Are MBL omnidirectional speakers worth the $$$?

[Duke]

I always found dialing the ambience tweeter was finding the right compromise. Turning it up increased the sense of airy spaciousness, but also started to affect the tone of the sound, sort of "whitening" it, less nuanced.

In the course of product development my little company conducted blind listening tests wherein the listener adjusted the levels of the "ambience tweeters" independent from the levels of the front-firing drivers. The adjustments were made in 1 dB increments. We found that there was a level beyond which the ambience tweeters began to degrade clarity, and in our testing multiple listeners independently arrived at the exact same dB setting for the ambience tweeters.

So imo the "compromise" you mentioned kicks in at levels where the ambience tweeter is degrading clarity; just below that threshold, the ambience tweeter is arguably beneficial with no downside, at least within the realm of home audio. I wouldn't use an ambience tweeter on a studio monitor.

 

[MattHooper]

No, that's a common misunderstanding. You have know what researchers have shown in relation to accuracy and psycoacoustics and know the polar pattern of the speaker.
FIY: This has been studied over decades.

Yes you can generalize. But there will still be different dispersion characteristics depending on the speaker used in the huge variety of recordings, as well as differences in speaker placement, room interactions etc, which means the precision that you seem to be implying isn't quite there.

So yes of course we can generally know from studies how any particular speaker in a particular set up will sound.

But the point is you don't have control of, or knowledge of, the particular speakers and set ups used in mixing/monitoring all recordings, so this "precise reproduction of the soundstage as heard in the mix" is more of a moving target that you seem to be implying. SIY was right.

It's well understood that much high gain specular energy leads to inaccuracy and is something we want to avoid in order to hear either the recorded signal as well as possible or the mix/mastering.

As I said, I've done the comparisons, and I find any characterization that the omnis inherently, significantly distorted the imaging/soundstaging of recordings to be overblown. The image placement was very similar to any number of box speakers.

 

[Axo1989]

mbl 101E Radialstrahler loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

www.stereophile.com

Wow, certainly omni (up to 7 kHz as stated) on the horizontal.

But more to my point, as I've said I swapped the MBLs in and out of my system, compared to many box speakers. I did not find any significant departure from the mix. All the elements in the tracks I've heard a million times showed up in the same places and relationships in the mix. All the same details were there. The imaging was not some big departure at all. So a sax that seemed 4 feet and a couple feet to the left of the right speaker on a box speaker would show up there on the MBLs.

I don't have listening experience on these, but given that stereo works via the holographic sonic illusion created by the interaction of two laterally displaced source channels and the listener, there's no reason why omnis can't generate a stereo image in the first instance. Arguments about narrow vs wide dispersion can come into it, and the influence of room reflections essentially, but inability to generate a stereo image (that's better than vague/fuzzy) shouldn't be assumed a priori.

I'm not arguing for omnis as a primary mixing tool, of course.

 

[NIN]

Do you need more room treatment with the MBLs than with "normal " speakers?

I would think that if one like the sound that MBL give they will not do a lot of room treatment that reduce the impact the MBL have.

 

[nerdoldnerdith]

Get speakers from Morrison Audio for a proper point source omnidirectional if that's your thing. MBL's drivers are spaced too far apart vertically and cause comb filtering in the vertical domain. A proper point source should be omnidirectional in every direction, not just horizontally.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Another cool looking omni speaker
Is there any chance it's better than the MBLs?

 

[Anton D]

Cool pics, Pearljam!

I wonder if Ohm would take this format and do an inverted set of Walsh drives like this.

 

[onslash]

I do like omnis for rear speakers in a multichannel setup, makes surround sounds more spacious. My dad owns a pair of german physiks carbon which sounded horrendous as 2 channel music listening speaker imo but are pretty impressive as rears.

 

[hvbias]

I was catching up with an online friend turned IRL friend, wishing him a Happy New Year, discussing the concerts he'd been to since we last spoke, etc. And he mentioned hearing the 101 at an owner's house and being completely stunned by the sound. I've had some lengthy conversations with him on sound quality and a couple of years ago he sold his Magico towers for D&D 8c. I'd never heard him describe any other speakers the way he was describing the 101. It was less using terms on how the speakers sounded but instead repeatedly going back to describing classical concerts he'd attended. I attend around 25-40 a year but he puts my numbers to shame. Then reading this thread I see a couple of people that have heard/owned them used nearly identical descriptors as himself. I'm in the market for two kinds of speakers, some for shared listening spaces that will have all the comprises a/w a shared space. And a set for a dedicated listening room. I'd have never in a million years considered omnis or MBLs until hearing him talk about them. 101e go a bit beyond what I would feel comfortable paying for a depreciating item but as the yoots say YOLO. Going to try and hear them this year at a dealer and I will post back. I'm pretty much 90% classical listener, 10% other.

