Omnidirectional loudspeakers ?

[SDX-LV]

Thanks for the clarification! Have extensively studied your work as well as that of Linkwitz and Don Keele. I have a pair of Don's CBTs and so have experienced what they can do. As you have indicated in your writings, there is a broader sets of problems to be solved if we are to improve sound reproduction. I do not know whether the speaker answer is different drivers, more drivers, more processing or different configurations, but am pretty clear it is beyond what the mainstream offers today.

It is encouraging to know that you are more open minded about dipoles than some may have thought. Your position on CBT speakers is not well known. It seems to have been summarized as they might be good surround speakers. As JBL has commercialized them, am guessing you may have more than a passing experience with the technology. Please let us know if you have more insights that you might share?

CBT...
You may find your answer here: https://www.avsforum.com/threads/of...vel-home-theater-thread.2515137/post-55856288

+ fun that this article exists: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ransducer-speakers-in-commercial-project.310/

 

[musicforcities]

My OMD-5 are my surrounds and a third one is my center. Of 5 centers I’ve owned, it is the only one that has been transparent. Tried Omni 150s for Atmos and did not work out as well. Have had various monopoles as mains and the mirage always worked well as center. As long as you can have Audyssey or some decent room eq., the mismatch has been less of an issue for me.

Before my CBTs, had bg radia z7 as mains. They use a planar tweeter and liked that too. The CBTs just do a better job of widening the sweet spot for more listeners. Hope this helps a bit.

I have used a single Omni -150 as a center and it worked quite well given its size. The timbre works well with human voices and as an “omnipolar” (with about 70% firing generally forward with 30 reflected), voices were clear regardless of seating position while still seeming to come from the tv. Angling the speaker up a bit was important however because the speaker is lower (below the tv) and raising the front allowed the sound to be projected upwards a bit to hit ear level more or less as seating positions. It’s not a huge speaker so room size can be an issue.

I have omnisats as surrounds and they work pretty well for that too. I suppose things are not as pinpointed but on the other hand it again works better for off center seating positions. Things still clearly come from light or right and pans/sweeps work great. I toe them in to half way between center and extreme side seating positions.

Some calibration software gets confused by the Omnipolar effects though. So you need to check /correct auto detected distances and polarity sometimes.

The little omnisats create a much more enveloping and larger soundstage than any typical speaker with similarly sized drivers/cabinet. They can be great for surround sound if you have a living room set up for seating rather than a “home theater” proper. And they are small. They work well on walls and elevated near the ceiling (note: you hang them upside down. Works like a charm). And they don’t do bizarre things to the timbre or eq , unlike small sats stuff from Bose, Sonos, etc.

I tried the Omnisats as atmos speakers placed in the front (but set up of software in various settings: as front height, upward firing and as overhead), and I could never hear much of anything from them even if I boosted the levels as much as allowed. Could be my error or my room. In theory they should be good for atmospheric sounds, like rainfall, and still decent for more directed because they are not true Omnipolar (as in equal 360 radiation of sound).

 

[musicforcities]

Listened once to one local audiophile's smallish standmount MBLs and was not so impressed : great spaciousness but tonal balance quite not right, with recessed mids and overall dullness.
Good for comfy-cosy listening maybe, just not my cup of tea.

The mirage omnis were soft on the higher frequencies…maybe to manage reflections and combing effects. Or to manage the power going to those tiny tweeter motors…

I have removed /jumped an attenuating resistor on the tweeter crossover of a pair of Omni 150s and POW…full extension and sparkling highs. I did the same for a pair of little Omni sats and the resiukts were similar but less dramatic. But I am a bit of a treble junky.

And I don’t use them for serious 2-channel audio, either as background or as surround sound.

 

[MattHooper]

I was just enjoying this youtube comparison of MBLs vs Magico.

Yeah, yeah, we all know that hearing speakers through youtube isn't like hearing them in person. But I often find that, in relative terms when someone is recording various audio systems, e.g. at a show, or in stores or whatever, I can still hear in recording a difference, the MBL sound coming through.

