omnidirectional loudspeakers = best design available

[MattHooper]

From much earlier in the thread….

This is ONE VERSION of creating the illusion of live music. This might be called the "They Are Here" experience.

Actually this is exactly what I'm talking about. It is the OTHER VERSION of creating the illusion of live music, and might be called the "You Are There" experience.

I'm not saying the one's right and the other's wrong, but they are different end goals that call out different priorities.

Duke am I correct and that you personally are going for the "You Are There" experience?

That’s what I’m going for.

When I go for the “ they are here” experience - which I find I get the more I let reflections of my room come in to play - I think it’s really neat when it happens. There’s a very “ live” field to the sound that I can really appreciate.

But ultimately at least in my situation, I find there can be a bit too much trade-off in terms of how the room reflections start to homogenize things like instrumental timber.
And to some degree homogenize the acoustics between recordings (though I wouldn’t want to exaggerate that proposition because even with fairly high reflectivity recording still clearly come with their own ambiance and reverb).

I absolutely love the nature of different recordings and different reverbs and different ambiance. So I want to preserve the different nature of recordings as much as possible - I really want the specific acoustics or reverbs to come through and describe the record recording - while also having some aspects of “ live sound.”

So generally, my ideal is something like the specific recordings shape shift my room to take me to those different venues… or even take me to abstract, artificial reverb settings if that’s the nature of the recording. (for instance tons of my electronic music is obviously artificial in this sense.).

But within the reverb or acoustic presented, I like voices and instruments to have a sense of reality. So my ideal is the sense of hearing a totally different acoustic in each recording, but also within that acoustic hearing “ live instruments and voices.”

And part of that is also dealing with the nature of reverbs and acoustics on various recordings. Microphones can colour and deform sound. Not only in the case of the instruments themselves, but in how they capture the reverb and acoustics around that sound. (as somebody who has recorded countless live sounds and tried to capture all sorts of different natural acoustics for a living, I’m making aware of this)

So very often I find myself aware of (especially in older recordings) how the special quality of the reverb around an instrument sounds sort of hardened and deformed, almost embalmed in Amber. It doesn’t “ breathe” naturally around the object. When I close my eyes and I listen to real sound sources in real acoustics, there’s no sense, with the exception of perhaps a very small reflective room,of some hard boundary of the reverb or acoustic around the sound source. It just seems to exist freely in an expansive acoustic.

This is where Omnis and bipoles and dipoles can re-create some of that effect more effortlessly than the average front rate in loudspeaker.

It’s a bit more difficult to achieve with standard speakers, so that’s what I’m still going for with my current speakers.

When I get the balance of reflectivity in my room correct along with speaker positioning and my listening orientation that’s essentially what I get - something like a sense of transportation to the space suggested by the recording, with the spatial presentation feeling relaxed and open more like the real thing, but with the sense of live instruments performing within that acoustic.

As I’ve mentioned before, previously it was by playing around a lot more with sidewall reflections that I would go between the “ they are here” and “ I am there” effect. But more recently with my speakers up closer and spread wide and and cutting down more side wall reflections, I get more of the subtlety and nuance of the recorded, acoustic or artificial reverbs as well as the nuance of instrumental timber, but placing that curved diffuser in the middle of the speakers livens up the instruments in the recording and gives them more density, while still preserving the subtle acoustics that maintain “ I am there” vibe.

Last night I was listening to Gavin Bryars Farewell To Philosophy, Especially some tracks with tuned percussion instruments playing very lightly.

Whether I had my eyes open or closed, the presentation was not of a distinct acoustic between the loudspeakers from the room I was sitting in, but rather like the room beyond the speakers simply became the acoustic in that recording. There is no particular boundary between the room, I was sitting in versus where the acoustic in the recording stopped. It just felt like I was hearing right in to a deep wide open, acoustic with almost boundless depth in which people were playing subtle tuned, percussion instruments, bells, and cymbals. That kind of stuff is so satisfying it makes the whole journey worthwhile for me.

I would also say that even as I’m enjoying my current set up for this effect, it’s the kind of thing where you can think “ wow regular directional speaker speakers can achieve this too!” But it’s when you introduce an Omni into the same room and then you realize “ there are levels” and the Omni just seems to do it even more effortlessly. At least some aspects.

But apparently you’ve had omnis so I wonder if you feel similarly. (I can’t remember which model.)

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Gavin Bryars Farewell To Philosophy

good record

 

[Thomas_A]

From much earlier in the thread….