Another thing to consider: As I remember Floyd Toole has often talked about the type of differences you hear between good and poor speaker designs. One of the problems with a poor speaker design are things like resonances, the effect of which, as Floyd points out, is to make the sound glom on to the speaker, that is, it cues that the sound is artificially resonant, and also cues our ears to the speaker as the source of that sound. It sounds "stuck to" or "stuck in, coming from" the speaker." Whereas, as he's pointed out, once you have a well designed speaker with low audible resonances, even hard L/R panned sounds, or even listening in mono (as they test speakers), the sound does not sound speakerly, doesn't sound stuck in the speaker, but seems to "float" independant of the speaker. That lack of boxy, resonant sound is pleasing, and also tends to predict the performance in stereo, in terms of the speakers "disappearing" as apparent sources of the sound, hence the sound appearing in "free space," part of a spaciousness that has been found to be one of preference-predictive factors for loudspeakers.

Agree on this point. I've owned two pairs of Harbeth speakers (most recent SHL5) that are very well loved on another audio forum run by a mastering engineer, The sound is very much "speaker sound." I've never thought they were anything else.

(FWIW, probably the next best speaker for reproducing the sense of live instruments were my Thiel 3.7 speakers, which I no longer own as they were too large aesthetically for my room).

Those speakers have quite wide directivity for most of an instrument's fundamental region (acoustic instruments), that might explain it?

Credit to @John Atkinson , Stereophile.

 

[GXAlan]

I'd have never in a million years considered omnis or MBLs until hearing him talk about them. 101e go a bit beyond what I would feel comfortable paying for a depreciating item but as the yoots say YOLO. Going to try and hear them this year at a dealer and I will post back. I'm pretty much 90% classical listener, 10% other.

I have heard the MBL 101's but it was a NY Penthouse with music that I wasn't familiar with. It sounded clear but didn't have the detail that I liked with my Magnepan MG-III's. That said, I really do wish I heard it with classical music knowing what I know now.

I don't attend a lot of classical concerts, but I do attend enough recently to do comparisons with audio gear at home in the "post-ASR era". Despite having a lot of audiophile-certified gear like Magnepan's with ribbon tweeters, JBL Synthesis and Meyer Sound speakers with high preference scores, the Bose 901 mixed with Dirac still gives me some of the best "you are at the concert hall" experience that you can get when it comes to classical music. You know the detail and high frequency resolution are missing -- and yet the spatial presentation is smile-inducing.

While you are waiting to schedule the listening with your dealer, I highly encourage you to find a pair of Bose 901 Series 6's and a way to equalize beyond the factory box and to give it a try. They're a lot more expensive online ($2500) compared to your local Craigslist, but it's such an incredible experience to pair these "audiophiles wouldn't be caught alive with them" speakers with high-end modern electronics/DSP.

 

[cavedriver]

In the course of product development my little company conducted blind listening tests wherein the listener adjusted the levels of the "ambience tweeters" independent from the levels of the front-firing drivers. The adjustments were made in 1 dB increments. We found that there was a level beyond which the ambience tweeters began to degrade clarity, and in our testing multiple listeners independently arrived at the exact same dB setting for the ambience tweeters.

So imo the "compromise" you mentioned kicks in at levels where the ambience tweeter is degrading clarity; just below that threshold, the ambience tweeter is arguably beneficial with no downside, at least within the realm of home audio. I wouldn't use an ambience tweeter on a studio monitor.

How far down from the fronts were people setting the tweeters? -6 dB -ish? lower?

 

[Duke]

How far down from the fronts were people setting the tweeters? -6 dB -ish? lower?

Measured at the listening position, the clarity-degradation threshold level for the rear-firing drivers was -12 dB relative to the front-firing drivers, using broadband pink noise.

Since we did those tests we've made some design changes and the clarity-degradation threshold now seems to be -10 dB, but we haven't confirmed that with multi-listener controlled blind testing.

