MarkS
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2021
- Messages
- 1,078
- Likes
- 1,514
Some people confuse his book with the Bible.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Omnidirectional speakers
- Thread starter oivavoi
- Start date
I’ve tried the DSP methods of stereo to multichannel and that’s a whole different animal than Omni. I never found it enjoyable, and even some true discrete multichannel recordings have significant “flaws” to me. Panning instruments front to back and such tire quickly. I have about every classic rock multichannel album ever released on SACD, DVD AUDIO, and Blu ray audio, and only play now and then. Some are spectacular, but some are more a gimmick and sound nothing like a performance. The best are the ones that create anmbience and immersion from subtle use of the surround channels. Don’t want to get this off in the wrong direction, since we are talking about stereo reproduction of Omnis vs other speaker radiation patterns. I think…
I’d say the Bible should be all the ears debating here, all listening to Omni or whatever in the same room. The beauty of Omni is the sweet spot is large enough to not be fighting over the “sweet spot” seat. Then the theory is put to the test that matters, what one prefers and sounds the best to them. I try to do that as much as possible when comparing speakers. I did some testing of various speakers outside this summer when friends were over. Just a simple do you like A or B better.
If measurements and theory
Not really—still getting reflections from the wall behind. Maybe putting in the middle of the yard would do that. I only had the Duevel Planets at the time, too limited in SPL output capability and low frequency extension—deal breaker for me. Now, the Enterprise with more of both is a different story, something that will be the checked out, the first speaker back on the deck in spring. The first thing I noticed off the bat outside with Planets was the sound seemed like it was coming from beyond the wall, like the band was sitting 15’ back in the middle of my kitchen. I did not test the Planets extensively outside when realizing quickly they were not going to work with the SPL and bass limitations. The Planets did work really good in the garage, the only speaker ever used that ever has actually sounded good in there.
Not really—still getting reflections from the wall behind. Maybe putting in the middle of the yard would do that. I only had the Duevel Planets at the time, too limited in SPL output capability and low frequency extension—deal breaker for me. Now, the Enterprise with more of both is a different story, something that will be the checked out, the first speaker back on the deck in spring. The first thing I noticed off the bat outside with Planets was the sound seemed like it was coming from beyond the wall, like the band was sitting 15’ back in the middle of my kitchen. I did not test the Planets extensively outside when realizing quickly they were not going to work with the SPL and bass limitations. The Planets did work really good in the garage, the only speaker ever used that ever has actually sounded good in there.
I’m thinking Omni may be the perfect outdoor speaker, subject to more testing with a more capable Omni this round.
When this thread wears out, I’m going to find one “best outdoor speaker” or some such and join the fray. Not going to be pushing Omni, at least not just yet, but have tried more than a few speakers (multiple pairs at times), and my opener will be throw away any true outdoor speaker (weatherproof) you’re using now if you are serious about good sound outdoors.
When this thread wears out, I’m going to find one “best outdoor speaker” or some such and join the fray. Not going to be pushing Omni, at least not just yet, but have tried more than a few speakers (multiple pairs at times), and my opener will be throw away any true outdoor speaker (weatherproof) you’re using now if you are serious about good sound outdoors.
Just realized there are no USA made omni speakers, other than maybe some small niche ones I don’t know yet.. All the frequently mentioned ones, Morrison, MBL, and Duevel are from Europe or Canada. With so few fans and so few makers, I’m trying to wrap my head around why that is unless they suck and have fatal flaws that I am too dense to see. You could argue the price deterrent, but that would apply more to MBL. Sure, it can get really expensive for TOTL Duevels, but something like these Duevel Enterprises are modest price compared to a lot of “audiophile” speakers. Plus, sense almost nobody wants them, used prices are depressed into bargain territory. Think I saw some used $30k MBL recently for $10k.
ShadowFiend
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 69
- Likes
- 89
Designing an omnidirectional speaker is very difficult, especially when you want to have this kind of dispersion higher than 1.5 kHz, and relative smooth frequency response. It is beyond something most speaker manufacturer and diyer can do. That's why there are very few high quality omni speakers.
Furthermore, like I said in this thread before, omni speakers need big room, ideal at least 45-50 m2 and a specific placement requirement (distance greater than 2m from each wall) to get the best out of them. This is the most important part and more than 99% of omni speaker owners/dealers don't know and/or apply, so no wonder why experience of most people with omni speakers is big and diffuse soundstage and fuzzy imaging. Many people like and/or are fine with that, but many don't. So while omni speaker is great idea, and when implement correctly it is great, in my opinion it is for relatively rich people who can afford high quality ones and a real estate to accommodate them.