So to my ears, the difference between the recorded sound of the Magicos vs the MBLs here is that the Magicos sound more warm/boxy/muffled...very "boxy speaker signature" whereas when it cuts to the MBL with the same tracks, the sound opens up, doesn't sound boxy at all, all the elements are more distinct, easier to make out, with a more life-like realism...in some cases more like it could have been live instruments recorded in the room. Makes me miss my MBLs!:

 

[P1NBA11ER]

The most eye opening sound I've ever heard was an MBL demo at an audio show. The source was a 1/2" master of The Song Remains the Same (so I assume a copy of the original used to send to the mastering engineers for vinyl production) and they played the title track and No Quarter. I've never been all that interested in trying to replicate that kind of sound personally, and it would be nearly impossible in the space I have anyway, even if money was no object but I can certainly see how easy it would be to get addicted to that drowning in sound feeling, which this had in spades.

 

[richard12511]

My only real experience with Omnis is with MBL(101 and 101 extreme), though I've heard those models several times for more than a few hours once. I'll be visiting a shop in Houston this weekend for a party that has the 101s(3MA), so hopefully I'll get to hear them again.

My experience is basically inline with what I'm reading from everyone else, and inline with what the measurements would suggest. They throw an enormous soundstage, and the images within that soundstage are incredibly stable, but the image clarity is not great(very diffuse). That said, I actually think the diffuse imaging works well for certain types of sounds. I generally dislike the super diffuse images they throw for voices, but for orchestral or instrumental pieces, the hazier yet more stable image can sometimes sound more realistic. Ultimately I listen too much rock/pop/vocal to every really consider them as my main speaker, but if I listened to primarily instrumental/orchestral music I'd definitely consider them. That or for a secondary system(which I'm a huge fan of).

I also think they make for the best background listening/party/mono speaker. Not to say they can't do critical listening well, but I think it's crystal clear that they make for a superior mono party speaker where people are moving, talking, drinking, and eating. Normal speakers go from sounding terrible, to ok, to good, to great, to good, to ok, and back to terrible as you walk around the room, wheres an omni speaker just always sounds good. I think it's why you see a lot of these bluetooth speakers trying to implement omni dispersion patterns.

BTW, 3MA has a comparison between the Magico M6 and MBL101 that somewhat demonstrates the spatial differences I was talking about, though it's nothing like hearing them in room.

 

[MattHooper]

My only real experience with Omnis is with MBL(101 and 101 extreme), though I've heard those models several times for more than a few hours once. I'll be visiting a shop in Houston this weekend for a party that has the 101s(3MA), so hopefully I'll get to hear them again.

My experience is basically inline with what I'm reading from everyone else, and inline with what the measurements would suggest. They throw an enormous soundstage, and the images within that soundstage are incredibly stable, but the image clarity is not great(very diffuse). That said, I actually think the diffuse imaging works well for certain types of sounds. I generally dislike the super diffuse images they throw for voices, but for orchestral or instrumental pieces, the hazier yet more stable image can sometimes sound more realistic. Ultimately I listen too much rock/pop/vocal to every really consider them as my main speaker, but if I listened to primarily instrumental/orchestral music I'd definitely consider them. That or for a secondary system(which I'm a huge fan of).

I also think they make for the best background listening/party/mono speaker. Not to say they can't do critical listening well, but I think it's crystal clear that they make for a superior mono party speaker where people are moving, talking, drinking, and eating. Normal speakers go from sounding terrible, to ok, to good, to great, to good, to ok, and back to terrible as you walk around the room, wheres an omni speaker just always sounds good. I think it's why you see a lot of these bluetooth speakers trying to implement omni dispersion patterns.

BTW, 3MA has a comparison between the Magico M6 and MBL101 that somewhat demonstrates the spatial differences I was talking about, though it's nothing like hearing them in room.

Cool. Are you going to Jason‘s gathering? (the audiophile junkie from YouTube.)

 

[richard12511]

Cool. Are you going to Jason‘s gathering? (the audiophile junkie from YouTube.)

Yeah I think he's having a party at his place afterwards, but I won't be there. I wish, as I'd really like to hear his BACCH demo, but I've gotta get back(leaving early the next morning for another trip). I'm sure I'll get to meet him at the opening though which will be cool.