Duke am I correct and that you personally are going for the "You Are There" experience?

That’s what I’m going for.

When I go for the “ they are here” experience - which I find I get the more I let reflections of my room come in to play - I think it’s really neat when it happens. There’s a very “ live” field to the sound that I can really appreciate.

But ultimately at least in my situation, I find there can be a bit too much trade-off in terms of how the room reflections start to homogenize things like instrumental timber.
And to some degree homogenize the acoustics between recordings (though I wouldn’t want to exaggerate that proposition because even with fairly high reflectivity recording still clearly come with their own ambiance and reverb).

I absolutely love the nature of different recordings and different reverbs and different ambiance. So I want to preserve the different nature of recordings as much as possible - I really want the specific acoustics or reverbs to come through and describe the record recording - while also having some aspects of “ live sound.”

So generally, my ideal is something like the specific recordings shape shift my room to take me to those different venues… or even take me to abstract, artificial reverb settings if that’s the nature of the recording. (for instance tons of my electronic music is obviously artificial in this sense.).

But within the reverb or acoustic presented, I like voices and instruments to have a sense of reality. So my ideal is the sense of hearing a totally different acoustic in each recording, but also within that acoustic hearing “ live instruments and voices.”

And part of that is also dealing with the nature of reverbs and acoustics on various recordings. Microphones can colour and deform sound. Not only in the case of the instruments themselves, but in how they capture the reverb and acoustics around that sound. (as somebody who has recorded countless live sounds and tried to capture all sorts of different natural acoustics for a living, I’m making aware of this)

So very often I find myself aware of (especially in older recordings) how the special quality of the reverb around an instrument sounds sort of hardened and deformed, almost embalmed in Amber. It doesn’t “ breathe” naturally around the object. When I close my eyes and I listen to real sound sources in real acoustics, there’s no sense, with the exception of perhaps a very small reflective room,of some hard boundary of the reverb or acoustic around the sound source. It just seems to exist freely in an expansive acoustic.

This is where Omnis and bipoles and dipoles can re-create some of that effect more effortlessly than the average front rate in loudspeaker.

It’s a bit more difficult to achieve with standard speakers, so that’s what I’m still going for with my current speakers.

When I get the balance of reflectivity in my room correct along with speaker positioning and my listening orientation that’s essentially what I get - something like a sense of transportation to the space suggested by the recording, with the spatial presentation feeling relaxed and open more like the real thing, but with the sense of live instruments performing within that acoustic.

As I’ve mentioned before, previously it was by playing around a lot more with sidewall reflections that I would go between the “ they are here” and “ I am there” effect. But more recently with my speakers up closer and spread wide and and cutting down more side wall reflections, I get more of the subtlety and nuance of the recorded, acoustic or artificial reverbs as well as the nuance of instrumental timber, but placing that curved diffuser in the middle of the speakers livens up the instruments in the recording and gives them more density, while still preserving the subtle acoustics that maintain “ I am there” vibe.

Last night I was listening to Gavin Bryars Farewell To Philosophy, Especially some tracks with tuned percussion instruments playing very lightly.

Whether I had my eyes open or closed, the presentation was not of a distinct acoustic between the loudspeakers from the room I was sitting in, but rather like the room beyond the speakers simply became the acoustic in that recording. There is no particular boundary between the room, I was sitting in versus where the acoustic in the recording stopped. It just felt like I was hearing right in to a deep wide open, acoustic with almost boundless depth in which people were playing subtle tuned, percussion instruments, bells, and cymbals. That kind of stuff is so satisfying it makes the whole journey worthwhile for me.

I would also say that even as I’m enjoying my current set up for this effect, it’s the kind of thing where you can think “ wow regular directional speaker speakers can achieve this too!” But it’s when you introduce an Omni into the same room and then you realize “ there are levels” and the Omni just seems to do it even more effortlessly. At least some aspects.

But apparently you’ve had omnis so I wonder if you feel similarly. (I can’t remember which model.)

For those experiences, "they are here" or "I am there", I mostly have the "they are here" experience. Most of the music I listen to are pure studio productions and I actually prefer to be at home, pretending they are in a room in front of me, rather than pretending sitting in a studio every time I listen. A few live recording are good enough to let the surround speakers play getting a bit more venue hall reflections and I "I am there" feeling though.

 

[Arindal]

If Omni radiation pattern is “ wrong wrong wrong” and non-preferred, why did the Mirage speakers do so well in double blind comparisons in a small room?