Furthermore, like I said in this thread before, omni speakers need big room, ideal at least 45-50 m2 and a specific placement requirement (distance greater than 2m from each wall) to get the best out of them. This is the most important part and more than 99% of omni speaker owners/dealers don't know and/or apply, so no wonder why experience of most people with omni speakers is big and diffuse soundstage and fuzzy imaging. Many people like and/or are fine with that, but many don't. So while omni speaker is great idea, and when implement correctly it is great, in my opinion it is for relatively rich people who can afford high quality ones and a real estate to accommodate them.
Last edited:
https://www.connect.de/testbericht/lautsprecher-duevel-sirius-329796.html - usual 18Sound transducers.
The horn is the only tricky part; how flawlessly it works is unknown))
Good page: Omnidirectional Loudspeakers By Roger Russell (R.I.P.) http://www.roger-russell.com/omni/omni.htm
The horn is the only tricky part; how flawlessly it works is unknown))
JBL Aquarius! At that time, JBL was made in the USA.
Good page: Omnidirectional Loudspeakers By Roger Russell (R.I.P.) http://www.roger-russell.com/omni/omni.htm
Last edited:
Adrian Acoustics moved their production to a much larger facility in Bridgeport, Connecticut, where they continued to produce cabinets for more high-end audio brands like McIntosh, Mark Levinson, and Polk. They still produce cabinets for Von Schweikert, VPI, and Ohm.
They make outdoor speakers not trash cans but planters.
They make outdoor speakers not trash cans but planters.
I'd really like to know whether I'm understanding your position correctly. Revisiting a question I asked in post number 165:
Given that you prefer to "take the room out of the equation as much as possible", and apparently you prefer upmixing over straight 2-channel, I get the impression that you DO NOT like the reflection field stereo speakers generate in a room, but you DO like the reflection field generated by upmixing 2-channel to multi-channel. Is this correct?
Last edited:
With up-mixing, it is done with algorithms designed and optimized by knowledgeable researchers. Having the sound coming from speakers all around you and when your room is nicely damped, the room effects will be overwhelmed by the surround speakers, and you get repeatable and controllable results. It is much more flexible and can do what you can't get from fixed room reflections, for example controlling the rate of reverberation decay. And if you don't like what you are getting, you can adjust the settings and there is always an off button. You can easily switch settings for different materials, including turning it off, according to your desire at the moment.
With speakers that spray sound into the room in random directions, if you want to adjust, you'll have to:
- Move the speaker around
- Move the listening position around
- Change the speakers
- Change the room
There is no off button, and you don't have the capability (or at the minimum highly compromised capability) to listen to native multichannel recordings (videos).
With speakers that spray sound into the room in random directions, if you want to adjust, you'll have to:
- Move the speaker around
- Move the listening position around
- Change the speakers
- Change the room
There is no off button, and you don't have the capability (or at the minimum highly compromised capability) to listen to native multichannel recordings (videos).
Agreed.
I do not criticize upmixing as "adding something to" the original recording, whether or not a case could be made for that characterization. Imo improvements in sound quality and/or spatial quality need not justify themselves against a dogmatic yardstick.
But note that in the scenario you describe, "having the sound coming from speakers all around you and when your room is nicely damped", the ONLY directions spectrally-correct reflection energy will arrive from are directly from the surround speakers, UNLESS the damping in the room is truly broadband (which is expensive). If the in-room damping is removing significantly more of the shorter-wavelength energy than of the longer-wavelength energy, the spectral balance of the reflection energy is progressively degraded each time it bounces off a damped room surface. Eventually the spectral balance may become so degraded that what's left of the reflection ceases to be identifiable by the ear/brain system as "signal" and effectively becomes "noise". So imo there are potential tradeoffs involved with using damping to suppress the in-room reflections.
Also, note that any decent recording ALREADY HAS enjoyable venue spatial characteristics, whether they be real or engineered or both. The fact that we can EVER hear venue spatial characteristics on a recording is proof that they CAN be perceptually dominant over the playback room's "small room signature". What I advocate is taking some deliberate measures which perceptually minimize the "small room signature" of the playback room while enhancing the presentation of the venue spatial cues which are ALREADY ON THE RECORDING.
Agreed, upmixing gives you more flexibility in tailoring the spatial presentation to your liking. But note that unamplified instruments also "spray sound into the room in random directions", yet still manage to sound pretty good in most rooms.
