omnidirectional loudspeakers = best design available

[livinon2wheels]

Newman is right post 524 tells you about it read the conclusion of omnis for multichannel, they are of no benefit there.

you may well be right about this...but I have never experienced a surround system done with Omnis and am really curious what it would sound like. The thing I have to decide is whether its worth the money it takes to create that system just to try it...and I am leaning away from that notion. It's financially a safer bet to go with box speakers for HT and just be done with it.

 

[Duke]

... I have never experienced a surround system done with Omnis and am really curious what it would sound like. The thing I have to decide is whether its worth the money it takes to create that system just to try it...and I am leaning away from that notion. It's financially a safer bet to go with box speakers for HT and just be done with it.

I believe that what you are describing will have degraded clarity relative to using conventional (or preferably directional) main speakers in a multichannel system. I haven't tried an omni-based surround system but my company has done a fair amount of arguably relevant in-house blind testing and what happens when you have too much reflection energy, and in particular too much early-onset reflection energy, is this: Clarity gets degraded.

One argument for fairly directional main (LRC) speakers in a multichannel system is this: Less early reflection energy, therefore better clarity without resorting to aggressive room treatment.

 

[MattHooper]

It seems few if any here have heard a surround system with high-quality omnis. A few people have though:

Michael Fremer reviewed an MBL surround system for Sound And Vision:

mbl Radialstrahler 116/121/111RC 5 Channel Surround Sound System Page 2

Home theater often doesn't allow such placement specificity since your screen or display location is probably fixed, particularly if your theater is in your living room, which is my situation. So rather than placing the 116s where they might work best, they were placed where every speaker has...

www.soundandvision.com

Since I have found Michael Fremer’s descriptions of loudspeakers I’m familiar with to be quite accurate, and having owned MBL speakers myself (he describes their character very well), I don’t have much doubt about the experience he reports here:


Some quotes:

Before we get to tonal balance, dynamics and the like, let's get one thing clear: throw away any superlatives you may have read about other speakers' abilities to create "acoustic bubbles," "seamless three-dimensionality" and the like. Nothing I've heard through the years comes close to what these mbls produce in terms of space, "acoustic bubbles," " three dimensionality", "seamlessness" and other oft-written surround sound criteria. The sound was everywhere and coming from nowhere. Yet when image specificity was called for it was there, where it belonged.

…….

The presentation of this recording by these mbl speakers was dramatically open, unforced, non-mechanical, "the floor has fallen out, the ceiling gone and the walls have disappeared" transparent, and both expansive and appropriately contained in a supremely well-defined acoustic. The REL subwoofer's contribution to the visceral bottom end shouldn't be overlooked. But it is the mbl's speed, transparency, purity, and omni-directionality which produces a sound both location-less and image specific, depending on the needs of the program material

………

In fact that's what this system did better than any other surround system I've heard, and as good as the big mbl 101 was in a two-channel setting. The Radialstrahler's omni-directional advantage really made itself felt in a multichannel system. No matter what the visual distractions in your room, even with the lights on, you can stare at the speakers and hear nothing coming out of any of them, yet the immersive illusion of reality is startlingly real.

……
Despite the center channel's unfortunate height, dialog was as natural, unforced and easy to understand as I've heard here. Male voices were free of chestiness and female voices never sounded thin, shrill or overly sibilant unless the recording was. Aside from its subjectively ideal tonal balance, the 111RC never "sounded." As with the other channels, the vocal images simply floated like a holographic bubble, with solidity and form but not with identifiable edges or etch. Whatever the measurements might show, the observational sensation was of tonal effortlessness and believability.

…….

Panned effects moved fore and aft, side to side and diagonally with unrivaled seamlessness and specificity. As far as sonic envelopment helping one to get "into" a movie, no other surround system I've heard comes close.

……..

Otherwise, this mbl system set a new surround sound standard in my home theater. Its overall performance, both tonally and especially spatially for both movies and music, was in a league of its own, and by a wide margin.

