I don't see any inconsistency with what I've previously said. I interpret Toole as basically making the same point, albeit more eloquently. I'll counter your take with my own emphasis.
"Which, of course, is quite impossible with only two channels! What we hear is only hints of what might have been, as tweaked by recording and mastering engineers. Nothing approaching the original sound field is captured, stored or reproduced. An active imagination is required, and that very likely is strongly individualistic. The problem is the "system" (stereo), not the loudspeakers. This does not mean that music cannot be extremely pleasurable, but the expanded "circle of confusion", if reality is the goal, is not a circle at all. It is a dead end, so long as we stick with two channels. Let the flames begin . . ."
My point is that Omni speakers can't take music recorded and mastered for conventional stereo reproduction and recreate or "restore" it accurately to the original live performance. No speakers can, including conventional forward firing loudspeakers.
Right, we both just got done saying that. Not sure why it would have to be repeated. Seems we are essentially on the same page there.
That is if we are agreeing on that basic, academic point.
But though "perfectly accurate recreation" may be impossible, it seems we can still talk about "closer" and "further" from recreating the original sound of instruments and voices contained on a recording. Remember, breaking the original sound down in to tiny microphone vibrations, on to electrical signals, then to digits, to an analog signal to speaker drivers...it's all an illusion, right? It's never actually "real" so we can talk about which version of the illusion gets closer to the effect of hearing the live sound. And then we are right back to the pertinence of whether an omni can do as well, or better, in any sense, than the average front firing speaker. As I've said, in my experience, the omnis did it better.
And it gets down to niggly details as to what one would accept as getting closer to "reproducing the experience produced by the original live instrument/voice." I recorded myself playing acoustic guitar parts that me and my other musician pals always loved. So when one of my musian friends would come over sometimes I'd take the opportunity to do the live vs reproduced test with the speakers I had at the time - he'd play the part I'd recorded, sitting between the speakers with me at the listening position eyes closed, and then I'd play the recording, just to compare and analyze the difference between live vs reproduced. The guitar recording played through the omnis sounded most like the real guitar in the room.
Further, my son used to practice sax both in the basement and sometimes in my listening/multi-purpose room. So I was used to hearing that sax playing from outside the room, just a little down the hall. I wanted to see how close I could re-create that and recorded him practicing. I'd play it back on every speaker I owned over the years and NOTHING sounded more like the real thing coming out of that room than the omnis. It just sounded like it did, indeed, recreate the "live performance" that I was so used to hearing. And as I mentioned, I fooled a few people who thought it was my son playing sax in another room.
So if we are talking about whether a speaker can "recreate the live performance" - the sound of the live instrument being played in front of the mics, rather than what the mic heard - I don't see how my direct experience testing this phenomenon doesn't bear on the question. The omni I owned did better than all the forward firing speakers I owned. Doesn't mean a forward firing speaker doesn't exist that might do better. But the omni sure seemed to get there more effortlessly than the many speakers I've owned.
People who state that this magic is somehow possible either don't understand what they're talking about or are drinking their own cool aid.
Possible like what? Like being able to recreate such a close approximation of the live sound that it sounds live, and can even fool people?
Actually: been there, done that. No cool-aid was necessary; only experience testing the hypothesis. From outside the room it was close to perfect. From inside my room at the seated position it was less perfectly convincing, but BETTER than the forward facing speakers. And since no one is arguing about "perfect" but rather if one may get "closer" to the live sound, that is pertinant. Have you actually tested these things yourself? I do get the feeling you are speaking more from theory than experience (?)
Alternatively, the benefit of conventional forward firing loudspeakers is that you get to listen to the music through the same type of setup that it was mastered and approved on by the artist who created it. Being that most music is made in a studio this way you have a much higher chance of hearing it as it was intended to be heard by the artist who created and released it. Throwing Omni into that chain adds permanent embellishment to the entire system.
Again: That's a sweeping generalization. There's nuances here.
The "embellishment" you credit to the omni no doubt are the room reflections. But in the big picture, that's the case with virtually ALL speakers, which interact with the room.
And rooms are different. So it's going to depend on the speaker type, the type of room (size, how live/dead surfaces), listener position to the speaker (far or nearfield for direct sound?).
You could play an omni in an acoustically "dead" room, and even include listening more in near-field, and you'll be percieving predominantly direct sound. Whereas you could take a forward firing loudspeaker in a very "live" room, sit further and soak in much more "embellishment" by way of room reflections than the omni set up described.
In fact...I've done just that. I can make my room much more dead than the average room, and I often sat very close to my omnis, and the sound was more precise, direct and accurate sounding than plenty of forward firing speakers I've listened to in big, live rooms with lots of room sound.
So this sweeping "omnis do this/forward firing speakers don't" thing you've got going in terms of coloration is, I suggest, just too simplistic.
And as I said, your claim the omnis won't sound "as the artist heard it" 1. goes down the rabbit hole, since you don't have the room and speakers the artist used. 2. Is someone's forward firing speaker set up in their live room listened at a distance automatically "less embellished" than my omni in my more dead room listened nearfield? Is he in a position to say "
YOU opted for embellishment of the sound by choosing omnis. I chose an accurate pair of forward firing speakers, so I'm the one hearing the signal with the least embellishment!" ? I don't see how, if by "embellisment" one is simply referring to the audible addition of room sound. And, as I mentioned, having actually compared the omnis many times to forward firing speakers, I did not hear any major departure in the details of the mix or any of the artistic elements.
. Erin's description of the Bose 901(not the bad tonality part) kinda reminded me of my experience with the MBLs. It's a sound that's hard to dislike, even though it sounds far from "real"(imo). I've heard Ohms too, but supposedly they're not true omnis.