 

[MattHooper]

Agree on this point. I've owned two pairs of Harbeth speakers (most recent SHL5) that are very well loved on another audio forum run by a mastering engineer, The sound is very much "speaker sound." I've never thought they were anything else.

I owned the SuperHL5plus. Really liked them. The MBLs are a totally different sound though, as you'll see.

Those speakers have quite wide directivity for most of an instrument's fundamental region (acoustic instruments), that might explain it?

Credit to @John Atkinson , Stereophile.

That's probably part of it. They, like smaller 2.7s I own with the same coax drivers, produce a very wide, even tonality - not a "head in a vice" type speaker.

I hope you get a good demo of the MBL 101Es. I was obsessed for a while, years ago, with getting MBL 101Ds - a local dealer had a floor model to sell and I spent a few different days there listening to everything I could on them. In the end, my finances went to something else. They are still an aspiration speaker for me.
I'll be very curious what you think. In the right set up, aside from their obvious traits in soundstaging and imagine, I find they are world class in terms of hearing the detail in recordings, but in a very natural unforced way. (But, again...with good set up. Being omnis they interact more with rooms, so it can be easier to make them shrill).

And BTW, if the 101Es impress you but are too rich for your blood, you could consider the MBL 120 stand mount omnis. I owned the earlier 121s, and the newer 120s go deeper in the bass and are purportedly more refined. You get a big helping of the MBL sound from those smaller stand mounts!

 

[dasdoing]

Why is it classical lovers that like these? are the recordings too dry?

 

[MattHooper]

Why is it classical lovers that like these? are the recordings too dry?

I think more than any other music, perhaps, classical is associated with "live performances" in big halls, real instruments in real acoustic space. And there is a natural layering of instrumental sections people are familiar with.

An Omni like the MBL tends to recreate the sensation of sounds occurring in real acoustic space better than most. But that I mean "uncanned" sounding, released from the speakers, sounding like the instruments are occurring in "free space," an open acoustic. And the dimensionality of the imaging can nicely mimic orchestral layering.

I also found the MBLs were more convincing in reproducing the variety of orchestral timbres than most other speakers. IMO.

 

[Keith_W]

Why is it classical lovers that like these? are the recordings too dry?

They accurately recreate the sound field of a concert hall. In fact MBL's and dipoles come closer to doing that than any monopole I have heard.

 

[hvbias]

I have heard the MBL 101's but it was a NY Penthouse with music that I wasn't familiar with. It sounded clear but didn't have the detail that I liked with my Magnepan MG-III's. That said, I really do wish I heard it with classical music knowing what I know now.

I don't attend a lot of classical concerts, but I do attend enough recently to do comparisons with audio gear at home in the "post-ASR era". Despite having a lot of audiophile-certified gear like Magnepan's with ribbon tweeters, JBL Synthesis and Meyer Sound speakers with high preference scores, the Bose 901 mixed with Dirac still gives me some of the best "you are at the concert hall" experience that you can get when it comes to classical music. You know the detail and high frequency resolution are missing -- and yet the spatial presentation is smile-inducing.

While you are waiting to schedule the listening with your dealer, I highly encourage you to find a pair of Bose 901 Series 6's and a way to equalize beyond the factory box and to give it a try. They're a lot more expensive online ($2500) compared to your local Craigslist, but it's such an incredible experience to pair these "audiophiles wouldn't be caught alive with them" speakers with high-end modern electronics/DSP.

I have heard the 101 or whatever variants throughout the years going back to 2004 but only at audio shows, and like others have mentioned they play loud electronic music. I couldn’t take anything away from them.

I’ve owned MMG and 3.5R. I have a very hard time describing them but in that listening room which was in a basement, carpeted/untreated, about 35 feet by 16 feet both times Maggies just never sounded “right” and even as dipoles the sound was in more of a flat plane, little image depth like everything was just “there” wall of sound-esque. Symphony music was a very far cry from the real thing. Contrast this against what I had come from, some $600/pair tower JBL speakers I bought when working at Best Buy that sounded rich, enveloping, and had nice depth when toed in about 20 degrees. I kept them at my parents house and after going through a half dozen speakers whenever I went back to listen to them I could never figure out why did they sound so good? Why were they better than all these audiophile speakers that got raves in fashionable waves that I was buying then dumping. Only after reading Toole’s first edition it made sense, they were just sensibly designed speakers, a small tweeter handing off to a small format midrange that went to a larger midrange/midbass followed by three 8” woofers. The directivity matching between the treble and midrange units was probably pretty good. It wasn’t trying to do goofy crap like Audio Note with a large tweeter w/o a waveguide to a massive midwoofer.