 

[Duke]

It seems a few if any here have heard a surround system with high-quality omnis. A few people have though:

Michael Fremer reviewed an MBL surround system for Sound And Vision:

mbl Radialstrahler 116/121/111RC 5 Channel Surround Sound System Page 2

Home theater often doesn't allow such placement specificity since your screen or display location is probably fixed, particularly if your theater is in your living room, which is my situation. So rather than placing the 116s where they might work best, they were placed where every speaker has...

www.soundandvision.com

Since I have found Michael Fremer’s descriptions of loudspeakers I’m familiar with to be quite accurate, and having owned MBL speakers myself (he describes their character very well), I don’t have much doubt about the experience he reports here:


Some quotes:

Before we get to tonal balance, dynamics and the like, let's get one thing clear: throw away any superlatives you may have read about other speakers' abilities to create "acoustic bubbles," "seamless three-dimensionality" and the like. Nothing I've heard through the years comes close to what these mbls produce in terms of space, "acoustic bubbles," " three dimensionality", "seamlessness" and other oft-written surround sound criteria. The sound was everywhere and coming from nowhere. Yet when image specificity was called for it was there, where it belonged.

…….

The presentation of this recording by these mbl speakers was dramatically open, unforced, non-mechanical, "the floor has fallen out, the ceiling gone and the walls have disappeared" transparent, and both expansive and appropriately contained in a supremely well-defined acoustic. The REL subwoofer's contribution to the visceral bottom end shouldn't be overlooked. But it is the mbl's speed, transparency, purity, and omni-directionality which produces a sound both location-less and image specific, depending on the needs of the program material

………

In fact that's what this system did better than any other surround system I've heard, and as good as the big mbl 101 was in a two-channel setting. The Radialstrahler's omni-directional advantage really made itself felt in a multichannel system. No matter what the visual distractions in your room, even with the lights on, you can stare at the speakers and hear nothing coming out of any of them, yet the immersive illusion of reality is startlingly real.

……
Despite the center channel's unfortunate height, dialog was as natural, unforced and easy to understand as I've heard here. Male voices were free of chestiness and female voices never sounded thin, shrill or overly sibilant unless the recording was. Aside from its subjectively ideal tonal balance, the 111RC never "sounded." As with the other channels, the vocal images simply floated like a holographic bubble, with solidity and form but not with identifiable edges or etch. Whatever the measurements might show, the observational sensation was of tonal effortlessness and believability.

…….

Panned effects moved fore and aft, side to side and diagonally with unrivaled seamlessness and specificity. As far as sonic envelopment helping one to get "into" a movie, no other surround system I've heard comes close.

……..

Otherwise, this mbl system set a new surround sound standard in my home theater. Its overall performance, both tonally and especially spatially for both movies and music, was in a league of its own, and by a wide margin.

Very interesting! Obviously not what I would have expected, THANK YOU for posting that!

(He does mention that dialogue intelligibility "suffers at low volume", but perhaps that's in contrast to the more "vocal region forward" voicing of some home theater speakers.)

 

[Newman]

Very interesting! Obviously not what I would have expected, THANK YOU for posting that!

(He does mention that dialogue intelligibility "suffers at low volume", but perhaps that's in contrast to the more "vocal region forward" voicing of some home theater speakers.)

The thing that I found interesting was that the poster holds Fremer's opinions on sound quality in high regard. There are plenty of reasons to give absolutely minimal regard to Fremer's sound quality reports. It is unwise in the extreme to suddenly elevate a Fremer report when it accords with one's own biases. The epitome of the core issue with subjective reliance.

Cheers

 

[dlaloum]

you may well be right about this...but I have never experienced a surround system done with Omnis and am really curious what it would sound like. The thing I have to decide is whether its worth the money it takes to create that system just to try it...and I am leaning away from that notion. It's financially a safer bet to go with box speakers for HT and just be done with it.

I used to run a 4.0 setup using dipole/bipole Quad electrostatic panels...

However I did have them set up so that the rear sound was diffused and partly absorbed, which allowed optimum imaging while still allowing for a spacious ambience.... the angling was such that the rear wave of sound would need to bounce off back and side walls before reaching the listening area as well, delaying it and allowing the brain to differentiate between direct and reflected - ensuring good results.

So yeah omnis and dipole/bipoles require more planning and care with regards to their placement (which is the same for their use for stereo) - where a purely directional speaker is much more forgiving of poor placement.

My current Gallo speakers are almost omni (depending on the frequencies) with a greater than 180 degree dispersion pattern from tweeter.... however they have no rear wave to speak of - still they do require more care in placement than your average "box".

This is NOT a flaw... the wide dispersion characteristics are a design feature, and were quite intentional.

But assuming you can take a room design/layout set up for highly directional speakers, and plop a set of wide dispersion speakers in the speaker locations willy nilly expecting great results, is a recipe for failure.

 

[MattHooper]

The thing that I found interesting was that the poster holds Fremer's opinions on sound quality in high regard. There are plenty of reasons to give absolutely minimal regard to Fremer's sound quality reports. It is unwise in the extreme to suddenly elevate a Fremer report when it accords with one's own biases. The epitome of the core issue with subjective reliance.