I have a theory why is that so, and this is arising doubts about which sense simple preference tests make:

If you define the reference for reproduction quality as being as close as possible to the sound in the studio control room, ideally judged by the recording engineers themselves, from technical point, or ask participants in tests about their evaluation of separated parameters of sound quality (such as localization, proximity, dynamics), omnis in most of cases will not meet the ideal, as they tend to lead to dominant indirect sound, hence creating some sort of effect-laden sound in the listening room (which I do not like at all, others might). They are incapable of reproducting a dry-recorded voice in the ´sounds like center speaker´ manner in terms of precision, proximity and stability.

If you do, on the other hand, a subjective preference test, with recordings unknown to the participants (particularly non-acoustic recordings), under acoustic circumstances unfamiliar to them (room RT60, listening, distance, speaker layout), asking the sole question ´do you subjectively like setup A, B or C the most?´, chances are pretty high that certain effects, as caused by omnis, will succeed and be rated highest, while technically ideal speakers might be dismissed.

The latter might sound surprising, but my personal explanation for that would be that listening test participants, unless they are recording engineers judging their own material, tend to prefer a more ´live-like´, less precise reverb and imaging, reduced proximity and usually choose the least annoying variant. The strongest examples I have found in groups of listeners preferring classical music (or being into recording thereof), being presented pop music examples. If reproduced correctly, they find it highly annoying, particularly the proximity and directness. This is not a new phenomenon. Dr. Bose has basically figured out the same in the 1960s, leading to his famous or infamous 901 concept. Dr. Toole has confirmed a similar mechanism at play, interestingly he, like Dr. Bose, seemingly preferred this blurred omni-effects for classical music. We should note that in the 1960s and 1980s, when these episodes took place, many speakers did show a surprising number of flaws when it comes to reproducing classical music, and many listeners would have in general perceived this as annoying or not natural.

So where would that take us, if my hypothesis would be correct?

 

[RexrothPigeon]

If you do, on the other hand, a subjective preference test, with recordings unknown to the participants (particularly non-acoustic recordings), under acoustic circumstances unfamiliar to them (room RT60, listening, distance, speaker layout), asking the sole question ´do you subjectively like setup A, B or C the most?´, chances are pretty high that certain effects, as caused by omnis, will succeed and be rated highest, while technically ideal speakers might be dismissed.

Where can I find the results of these studies?

 

[Mnyb]

Interesting . As an amateur in audio i have noticed overconfidence/blind faith in what an stereo recording actually is capable of and what's possible, in other audiophiles ( and my younger self ) Some seems to believe that stereo record encodes a correct full 3D soundscape just waiting to be revealed trough the coveted "imaging" that your loudspeakers are supposed to have . When in reality its a combination of clever production values making the recording "work" ( microphones are not ears ) and the listening acoustics and the speakers themselves ? In a way actually a simulation of the events ?
The fact that microphones both miss things and also picks up stuff no one heard at venue or want to hear at the same time, and its up to clever recording engineers to make this work ( microphone selection and placement or production tools ).

Audiophiles seems to not want to know what's in the sausage

I've actually never seen this presented to lay person ( like myself ) in an easy to digest manner ? whats what and what goes into to making this " effect ", that we somehow are capable of extrasting some kind of feel off soundstage or presence when we are listening even pinpoint on some recordings ?

For example I find my KEF LS60 quite precise in their presentation , on a dry recording its pinpoint. No one has 2 meter wide lips when singing but the "scene" is between the speakers and slightly outside of them like a diorama of sort . Why does it work this way ?

 

[DanielT]

Consider that TOOLE WROTE:

“As I describe in the 3rd edition - Section 7.4.6 - I purchased a pair of nearly omnidirectional Mirage M1s for my large, somewhat live, classical "concert hall" - the largest I could afford at the time . They did well in small room double-blind tests at the NRCC,”

If Omni radiation pattern is “ wrong wrong wrong” and non-preferred, why did the Mirage speakers do so well in double blind comparisons in a small room?

Not to mention why would Toole himself choose them as his own loudspeakers for a long time and enjoy the presentation?

(Hint; because Toole has a more nuanced understanding of the data, along with personal experience with a good omni , and so hasn’t adopted an irrational anti-Omni vendetta).



As I mentioned before: I have a very good surround system - my room having been renovated for a surround home theatre set up employing a professional acoustician who designed a number of our expensive POST PRODUCTION mixing studios as well as high-end home theatres. I’ve been told by some other Home theatre contractors that mine was one of the best consumer surround set ups they had experienced in terms of rich sound and envelopment.

