting those qualities (while acknowledging other flaws hopefully), then that gets my attention. And I've been led to quite a number of speakers I've loved by such reports.