Cheers

That sound on sound link was a post for the non-dogmatist who might enjoy the report.

I realize that someone like Fremer is essentially Nosferatu to some folks.
I have experience with MBL speakers (as far as I know you don’t… and yes Newman sometimes experience does count) and he describes the characteristics beautifully. Fremer has even previously identified a fairly bizarre sounding boxy colouration in poorly set up MBL’s that I have experienced (and I doubt it is easy to predict simply from the measurements).

Fremer described the essential sound of the system, as being extremely spacious, free of the sense of the sound coming from the speakers, and enveloping. That’s exactly what you would expect from omnis.

I had used my own MBL’s occasionally as L/R speakers in my surround set up, and the character they had of spreading the sound in a way that made it feel like you’d entered the environment of the sound design was just wild. As was the incredible clarity to hearing the most of minute layers of sound effects - including on some films for which I did the sound design. I was amazed at how well I could hear the most subtle layers of ambiances I’d placed in parts of the track, and all sorts of tiny details. I personally would be thrilled for people to hear my work in that much detail. (But I only work daily on sound effects for a living, so what do I know?)

Fremer also described the excellent clarity, a general lack of obvious colouration for voices, such as chestiness, and “Pressed to describe its spectral balance on one side or the other, I'd say the system was on the warm and lush side, but with plenty of detail.”

Note that Thomas Norton identifies in the measurements a bump in the mid / upper bass that will give the speakers a warmer balance than other speakers flatter in that area.

Now, you’ve implied Fremer’s review is something like worthless. Can you make a case from the measurements that Fremer’s description of the general sonic characteristics of the system are implausible? I highly doubt it.

As I said, as somebody with quite a bit of experience of hearing MBL’s properly set up, I find Fremer does an excellent job of conveying the general characteristics of those loudspeakers. You may have personal suspicions otherwise…. but that seems to be all you’ve got.

 

[MattHooper]

But assuming you can take a room design/layout set up for highly directional speakers, and plop a set of wide dispersion speakers in the speaker locations willy nilly expecting great results, is a recipe for failure.

I’m fortunate to have a nice sounding room, a nice balance of reflection and absorption with some stealthily placed treatment. I found my omnis to be pretty much as easy to place as any other speaker in this room. I could plunk them down in various positions and get good sound. It was just up to me as to how much envelopment I wanted in terms of seating distance.

 

[dlaloum]

I’m fortunate to have a nice sounding room, a nice balance of reflection and absorption with some stealthily placed treatment. I found my omnis to be pretty much as easy to place as any other speaker in this room. I could plunk them down in various positions and get good sound. It was just up to me as to how much envelopment I wanted in terms of seating distance.

Mostly you can take a layout suitable for omnis, dipoles, or wide dispersion designs, and plonk boxes in the speaker locations, and it will sound good - but the reverse is often not true...

 

[livinon2wheels]

I used to run a 4.0 setup using dipole/bipole Quad electrostatic panels...

However I did have them set up so that the rear sound was diffused and partly absorbed, which allowed optimum imaging while still allowing for a spacious ambience.... the angling was such that the rear wave of sound would need to bounce off back and side walls before reaching the listening area as well, delaying it and allowing the brain to differentiate between direct and reflected - ensuring good results.

So yeah omnis and dipole/bipoles require more planning and care with regards to their placement (which is the same for their use for stereo) - where a purely directional speaker is much more forgiving of poor placement.

My current Gallo speakers are almost omni (depending on the frequencies) with a greater than 180 degree dispersion pattern from tweeter.... however they have no rear wave to speak of - still they do require more care in placement than your average "box".

This is NOT a flaw... the wide dispersion characteristics are a design feature, and were quite intentional.

But assuming you can take a room design/layout set up for highly directional speakers, and plop a set of wide dispersion speakers in the speaker locations willy nilly expecting great results, is a recipe for failure.

I have old pair of Signature III speakers from Legacy audio that I am probably going to use as rear surrounds due to the fact they have a rear mounted tweeter and one 10" PR mounted on the back side of the cabinet. Putting them at an angle up against the side wall but not in the rear corners of the room should allow them to create an enveloping rear sound field. Combining those with a pair of Legacy Focus SE and Silverscreen center channel should make for a quite decent base layer. Not at all sure adding atmos speakers is possible due to the sloped ceiling in that room. The 'entry fee' of doing atmos is fairly high, especially since it requires additional amplifiers and at a minimum 4 extra speakers to do it right. That easily adds probably 2000 dollars to the total cost of building the system.