But I also had the MBL omnis to play with for about 10 years, in the same room.

And when I tried using the MBLs as the L/R speakers for my surround set up, the effect was just fantastic. There was a very distinct jump in the sense of realism in all sorts of content. No sense of the sound coming from loudspeakers at all. And the spread of many background and atmosphere sounds around the projection screen became intensely realistic, like the air and atmosphere of that scene simply merged into the room.

It really had me thinking about what it would be like to replace all of the Home theatre loudspeakers with the MBLs.

This is one reason why I was so interested to read a report from Michael Fremer who got to live with a fully omnidirectional sound system from MBL . The system used larger MBLs for L/R but used the same 121 MBL model I owned for all the surround speakers.

I personally have not been able to find anybody reporting on the experience of a full Omni surround system except this report.
And given my own experience with the MBLs as part of my surround system, I’m not surprised at all by the type of experience MF describes.

If, say IF a pair of omnis in my small living room would:
1. Create a room-filling large soundstage.
A feeling that the sound/room seems bigger.
2. If omnis makes it harder to localize the sound coming from the speakers (I hate that) vs. non-omnis.

If that is fulfilled then I am prepared to compromise on the disadvantages omnis can create (poor Imaging and focus ans so on).
How much I am willing to give up? I don't know. The only thing is to test in practice. Which is not the easiest because the market is not flooded with good omnis that are not ridiculously expensive.

But, a pair of the aforementioned used Mirage M1 can be had for a not outrageously high price so I could consider testing a pair of those.

Mirage M-1 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 3: Measurements Looking first at the manner in which the M-1's impedance changes with frequency (fig.1), the moderate peaks at 455Hz and 2500Hz are presumably due to the midrange and tweeter crossover filters. Overall, the M-1 should be relatively easy to drive, though the droop in the...

www.stereophile.com

Edit:
Or maybe not fully omni but something in between, dipoles I could imagine.

I had a pair of OA 5 type 2 a few years ago. Vintage, omni-like speakers:
(not mine in the pictures)

But the old Philips 9710 woofer had lost its performance, plus the around 50 year old tweeters had probably lost their vigor. They sounded awful so I'm counting out that particular omni test.

 

[Arindal]

when listen to various classical music recordings from 1970-1990 on my KH120 in nearfield, I can easily pin point in the 2D-sound field the position of each wind, brass players even when they sit close to each other or the position of viola, cello, violin section in point. This kind of imaging is IMHO a product of mixing and unlike the experience I have in concert. But many people are fonds with that and for them omni directional speaker is no imaging.

this overprecise imaging is my issue with a lot of recordings. Recently I was trying out different recordings of Beethoven's 9th.... then the soloists show up in the last movement, and suddenly they're 5 feet in front of me. Not remotely like what I would hear in any actual hall.

I think we should separate several perceived phenomena when it comes to imaging of stereo speakers:

- localization precision (what you call ´pin point accuracy´)
- localization stability (with both change in frequency and listening position)
- envelopment/ambience of the phantom sources (aka ´air around the singers/instruments´)
- depth-of-field / proximity
- envelopment of the listeners

It is clear that some of these, both for mixing and reproducing recordings, are contradicting each other to a certain degree and cannot be fully achieved at the same time. Omni speakers in my understanding tend to highlight envelopment of both types, and reduce proximity and precision. What you both describe, sounds very much like a primate of localization precision, while other aspects suffer, which seemingly is the extreme opposite position to omnis.

I would personally prefer a compromise between the five aspects which a highlight on localization stability, ambience around phantom sources and depth-of-field.

So how it that possible? First and foremost, the mixing engineer must have had similar ideals. If a recording is either drowning in reverb (as preferred for example by ´Prof.´ Johnson and the late Mr. Nishimura) or is bone-dry (like a lot of stuff from the 1970s and early 1980s (Hello, Mr. Orff, Kegel, Britten, Boulez, Eichhorn et al.!), there is no way a reproduction system of any kind can change that without major drawbacks.

Secondly, I found a good balance between direct and indirect sound, both in level and tonality, to be helpful, as well as a sufficiently diffuse reflection pattern in the room, and speakers which do not add any imaging confusion (compact coaxials are an obvious solution, but not the only one).

want the sound to be as close as possible to what I would hear in the audience (at some seat in some hall) at a live performance of the same material.