 

[richard12511]

Yeah this is the video I referenced in my post.

For some examples of what I mentioned in my previous post regarding vocals and instruments:

Compare the instrument sounds at 5:54 (M6) to the sounds at 16:14 (101e). Overall I think I prefer the spatial representation of the drums(especially the highs) on the MBL in this room/recording. They sound more open, which is more in line with what my brain expects. The high hats/tambourine? are also much easier to hear, though that could just be a frequency response difference.

Compare the vocals at 4:16 (M6) to the vocals at 14:36 (101e) . The vocal image on the Magico is more sharply defined, whereas the MBL is more diffuse and harder to pinpoint; it sound more similar to something like Enya's "Only Time". The guitar is interesting for this track, as I initially preferred it on the MBLs, but then I started hearing a weird resonance/distortion in the MBL's lower mids?, which I now can't unhear.

 

[MattHooper]

Yeah this is the video I referenced in my post.

For some examples of what I mentioned in my previous post regarding vocals and instruments:

Compare the instrument sounds at 5:54 (M6) to the sounds at 16:14 (101e). Overall I think I prefer the spatial representation of the drums(especially the highs) on the MBL in this room/recording. They sound more open, which is more in line with what my brain expects. The high hats/tambourine? are also much easier to hear, though that could just be a frequency response difference.

That's the exactly examples I referenced too. The MBL recording just sounds more like a live recording of instruments, and is more nuanced and open. Just the type of qualities I heard from my MBL speakers.

Compare the vocals at 4:16 (M6) to the vocals at 14:36 (101e) . The vocal image on the Magico is more sharply defined, whereas the MBL is more diffuse and harder to pinpoint; it sound more similar to something like Enya's "Only Time". The guitar is interesting for this track, as I initially preferred it on the MBLs, but

As I've mentioned before, in a good room you can set up the MBLs to image quite precisely, very close to a box speaker. I had my MBLs for 10 years while I also had many other speakers, and I never found the MBLs imaged too diffusely. In fact, there was a type of precision in carving out the exactness of instrumental locations and spatial relationships, that went beyond the box speakers.

then I started hearing a weird resonance/distortion in the MBL's lower mids?, which I now can't unhear.

Probably just the recording. But that CAN happen with MBLs! I've heard it. When I was obsessed with the MBL 101D speakers I had an audition or two where there was a weird as hell effect that had me baffled. I played a bunch of my tracks that I had heard sounding great previously on the MBLs, but in this set up it was like some weird distortion happening, like the singer was in a reverberent box or something. Which made no sense given the boxless design and completely open dispersion. It gave me pause about the speaker. It was years later that I discovered Michael Fremer had heard the same thing, in his review of the MBL 101s:

"When everything—or anything—was wrong, there was an odd chesty, compressed, almost grainy midbass coloration, and a sense that female singers centered between the speakers were performing in a closet in the next room. The offending sound was probably due to an unusual combination of placement and reflective interference."

That is as precise a description of the effect that I heard as I could ever want. Bang on!

This is one reason why I still find value in good subjective reviews (and how Fremer could actually be pretty insightful in his speaker reviews). There's nothing that I know of just from looking at MBL measurements that would predict hearing precisely that sound. And I've never seen anyone looking at MBL measurements deduce it or point it out. But if you get the set up wrong, man do you ever hear it! And that's why a good subjective report can come in handy.

As it turned out, the MBLs did not display this artifact in my room (which has room treatment and had the input of an acoustician in design); they always sounded gloriously unfettered and open.

 

[Axo1989]

I was just enjoying this youtube comparison of MBLs vs Magico.

Yeah, yeah, we all know that hearing speakers through youtube isn't like hearing them in person. But I often find that, in relative terms when someone is recording various audio systems, e.g. at a show, or in stores or whatever, I can still hear in recording a difference, the MBL sound coming through.