I appreciate the advice on the Bose but at this point it’s just not something I want to look into. They wouldn’t fulfill my two use cases I mentioned above - looking for a few pairs of speakers for shared spaces (speakers like Kii that can remove the room) or be “all out” enough for my dedicated system, at as a point of reference before my interest in MBL it was err’ing towards something like a Klipsch K402 except with a custom midbass horn instead of their folded horn. My thread on them is here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...402-another-controlled-directivity-horn.1120/

Toole’s book is invaluable and it has taught me so much but the listening tests on directivity is entirely about tonality, which is very easy to agree with Toole's conclusions. With what @Erin's Audio Corner has posted on measurements and how they correlate with listening I have found myself nearly in exact agreement with him about my preference for at least medium (60 degrees) radiation pattern. The MBLs with the minor issue of not having a perfect treble response (should be easy to EQ given the radiation in that region is identical 360 degrees and no crossover/directivity issues that arise when typically EQ'ing in that region) are just another extreme of VERY wide directivity and their measurements along with what a friend who I have never disagreed with on sound quality is why I am interested in the 101. Hope that long ramble made sense!

Why is it classical lovers that like these? are the recordings too dry?

I won't attempt to answer the "why," I'll leave it to the pros. I can say that I have only ever heard one symphony recording that was very dry, sounding like it was recorded in a padded room, ironically the album is an audiophile favorite. Otherwise the vast majority of classical albums are perfectly fine resonance wise, there are other things that you can nitpick about them.

 

[hvbias]

I owned the SuperHL5plus. Really liked them. The MBLs are a totally different sound though, as you'll see.



That's probably part of it. They, like smaller 2.7s I own with the same coax drivers, produce a very wide, even tonality - not a "head in a vice" type speaker.

I hope you get a good demo of the MBL 101Es. I was obsessed for a while, years ago, with getting MBL 101Ds - a local dealer had a floor model to sell and I spent a few different days there listening to everything I could on them. In the end, my finances went to something else. They are still an aspiration speaker for me.
I'll be very curious what you think. In the right set up, aside from their obvious traits in soundstaging and imagine, I find they are world class in terms of hearing the detail in recordings, but in a very natural unforced way. (But, again...with good set up. Being omnis they interact more with rooms, so it can be easier to make them shrill).

And BTW, if the 101Es impress you but are too rich for your blood, you could consider the MBL 120 stand mount omnis. I owned the earlier 121s, and the newer 120s go deeper in the bass and are purportedly more refined. You get a big helping of the MBL sound from those smaller stand mounts!

These are going to be a slow purchase decision. Hearing them at dealers as well as hopefully owner's homes. I have had great experiences when posting to boards like Audiogon and asking about speakers then either being invited by or asking others if I could hear their system, on a low estimate I would say 80% were more than happy to oblige and thanks to them have been able to hear a wide variety of systems including some real esoterica like ALE and GOTO horns.

I appreciate the info on the 120 and I will give them a listen. At this point it's more of an in for a penny in for a pound, and I intend whatever is in the main listening room to be life speakers. I can rationalize away much of the cost with just how fulfilling classical music is like being brought to tears when hearing a stunning performance of something like the second part of Mahler's Symphony 8 or Rachmaninoff's All Night Vigil. If I find something I'm thrilled with it stays, I still have Sennheiser HD580 headphones from 2003 that I use at our lake house.

 

[MarkS]

They accurately recreate the sound field of a concert hall.

I would say that they do it inaccurately, but that the "sound effect" they produce can seem more like being in a real hall than what you get from typical forward-firers.

 

[MarkS]

Measured at the listening position, the clarity-degradation threshold level for the rear-firing drivers was -12 dB relative to the front-firing drivers, using broadband pink noise.

Since we did those tests we've made some design changes and the clarity-degradation threshold now seems to be -10 dB, but we haven't confirmed that with multi-listener controlled blind testing.

Interesting. I wouldn't even know what "clarity" means for pink noise. And I never thought my bipolars (back array at 0dB) degraded "clarity" on music.