Get yourself a Dolby Atmos system and discrete material for that format. Or at least decent 5.1 recordings from record labels who have mastered this technology for a long time (Can give recommendations). You would not be able to achieve this with stereo recordings, particularly not with older ones. It is technically not possible, and it is a contradiction to the ideals which the vast majority of recording engineers were following when mixing these recordings.

Is that the same as what's heard (over speakers?) in the studio control room?

It is actually not. Most of studio control rooms offer with stereo recordings a higher degree of localization precision/stability, but very reduced listener envelopment.

Recorded digitally in 1978

Gave it a quick listen on headphones, and I am pretty sure this is not a one-point recording, as I hear typical spot microphone panning on the flutes, tubas and some percussions. Depth-of-field is extreme, particularly between ´close up´ strings/flutes/trumpets and horns/reed/tympany/double basses very far away, and I don´t find the balance convincing. Will give it a listen on studio monitors later, but my guess would be this is a live-mixdown with a limited number of microphones, typical for a quick on-localition live broadcast, which corresponds with the fact it was an early digital recording before multi-track recorders became available.

 

[ShadowFiend]

@Arindal :

In my experience, with good omni / dipole speaker in their prefered position in the room, those four qualities are great:
+ localization stability (with both change in frequency and listening position),
+ envelopment/ambience of the phantom sources (aka ´air around the singers/instruments´),
+ depth-of-field / proximity,
+ envelopment of the listeners
Of those four, envelopment of the listeners and envelopment/ambience of the phantom sources can be achieve with wide directivity conventional speaker with diffusion treatment. But the depth-of-field and localization stability is the ones that makes omni/dipole standout.

They suffer a little from localization precision. But it is IMHO not a problem with certain types of music.

So how it that possible? First and foremost, the mixing engineer must have had similar ideals. If a recording is either drowning in reverb (as preferred for example by ´Prof.´ Johnson and the late Mr. Nishimura) or is bone-dry (like a lot of stuff from the 1970s and early 1980s (Hello, Mr. Orff, Kegel, Britten, Boulez, Eichhorn et al.!), there is no way a reproduction system of any kind can change that without major drawbacks.

I agree with you on this thing. No perfect, best-for-all-world speaker exist, it must depend on personal taste, music types, recordings technique. That is why I am building another speaker now. It is a big 18" constant directivity horn plus 10" mid in passiv cardioid plus subs. Its directivity will be narrow to work with full-of-reverb recordings or when I want to experience with laser-like precision, while my existing dipole can work with the rest.

Get yourself a Dolby Atmos system and discrete material for that format. Or at least decent 5.1 recordings from record labels who have mastered this technology for a long time (Can give recommendations). You would not be able to achieve this with stereo recordings, particularly not with older ones. It is technically not possible, and it is a contradiction to the ideals which the vast majority of recording engineers was following when mixing these recordings.

Then how about 99% of music in stereo. Most of us who are into audio because we are music lovers, not sonic lovers. And one of our goals is to reproduce sound of those recordings in the most convincing manner possible. Multichannel music done right is great in terms of sonic, but not all of them are satisfied in terms of musicality as stereo recordings.

 

[Mnyb]

I think what Arindal meant is that certain qualities are simply not there in the recording itself ie there is nothing to "reproduce", if HiFi are about reproducing the recording ?
And that it can be a unicorn chase to try to get some aspect out of a stereo system that's simply not there in program material . The speakers would then practically "fake" this effect and it could be hit and miss more so than normal if ever achieved ?

 

[ShadowFiend]

Then my question is that if those certain qualities is not there because it has absolutely zero in recordings or because the one who makes it does not have a tool to realize it.

 

[Arindal]

But the depth-of-field and localization stability is the ones that makes omni/dipole standout.

While we agree on the other assessment, this is really not what I have experienced with omnis. I personally found the localization stability oftentimes compromised with phantom source wandering with the listener´s position being slightly changed (which might have to to with side-wall reflections and mirrored phantom localization). Furthermore, I never heard an omni setup which would deliver satisfying proximity and accurate depth-of-field, to me it usually appears to be overly distant. The latter is true to dipoles as well, although their localization stability can be much better thanks to suppressed side wall reflections.

No perfect, best-for-all-world speaker exist, it must depend on personal taste, music types, recordings technique.

I agree wholeheartedly, but I wonder why this whole topic is oftentimes discussed from the point of the extremes. I think, there should be more room for actual compromises bringing all the ideals of good images into balance, and such products and solutions do exist.