 

[Hear Here]

Omnis, in theory are the right TYPE of speaker for my own room, as the dining and kitchen areas of the large semi-circular living room are behind the centrally placed speakers.

Some while ago, I arranged demos at MBL and German Physics speaker at dealers' showrooms. Yes, their spread of sound was wide, but what let both brands down was their relatively poor imaging.

Having been used to horns with their exceptional imaging (but small sweet spot), the loss of imaging outweighed the advantage of better sound from areas behind the speakers. I'll stick with my horns and perhaps the reduction of top-end detail at my dining table is in fact an advantage as conversation is less discouraged than if the sound was as good as it is from my listening chair!

 

[EJ3]

I haven't heard those speakers but Dahlquist DQ10's (while not being exactly omni, do have an inverted phase back wave which definitely sounded vastly different) than the Acoustat-X that we were also testing at that time.
The source (at the time digital was not a source for home stereos, CD's did not exist yet) was certainly not the difference because the result was the same with an AMPEX 24 track 2" tape machine,, a Technics 15" Reel to Reel and a turntable.

There were, of course differences in the FR and the distortion levels.
But the general sound of each of these 2 types of speaker in the same locations was vastly different.
And it did not matter much at all what source was used.

This is pretty wacked out, I said these things, not @MattHooper

 

[dlaloum]

I have old pair of Signature III speakers from Legacy audio that I am probably going to use as rear surrounds due to the fact they have a rear mounted tweeter and one 10" PR mounted on the back side of the cabinet. Putting them at an angle up against the side wall but not in the rear corners of the room should allow them to create an enveloping rear sound field. Combining those with a pair of Legacy Focus SE and Silverscreen center channel should make for a quite decent base layer. Not at all sure adding atmos speakers is possible due to the sloped ceiling in that room. The 'entry fee' of doing atmos is fairly high, especially since it requires additional amplifiers and at a minimum 4 extra speakers to do it right. That easily adds probably 2000 dollars to the total cost of building the system.

Typically an AVR is the cheapest way to get Atmos processing - and it comes with amplifiers for the height channels!

If you get an AVR with pre-outs, you can power your mains via power amps to get the best from them, and your heights from the AVR... the result is great sound and great value.

I run surrounds and heights on the AVR amps and front L/C/R on external amps (5.1.4) very happy with the result

 

[dlaloum]

Omnis, in theory are the right TYPE of speaker for my own room, as the dining and kitchen areas of the large semi-circular living room are behind the centrally placed speakers.

Some while ago, I arranged demos at MBL and German Physics speaker at dealers' showrooms. Yes, their spread of sound was wide, but what let both brands down was their relatively poor imaging.

Having been used to horns with their exceptional imaging (but small sweet spot), the loss of imaging outweighed the advantage of better sound from areas behind the speakers. I'll stick with my horns and perhaps the reduction of top-end detail at my dining table is in fact an advantage as conversation is less discouraged than if the sound was as good as it is from my listening chair!

As pointed out previously by those with experience with omnis/bipoles - the setup/layout has to be right.

Dealers aren't always as knowledgeable & experienced as one might assume.... (think car salesman, vs enthusiast)

 

[Hear Here]

As pointed out previously by those with experience with omnis/bipoles - the setup/layout has to be right.

Dealers aren't always as knowledgeable & experienced as one might assume.... (think car salesman, vs enthusiast)

But if the dealer has a hope in hell of selling these speakers, he must surely know how to set them up to demonstrate their abilities to knock our socks off. Otherwise he'll soon be out of business.

Why, I wonder were these top omni brands, demonstrated by different dealers in very different showrooms, so similar in their musical presentation? Both were excellent, high cost speakers and both dealers specialised in the brand they were offering. Both delivered very good sound, but both lacked the imaging capabilities (by a big margin) compared with what I've become used to. In no way could I close my eyes and point confidently towards each instrument or singer. This is what I want, as it's what I experience when I visit a live venue. But I still appreciate the principle benefit of omnis - their ability to deliver good stereo sound over a wide listening area.

 

[MattHooper]

Why, I wonder were these top omni brands, demonstrated by different dealers in very different showrooms, so similar in their musical presentation? Both were excellent, high cost speakers and both dealers specialised in the brand they were offering. Both delivered very good sound, but both lacked the imaging capabilities (by a big margin) compared with what I've become used to. In no way could I close my eyes and point confidently towards each instrument or singer. This is what I want, as it's what I experience when I visit a live venue. But I still appreciate the principle benefit of omnis - their ability to deliver good stereo sound over a wide listening area.