I have a question, arising from my lack of experience with upmixing, that maybe you can help me with: Once the upmixer is adjusted properly, are those same settings optimum for all recordings, or is there benefit from adjusting the settings for different recordings? In other words, is upmixing "set it and forget it", or not?
Last edited:
ShadowFiend
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 69
- Likes
- 89
I agree that the up-mixing algorithm is done by knowledgeable researchers, but the problem is that different researcher will have different idea about how to do up-mixing. That why we have so many up-mixing algorithms like Dolby, DTS and Auro3D,... Secondly, the researchers, when develop test the up-mixing algorithms, can only do it on a limited amount of stereo-recordings. And we all know there are no standard in making stereo mix. Different sound engineer and sometimes same sound engineer but at the different time of his career can have different way of doing stereo mix.
Therefore, when apply to any arbitrary recordings material, the advantage of up-mixing is not guarantied by any mean. It is more flexible, yes but not more correct. And many times, because of interaction between the algorithm and a random recordings, some weird artifact of up-mixing happens like sound came from too far on the side and even from behind when you listen to orchestral recordings. And for me it is a deal breaker, since it spoils my mood, and life is too short for me to change the up-mixing at the middle of listening section.
In my opinion, the good idea is that you have two speakers system, one optimized for stereo recordings and one for native multichannel recordings.
Technically, it only makes sense to talk about "correctness" for encoder/decoder systems, in which the decoded signal can be compared to the original signal entering the encoder. So none of them can be "correct". It is only a matter of what sounds good to you, and is purely subjective.
I was just thinking last night, I should switch the Omni over to my 11.1 rig and do a quick in room response check in stereo mode with the built in YPAO room correction capability in my Yamaha AVR.
My room is medium size, but the right “corner” has a 4.5’ opening passage to the right into my very large kitchen and what would be the right rear wall extended side has a 3’ hallway that opens into 2 large bedrooms and a bath. No clue what that does to the effective room volume, but has to be different than a closed room of X m2?
Not sure if I agree on the relatively rich part. Even the Planets at about $1500 give you most of the Omni soundstage experience of at least the next model up Enterprises. At about $3500 for the Enterprise, the most expensive speaker purchased here by a long shot, that is hardly in the stratosphere $ for speakers. Almost everything I’ve owned over 50 years has been gear that punched above its weight class or used on a deal, or a DIY project like the previously mentioned CLEARWAVE front stage on my 11.1 rig. I think the most expensive speaker I bought before the Enterprise was BMR monitors, purchased solely on what ASR forum owners said about it. The Duevels are so hard to find, I just bought a new pair instead of waiting to find a nice used pair. To just experience the Omni soundstage, Planets will provide that, but the Enerterprise is a lot more on every other attribute. The ESS AMT 1b was not working and free, getting a top to bottom full restoration to new here for maybe $500. I could go on, but there are cheap ways to get a taste of high end speakers. As in everything, the law of diminishing returns kicks in, so not sure higher up the Omni ladder will add much on the soundstage part.
It is highly dependent on the recording and mixing technique. So the answer, IMHO, is a strong no. One of the first job of an upmixer is "directional decoding", which is to determine where the placement of the sound is.
For example, if you are adding a center channel to a 2 channel (stereo) mix, and there is a sound panned (using amplitude panning) to the right but not all the way. There you'll have the same sound in both the left and right channels, with the left channel weaker than the right. If you upmix by simply mixing the center channel with the sum of the left and right channels, the resultant image will be pulled toward the center. To "accurately" upmix it (not changing its perceived location vs the 2 channel playback), you'll need to reduce its strength in the left channel. Needless to say, this directional decoding process is far from simple. If the sound location info is encoded using time delay panning, as in recordings using spaced mics, it is almost hopeless. ([Edit] And your directional decoder needs to recognize this type of situations, which is again not a simple task.) Therefore, a "successful" upmixing is highly depending how the source material is prepared. I believe you'll have a better chance of success for materials recorded/mixed for multichannel, downmixed to 2 channel (for distribution), and then upmixed again. [Edit] Since if the downmix process is known, reversing it is easier than without the knowledge, assuming the downmix and upmix processes are matched..
Last edited:
Ok—you got me—I meant currently. Gotta be more careful on this forum…
I did previously look at that link—interesting.
I don’t consider the Ohm Walsh an Omni. If you placed it say in the middle of the room, would the sound be exactly the same as you walked around it in a 360 degree circle? Ok, before someone mentions some room interaction from irregular size of differing wall reflective characteristics, I think you see what I’m getting at. Not saying Ohm Walsh would not have some of the soundstage character of an Omni.
Similar threads
- Poll