So to my ears, the difference between the recorded sound of the Magicos vs the MBLs here is that the Magicos sound more warm/boxy/muffled...very "boxy speaker signature" whereas when it cuts to the MBL with the same tracks, the sound opens up, doesn't sound boxy at all, all the elements are more distinct, easier to make out, with a more life-like realism...in some cases more like it could have been live instruments recorded in the room. Makes me miss my MBLs!:

Not trying to be arrogant here, but who listens to this?

Musical selections aside that was interesting. The MBL certainly have a different presentation, very obvious. Even comparing in-room recording via YT as you say. And somewhat preferable I think for the second track for example (I listened via AirPods Max and skipped back-and-forth between each version). No wonder you liked them. The soundstage is different, and less forward, but it still presents well in terms of instruments and locations.

 

[Axo1989]

Yeah this is the video I referenced in my post.

For some examples of what I mentioned in my previous post regarding vocals and instruments:

Compare the instrument sounds at 5:54 (M6) to the sounds at 16:14 (101e). Overall I think I prefer the spatial representation of the drums(especially the highs) on the MBL in this room/recording. They sound more open, which is more in line with what my brain expects. The high hats/tambourine? are also much easier to hear, though that could just be a frequency response difference.

Compare the vocals at 4:16 (M6) to the vocals at 14:36 (101e) . The vocal image on the Magico is more sharply defined, whereas the MBL is more diffuse and harder to pinpoint; it sound more similar to something like Enya's "Only Time". The guitar is interesting for this track, as I initially preferred it on the MBLs, but then I started hearing a weird resonance/distortion in the MBL's lower mids?, which I now can't unhear.

I tried both those specific comparisons and agree really, the spatial presentation of the second selection was most enjoyable via MBL, but the vocals in the first selection went a bit odd/resonant in the lower notes also, to my ear/brain (for example).

Edit: I see Matt mentioned the female vocal thing above, and you reiterate in the later post, that’s something I heard certainly.

 

[OlsonSystems]

I have been fascinated with the idea of building an omni-directional speaker for some time. I have now built two pairs. The first was about 6" in diameter with 20 one inch Aurasound Cougar drivers. The second is about 4" in diameter with six of the 2" Aurasound Whisper drivers. I used the first pair with a 12" woofer and now use the second pair with 10" woofers. I read the Bang & Olufsen white paper describing the Beo-90 development. It has interesting descriptions of the difference in sound stage for omni speakers vs. forward firing. I find the omni speakers use the room acoustics to provide lots of information to your ears to precisely locate the sound as if the performance was happening in your room. Simple "dry" recordings with little to no recorded ambience or performance room echo work the best. The challenge is getting a sphere small enough that it will work up to a relatively high frequency, but large enough that you can get some sufficient SPL at the low end. These spheres operate from about 250 Hz up to maybe 10 - 12 kHz where the cancelation from the large diameter really kicks in.

 

[richard12511]

As I've mentioned before, in a good room you can set up the MBLs to image quite precisely, very close to a box speaker. I had my MBLs for 10 years while I also had many other speakers, and I never found the MBLs imaged too diffusely. In fact, there was a type of precision in carving out the exactness of instrumental locations and spatial relationships, that went beyond the box speakers.

Interesting. I've never heard them not sound diffuse like that, but I guess it makes sense if you can get enough direct sound to hit your ear long enough before all the reverb starts hitting(ie sitting really close or in a big room). I've never had them in my own room where I can really play around with placement.

Probably just the recording. But that CAN happen with MBLs! I've heard it. When I was obsessed with the MBL 101D speakers I had an audition or two where there was a weird as hell effect that had me baffled. I played a bunch of my tracks that I had heard sounding great previously on the MBLs, but in this set up it was like some weird distortion happening, like the singer was in a reverberent box or something. Which made no sense given the boxless design and completely open dispersion. It gave me pause about the speaker. It was years later that I discovered Michael Fremer had heard the same thing, in his review of the MBL 101s:

It's definitely part of the recording, but it doesn't sound so distorted on the Magico. It sounds like either those bass drivers are distorting, or those ports are chuffing. Could also be the mic distorting, but it that case I would expect it to be present in both recordings. Maybe the recording was just made at too high of an spl for the MBL, as it doesn't have 6 15" REL subs in the back helping it generate bass like the Magico room does. It's hard to tell how loud those speakers are actually playing.