I find such comments puzzling, given my own experience with my omnis. I was constantly switching between them and a number of different types of loudspeakers, including speakers like my Thiels which produced just about the most focussed imaging I’ve heard from a speaker, and the Omnis held up quite well. It would be no problem at all for me to close my eyes and point directly at even minute sound sources in the sound stage.

In fact, I tended to find their imaging even more precise and descriptive in someways, than conventional speakers. There could be a better sense of separation of the Sonic images, untangling spatially images that were more congested on conventional speakers.

So I wonder where the disconnect is happening here. Part of it could be simply that my room is not overly reflective and I was able to dial in the omnis really well has an owner.

Or part of it could be as you suggest what one is used to and demanding of.

For instance, I like focussed imaging in the sense of a sonic image coming from a very specific point in the soundstage, and with a palpable sense of density to that Sonic image.

On the other hand, I find that imaging often sound too tight and constricted to me - here I’m thinking of the type of imaging you get often with hard toe in to the listener. Certainly the images focus even more in the precision of their outlines, but I finally often constrict in to something that feels more hard edged and smaller than sounds natural to me.

So with most speakers I use there is some degree of toe out to the point where I find the imaging “ relaxes” more, less reductive and hard edged.

But I don’t find it this negatively impacts imaging generally speaking - images are still solidly and specifically placed, just a little bit larger and less hard edged.

Perhaps somebody else used to more focus would find that imaging too diffuse.

Not sure, but the palpability and precision of imaging in my system is usually remarked on by guests as well…so…

 

[dlaloum]

I find such comments puzzling, given my own experience with my omnis. I was constantly switching between them and a number of different types of loudspeakers, including speakers like my Thiels which produced just about the most focussed imaging I’ve heard from a speaker, and the Omnis held up quite well. It would be no problem at all for me to close my eyes and point directly at even minute sound sources in the sound stage.

In fact, I tended to find their imaging even more precise and descriptive in someways, than conventional speakers. There could be a better sense of separation of the Sonic images, untangling spatially images that were more congested on conventional speakers.

So I wonder where the disconnect is happening here. Part of it could be simply that my room is not overly reflective and I was able to dial in the omnis really well has an owner.

Or part of it could be as you suggest what one is used to and demanding of.

For instance, I like focussed imaging in the sense of a sonic image coming from a very specific point in the soundstage, and with a palpable sense of density to that Sonic image.

On the other hand, I find that imaging often sound too tight and constricted to me - here I’m thinking of the type of imaging you get often with hard toe in to the listener. Certainly the images focus even more in the precision of their outlines, but I finally often constrict in to something that feels more hard edged and smaller than sounds natural to me.

So with most speakers I use there is some degree of toe out to the point where I find the imaging “ relaxes” more, less reductive and hard edged.

But I don’t find it this negatively impacts imaging generally speaking - images are still solidly and specifically placed, just a little bit larger and less hard edged.

Perhaps somebody else used to more focus would find that imaging too diffuse.

Not sure, but the palpability and precision of imaging in my system is usually remarked on by guests as well…so…

Well there are some standard recomendation for omni's/bipoles.... such as being 2m or more from reflective surfaces - or having surfaces that are closer than that distance be set up to absorb (curtains work well!)


The key is understanding the effect of reflected sound and handling it... via additional reflections that extend the path to the ear or absorbing...

And yeah you would think a dealer would know the expensive kit he/she is selling, and yet disappointing experiences in my past have taught me not to make that assumption.

 

[MattHooper]

Well there are some standard recomendation for omni's/bipoles.... such as being 2m or more from reflective surfaces - or having surfaces that are closer than that distance be set up to absorb (curtains work well!)


The key is understanding the effect of reflected sound and handling it... via additional reflections that extend the path to the ear or absorbing...

And yeah you would think a dealer would know the expensive kit he/she is selling, and yet disappointing experiences in my past have taught me not to make that assumption.

Yes, fair enough.

The first time I heard the big 101 MBLs was at a CES a long time ago. I was amazed by them, but I don’t think I was concentrating on imaging precision at the time.

The next time I heard them was at the house of somebody who was reviewer for the absolute sound. He had them in a small well treated room, and the imaging and general sonic realism was the spookiest thing I’d ever heard.

I then heard the 101s a couple times at dealers, where the imaging maybe wasn’t quite as precise, but still was pretty good.