Multichannel music done right is great in terms of sonic, but not all of them are satisfied in terms of musicality as stereo recordings.

As we mainly talk about classical music, I would say the catalogue of very good multichannel/immersive recordings is sufficient to always find an appropriate interpretation. At least for mainly instrumental music, preferences for certain singers and choirs, when it comes to oratorio, opera or Lied, naturally might vary.

Then how about 99% of music in stereo. Most of us who are into audio because we are music lovers, not sonic lovers. And one of our goals is to reproduce sound of those recordings in the most convincing manner possible.

As mentioned: if you accept the inherent limitations of 2-channel stereo (like limited listener envelopment), and aim for an ideal balance between the imaging properties I tried to draft, stereo recordings can be very satisfying, enjoyable, and to a certain point plausibly realistic (not hyperrealistic, though). I just don´t think it makes sense to aim for an ideal like ´live-like, enveloping concert hall ambience´, which simply cannot be achieved by stereo reproduction because the necessary information is not in the recording. Of course, everyone is free to listen to all recordings with own preferred effects applied.

if those certain qualities is not there because it has absolutely zero in recordings or because the one who makes it does not have a tool to realize it.

Don´t quite understand your question. Two channel stereo is a limited tool by itself.

 

[ShadowFiend]

While we agree on the other assessment, this is really not what I have experienced with omnis. I personally found the localization stability oftentimes compromised with phantom source wandering with the listener´s position being slightly changed (which might have to to with side-wall reflections and mirrored phantom localization). Furthermore, I never heard an omni setup which would deliver satisfying proximity and accurate depth-of-field, to me it usually appears to be overly distant. The latter is true to dipoles as well, although their localization stability can be much better thanks to suppressed side wall reflections.

That is what our taste is differ. For me, depth-of-field by omni/dipole speaker when placing in correct position is appropriated why monopole speakers is still too 2D.

I agree wholeheartedly, but I wonder why this whole topic is oftentimes discussed from the point of the extremes.

Yes, the extremes in this thread is quite challenging. It is understandable, since omni speaker are either too cheap or broken (Bose, some wireless speaker like Samsung R6) or quite high price if good, not too mention the difficulty in placement of them in room, so experience with them can in many cases misleading and lead to strong reaction.

I think, there should be more room for actual compromises bringing all the ideals of good images into balance, and such products and solutions do exist.

I think it depends from each people's perspective. Best for both world can also be worst for both world. I like the soundstage and imaging my dipole speakers bring to majority of my music collection, and no conventional speaker setup I have tried can do the same. But on certain music material and in certain mood, my dipole speaker is not enough. So, for my perspective, I need another speaker with different directivity characteristic to enjoy my music collection to the level I want and acting as a new LR speaker for my atmos system. Of course, I am an diyer and a EE with decent knowledge in acoustics, and pretty young too, so this is durable for me.

Other people, who need to purchase speakers and have limited resources, will think otherwise.

As we mainly talk about classical music, I would say the catalogue of very good multichannel/immersive recordings is sufficient to always find an appropriate interpretation. At least for mainly instrumental music, preferences for certain singers and choirs, when it comes to oratorio, opera or Lied, naturally might vary.

For certain repertoires, there are many multichannel/immersive recordings are great, even better than in the past and I enjoy them greatly. But for certain repertoires like romantic symphonic music, Beethoven for example, I prefer the performances from wartime 1940s to 1970 than in recent times. Not to mention Mravinsky's Tchaikovsky, Bernstein/Tennstedt's Mahler, Richter, Horowitz, young Argerich, Oistrakh, Heifetz, young Callas, which I find them unique and can not be repeated.

As mentioned: if you accept the inherent limitations of 2-channel stereo (like limited listener envelopment), and aim for an ideal balance between the imaging properties I tried to draft, stereo recordings can be very satisfying, enjoyable, and to a certain point plausibly realistic (not hyperrealistic, though). I just don´t think it makes sense to aim for an ideal like ´live-like, enveloping concert hall ambience´, which simply cannot be achieved by stereo reproduction because the necessary information is not in the recording. Of course, everyone is free to listen to all recordings with own preferred effects applied.

That is what we are differ. I want the best possible rather than try to compromise. I want best possible ´live-like, enveloping concert hall ambience´ with reasonable imaging similarly to what I experience at concert, that is why I go with dipole as the main speaker. If the music material is not too suitable with my main speaker, then I will make another design with different concept to compensate for that.