"When everything—or anything—was wrong, there was an odd chesty, compressed, almost grainy midbass coloration, and a sense that female singers centered between the speakers were performing in a closet in the next room. The offending sound was probably due to an unusual combination of placement and reflective interference."

It's funny, as I came really close to writing something very similar to that. I almost said that it sounded like she was singing from within a bathroom stall and I was standing outside the stall, but I ended up going with the "Enya Only Time" reference.

This is one reason why I still find value in good subjective reviews (and how Fremer could actually be pretty insightful in his speaker reviews). There's nothing that I know of just from looking at MBL measurements that would predict hearing precisely that sound. And I've never seen anyone looking at MBL measurements deduce it or point it out. But if you get the set up wrong, man do you ever hear it! And that's why a good subjective report can come in handy.

I struggle to find much value at all in most subjective reviews. Too much is said that I just have no idea what it means, "More air", "micro detail", "macro detail", "microdynamics", "macrodynamics", "more holographic", "liquid", "smooth", "etc.", combined with the fact that it's basically all 95%+ compliments. There have been a few that I've found useful, but it's usually only when it's one guy flipping between two speakers in the same room and saying stuff like "this one is brighter sounding", "this one is more warm", "male vocals are more emphasized in this one", "guitar sounds nicer on this one", "this one throws a wider soundstage", or "this one has sharper imaging".

 

[MattHooper]

Interesting. I've never heard them not sound diffuse like that, but I guess it makes sense if you can get enough direct sound to hit your ear long enough before all the reverb starts hitting(ie sitting really close or in a big room). I've never had them in my own room where I can really play around with placement.


It's definitely part of the recording, but it doesn't sound so distorted on the Magico. It sounds like either those bass drivers are distorting, or those ports are chuffing. Could also be the mic distorting, but it that case I would expect it to be present in both recordings. Maybe the recording was just made at too high of an spl for the MBL, as it doesn't have 6 15" REL subs in the back helping it generate bass like the Magico room does. It's hard to tell how loud those speakers are actually playing.


It's funny, as I came really close to writing something very similar to that. I almost said that it sounded like she was singing from within a bathroom stall and I was standing outside the stall, but I ended up going with the "Enya Only Time" reference.


I struggle to find much value at all in most subjective reviews. Too much is said that I just have no idea what it means, "More air", "micro detail", "macro detail", "microdynamics", "macrodynamics", "more holographic", "liquid", "smooth", "etc.", combined with the fact that it's basically all 95%+ compliments. There have been a few that I've found useful, but it's usually only when it's one guy flipping between two speakers in the same room and saying stuff like "this one is brighter sounding", "this one is more warm", "male vocals are more emphasized in this one", "guitar sounds nicer on this one", "this one throws a wider soundstage", or "this one has sharper imaging".

Please report back after you do the listening at that gathering. Sounds like it should be amazing!

Jason just released another comparison video, the big Acoras vs the MBL Extreme. Once again to my biased ears the MBLs are preferable and sound even more life-like:

 

[MattHooper]

Not trying to be arrogant here, but who listens to this?

I actually tried for many years to avoid being too cynical about audiophile music at shows. After all..if someone likes it they like it. And I like some pretty weird stuff.
But I can't do it anymore. Since I can't get out to shows so much anymore I'm an addict for watching youtube demos of equipment, and walk-throughs of the big audio shows. I find much of the music just agonizing.

You see what looks like some big, heroically-designed full range speaker system with giant amps, and the music goes on and it's....once a gain a whispery female vocal with someone gently plucking notes on an acoustic guitar, someone maybe hitting an occasional wood block, and some ghost lightly tapping notes on a stand-up bass. Usually some AWFUL acoustic cover of a well known pop or rock song. Really? All that audio fire power, and you are going to put on something that requires nothing more than a pair of mini-monitors to pull off? And don't get me started on all the male versions of the same type of music, some growly-voiced dude doing some sort of musical poetry, always blues or latin inflected, while little bings and bongs go off in the soundfield around him.