I also was able to sit down for a nice long listen to the huge MBL Xtreme speakers in a dedicated room at a dealer. And I remember finding the imaging not as focused as I wanted.

But when I had my own MBLs in my room they did not leave me wanting for image precision at all.

 

[Hear Here]

I find such comments puzzling, given my own experience with my omnis. I was constantly switching between them and a number of different types of loudspeakers, including speakers like my Thiels which produced just about the most focussed imaging I’ve heard from a speaker, and the Omnis held up quite well. It would be no problem at all for me to close my eyes and point directly at even minute sound sources in the sound stage.

In fact, I tended to find their imaging even more precise and descriptive in someways, than conventional speakers. There could be a better sense of separation of the Sonic images, untangling spatially images that were more congested on conventional speakers.

So I wonder where the disconnect is happening here. Part of it could be simply that my room is not overly reflective and I was able to dial in the omnis really well has an owner.

Or part of it could be as you suggest what one is used to and demanding of.

For instance, I like focussed imaging in the sense of a sonic image coming from a very specific point in the soundstage, and with a palpable sense of density to that Sonic image.

On the other hand, I find that imaging often sound too tight and constricted to me - here I’m thinking of the type of imaging you get often with hard toe in to the listener. Certainly the images focus even more in the precision of their outlines, but I finally often constrict in to something that feels more hard edged and smaller than sounds natural to me.

So with most speakers I use there is some degree of toe out to the point where I find the imaging “ relaxes” more, less reductive and hard edged.

But I don’t find it this negatively impacts imaging generally speaking - images are still solidly and specifically placed, just a little bit larger and less hard edged.

Perhaps somebody else used to more focus would find that imaging too diffuse.

Not sure, but the palpability and precision of imaging in my system is usually remarked on by guests as well…so…

I'm intrigued by your experience with your omni speakers. I take it they are MBL, but which model?

OK. let's look at the fundamental physics that I believe should result in poor(er) imaging than for example horns.

An omni, by definition squirts out its sound equally around a 360 degree circle from the 2 speakers. This signal is inevitably reflected from the side walls resulting in a duplication of the left and right channel sound some small distance from the speakers themselves. Similarly, the rear wall (the one behind the speaker) reflects the sound such that a very small delayed sound is heard. I'd suggest that the former may confuse the imaging and the latter may reduce the impact of the signal to a small degree. These undesirable reflections could be mitigated by absorbent panels or other room treatment methods, but that needs an expert to achieve - and cost and probably a spoiling of one's room's aesthetics.

By contrast horns squirt their sound directly towards the listening chair in a narrow beam as they are generally best set up with a high degree of toe-in. Virtually nothing is sent sideways or backwards, so horns can be placed in corners with little adverse consequences - a feature unique to horns.

Perhaps you have got around the problems of reflected sound by room treatment, but that raises the question - does this not defeat much of the advantage of omnis? My own speakers are placed several meters from side and rear walls and these walls are all at odd angles, so any reflections would be minimal. I feel that omnis (that should in theory be best for my room) would still be far less good with imaging than horns. As it happens, my horns need zero room treatment and for that matter no DSP, although I'm sure the response isn't dead flat. It would be interesting for each of us to visit and listen to the other's system. I'm open to this idea if geographically achievable!

 

[MattHooper]

I'm intrigued by your experience with your omni speakers. I take it they are MBL, but which model?

MBL 121.

They were the original MBL stand mount model, they use the same Omni mid range and tweeter as their big designs. They later replaced them with a smaller version and a larger stand mountain version.

This was my pair:

Perhaps you have got around the problems of reflected sound by room treatment, but that raises the question - does this not defeat much of the advantage of omnis?

Yes, exactly the right type of questions to ask!

I have a large degree of flexibility in terms of the reflexivity of my room, at least in the mid upward. I can make it very much much on the dead side, as well as more lively. With the Omnis I had the room a little more on the dead side, but certainly not fully. Basically I dialled in to get what to my mind were the best of both worlds, or the best compromise.
I controlled reflections to the degree the imaging seemed precise enough to be satisfying, as well as keeping the tonality smooth and free of “ reflective room hash,” but enough so that the Omni characteristics of spaciousness and three dimensionality were very obvious. In fact I found I could make the room even more dead, and the Omnies still maintained their individuality from regular box speakers in my room.

One of the main features of the MBL’s are there total lack of box sound, and of course how they maintain even dispersion even off axis. Those characteristics were there no matter how dead I made the room.