And of course, a good atmos setup is definitely needed and actually what I am building now.

 

[Arindal]

For me, depth-of-field by omni/dipole speaker when placing in correct position is appropriated why monopole speakers is still too 2D.

It is perfectly fine that tastes differ when it comes to depth-of-field and desired proximity, not trying to persuade anyone.

One remark regarding your ´too 2D´ comment: I kind of sense what you mean, and I am also sensitive to phantom sources appearing either overly proximate to the listener, or having this kind of artificial, overly narrow, overly monaural, pinpoint appearance ´in a vacuum´, without proper enveloping reverb, if that makes sense. Many speakers with midrange-heavy reverb of narrowing directivity have such tendencies (horns, big waveguides and coaxials without proper implementation). There are conventional speakers, though, which very much deliver on this ´realistic depth-of field´, ´phantom sources enveloped by natural reverb´, resembling an omni ambience. Of course, proper room treatment with diffusion and reduced discrete side-wall reflections, helps as well. If you are interested, maybe you want to try something like Magico, MEG, TAD Labs or Eve Audio.

 

[jutell]

Have lived with Shahinian speakers for over40 years as well as EPI's in "polydirectional" design. I think they reproduce a performance illusion better than any other speaker I've had or auditioned except MBL's which I can't afford but love.

 

[Thomas_A]

I prefer a bit distant sound since I get the feeling that the room gets deeper/bigger. Not a fan of sound that gets "too close" into the listening room/space. I want imaging a bit behind the speakers. I guess these things are down to personal preference, again, and that there exists a scale from the no reflection/pin point imaging to the diffuse/bigger/wider imaging.

 

[MattHooper]

Interesting . As an amateur in audio i have noticed overconfidence/blind faith in what an stereo recording actually is capable of and what's possible, in other audiophiles ( and my younger self ) Some seems to believe that stereo record encodes a correct full 3D soundscape just waiting to be revealed trough the coveted "imaging" that your loudspeakers are supposed to have . When in reality its a combination of clever production values making the recording "work" ( microphones are not ears ) and the listening acoustics and the speakers themselves ? In a way actually a simulation of the events ?
The fact that microphones both miss things and also picks up stuff no one heard at venue or want to hear at the same time, and its up to clever recording engineers to make this work ( microphone selection and placement or production tools ).

Audiophiles seems to not want to know what's in the sausage

Since I have been in bands that I’ve recorded in the studio, and my day job involves recording sounds and creating soundtracks for movies on TV, I make a lot of sausages myself

So I’m aware of the artificiality of the endeavour. But of course, while sometimes we aren’t going for a natural sound, often enough we are employing artificial means in order to make something sound more natural than it otherwise would.

But I find that whether a recording has been specifically made to sound more natural, or like the sound of real instruments and voices in real acoustics, or whether no such thought has gone into a recording, aspects of realism still arise nonetheless.



In order to enjoy, the relevance of reproduced sound to sounds in real life, I don’t require perfection or absolutism. Even in recordings that have obviously artificial elements, they can still be certain aspects of realism. Like it might be a pop song or an indie song that’s heavily processed, but then there might be an acoustic guitar that shows up in the mix and I can feel “ yeah that sounds very much like when an acoustic guitar really sounds like!”



I’ve got an extensive collection of old Library/Production music from the 70s. It’s pre-recorded music content creators could buy to apply to their movies or TV shows or commercials or whatever. None of it was recorded with a Chesky-like intent for audiophiles to feel like they’re at a live performance.

And yet plenty were beautifully recorded, and produced the sensation of hearing something like real instruments laid out in space performing.



And as I said, sometimes only certain elements in recording can take on realism. I’ve mentioned before the live recording of Astrud Gilberto performing girl from Ipanema live. It’s a strange recording.
Joao Gilberto starts off singing and playing his guitar quietly shoved into the left channel.

The drums are all shoved into the right channel and are not spatially arranged in anything like realism.



But Joao Gilberto can sound “ right there” singing in the room to you from the left speaker, and holy cow, when Astrud begins singing, she’s close and dry mic’d, and she just beams into your room in the most vivid way. And the spread of applause can sound quite natural. As well as Stan Getz’s soft sax solo con sound big and rich and coming from some distance in a rich acoustic. Despite not having been recorded in a fully naturalistic fashion, this is still one of the tracks I’ve played for many people who have been shocked by the realism.

 

[MattHooper]

If that is fulfilled then I am prepared to compromise on the disadvantages omnis can create (poor Imaging and focus ans so on).

I think I will Continue to protest or Puzzle over this idea that Omnis necessarily produce poor or fuzzy or imprecise imaging. It wasn’t the case when I owned them.

 

[MattHooper]

They are incapable of reproducting a dry-recorded voice in the ´sounds like center speaker´ manner in terms of precision, proximity and stability.

That was not my experience. I found my Omnis produced that “ centre channel” type central image when it was there and the recording. Really dry recordings sounded really dry just as they did on my other directional speakers.

So for instance a really dry recording of a vocalist in the centre would show up in a
“ beamed into the room” fashion. There was no mistaking the type of micing used.
However, that vocal could seem a little bit more set back in space with the omnis, occurring a little bit more behind the speakers than with firing speakers.

One remark regarding your ´too 2D´ comment: I kind of sense what you mean, and I am also sensitive to phantom sources appearing either overly proximate to the listener, or having this kind of artificial, overly narrow, overly monaural, pinpoint appearance ´in a vacuum´, without proper enveloping reverb, if that makes sense.

Which reminds me of the sort of hard to describe aspect of the Omni imaging as I found it. It sounded more three-dimensional.
With many systems, they can seem to be a nice sense of dimension in terms of sonic images being placed around a sound stage with some objects distant, some close, some in midfield etc. So there is that sense of dimensionality. But the Omni went a bit further. There is more of a sense of roundness to the images. More of a sense that there were space not only between me and the image, but that there was a sense of space that continued around the back of the image, carving it out in a more round 3-D fashion. In direct comparison, the conventional speakers that had sounded very dimensional had images that sounded a bit more like they “ stopped being dimensional” at some point, almost like they were closer to 2-D images plastered at various distances from me. (I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the limitation showing up in the recording itself in terms of how the microphone capture the sound - which would also explain why I found playback of my own recordings of instruments to have a restored sense of realism through my omnis).

As I say the sense of imaging dimensionality from a forward firing speaker in my room could be extremely compelling and convincing in of itself, and I’m getting that from my current conventional speakers.
But when I had the Omni to compare, that’s when the differences became more obvious.

 

[hvbias]

I have a theory why is that so, and this is arising doubts about which sense simple preference tests make:

If you define the reference for reproduction quality as being as close as possible to the sound in the studio control room, ideally judged by the recording engineers themselves, from technical point, or ask participants in tests about their evaluation of separated parameters of sound quality (such as localization, proximity, dynamics), omnis in most of cases will not meet the ideal, as they tend to lead to dominant indirect sound, hence creating some sort of effect-laden sound in the listening room (which I do not like at all, others might). They are incapable of reproducting a dry-recorded voice in the ´sounds like center speaker´ manner in terms of precision, proximity and stability.

If you do, on the other hand, a subjective preference test, with recordings unknown to the participants (particularly non-acoustic recordings), under acoustic circumstances unfamiliar to them (room RT60, listening, distance, speaker layout), asking the sole question ´do you subjectively like setup A, B or C the most?´, chances are pretty high that certain effects, as caused by omnis, will succeed and be rated highest, while technically ideal speakers might be dismissed.

The latter might sound surprising, but my personal explanation for that would be that listening test participants, unless they are recording engineers judging their own material, tend to prefer a more ´live-like´, less precise reverb and imaging, reduced proximity and usually choose the least annoying variant. The strongest examples I have found in groups of listeners preferring classical music (or being into recording thereof), being presented pop music examples. If reproduced correctly, they find it highly annoying, particularly the proximity and directness. This is not a new phenomenon. Dr. Bose has basically figured out the same in the 1960s, leading to his famous or infamous 901 concept. Dr. Toole has confirmed a similar mechanism at play, interestingly he, like Dr. Bose, seemingly preferred this blurred omni-effects for classical music. We should note that in the 1960s and 1980s, when these episodes took place, many speakers did show a surprising number of flaws when it comes to reproducing classical music, and many listeners would have in general perceived this as annoying or not natural.

So where would that take us, if my hypothesis would be correct?

Perhaps @Floyd Toole can expand on this, does he listen to stereo classical recordings purely in stereo or via multichannel upmixing by adding ambiance to other channels? I had a discussion with two other classical listeners on another board who greatly prefer native multichannel classical recordings and for stereo recordings would use either Dolby Surround Upmixer or DTS Neural:X multichannel output on their receiver.