Speaker Dispersion - Wider? Narrower? - Your Personal Preference?

[MattHooper]

Yes I know, a common subject, and there are all sorts of details and caveats involved when discussing the merits of wide vs narrow speaker dispersion.

But I'm curious about people's personal preferences on this question.

I was reading today about that famous old speaker, the JBL Paragon:

JBL Paragon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The remit for the design was to create a more stable sense of imaging across a wider listening window - bouncing the sound off curved surfaces. There is a nice quote from the designer, Richard Ranger, about the motivation for the design choices. This part of the quote jumped out for me:

"The term "unstable equilibrium" is not mere whimsy. In stereo reproduction, it is customary for the soloist to appear in the center. Then, certain sections of the accompanying music are positioned right or left; but it is most important that wherever they are, they STAY THERE. Uncertain movement of the apparent sound source gives a very queasy feeling."

Interesting way of putting it, but I know what he means. I liken it to when I was very heavily in to choosing my displays for TV and home theater, back when Plasma had arrived and was dueling it out with LCD flat screens and the still-popular big rear projection TV sets. One of the things that immediately attracted me to the plasma image vs the LCDs and Rear Projection competitors, was the stability of the image. It looked essentially the same from any angle (yes some measurable change, but so subtle basically not noticeable), whereas the contrast, color saturation and apparent clarity of the other displays clearly diminished with any movement off-axis. It gave plasma a more stable, relaxing, natural quality vs the "shifty" quality of the other displays. Those advocating for the other displays would often argue "what, are you moving all around watching a movie? So what if there is a sweet spot for viewing?" But frankly, yes, I did notice shifts in the image during normal movements watching movies, and in any case it just sort of bugged me.

When it comes to speakers I feel much the same way, for the same reasons. There is no true escape from having a sweet spot, given the limitations of stereo. But insofar as a speaker design makes these limitations less obvious, less in-my-face, reducing really obvious tonal shifts or imaging shifts with minor movement on my part, I find it more relaxing, natural and satisfying. I'm not a fan of head-in-a-vice narrow dispersion designs (though I acknowledge they have their advantages). I can enjoy encounters with narrow dispersion designs for a while, but don't think I'd get along with such a design in the long run. (In speakers I've owned, the closest to a head-in-a-vice issue were my old Quad 63s, but even those attempted a sort of point source radiation pattern, so weren't as "bad" as some other panel speakers in that respect).

How about you folks?

(And, btw, if anyone has heard the JBL Paragon speakers, I'd also be interested in your impressions).

 

[stevenswall]

I prefer coaxial speakers because sometimes my head height changes and I sit on the floor or do yoga. Why wouldn't someone want a speaker more similar to an OLED TV where the colors don't shift?

Always frustrates me seeing the hundreds of inferior non-coaxial speakers that people buy for the same or more than a Kali or Genelec.

 

[Astoneroad]

I was reading today about that famous old speaker, the JBL Paragon:

9 feet long!! "Designed by Arnold Wolf from a concept elaborated by Richard Ranger, it is almost 9 feet (2.7 m) long and requires over a hundred-man hours of hand-finishing by a team of dedicated craftsmen.[1"

 

[fpitas]

Having 90 degree radial horns, I'm going to say 90 degree horizontal is perfect!

Seriously, I agree about a moving image being distressing. I went to MTM to nail the image vertically at the center of the horn.

 

[Robh3606]

This is actually a more representative of more current systems also a SOTA JBL design from the 80's. The original Everest.

EVEREST

DD55000 Everest

... Documents provided by Michael Smith

www.audioheritage.org

Paragons design brief

PARAGON

To your question I prefer CD type systems my favorites tend to be on the wide side. Really enjoy the M2 waveguide.

Rob

 

[fpitas]

This is actually a more representative of more current systems also a SOTA JBL design from the 80's. The original Everest.

EVEREST

DD55000 Everest

... Documents provided by Michael Smith

www.audioheritage.org

Paragons design brief

PARAGON

To your question I prefer CD type systems my favorites tend to be on the wide side. Really enjoy the M2 waveguide.

Rob

Yeah, later JBLs intended for consumer use are 120 degree horns. Seems like Timbers thoughtt 90 degree horns were still more appropriate for studio monitors, though.

 

[digitalfrost]

Comparing well known speakers, I have listened to KEF R500 vs Focal Aria 926 right next to each other. I think they are both more or less comparable in having quite good on axis response and well controlled off-axis response. But the Arias beam wider. They fill the room with music. While this is very nice for casual listening and would probably win over most average listeners, I very much like the more focused picture that the KEFs give.

I started out my speaker journey by building DIY fullrange speakers, and they all start to beam at a certain point. I think in most untreated rooms this actually has advantages, but if you want any proper loud volume fullrange speakers have their problems. The most "extreme" I ever build was a fullrange horn with an 8" speaker that encased 120l volume. I got very loud, sensitivity was at 96dB for one speaker, but with these things you couldn't move your head more than a couple of centimeters or were out of the sweet spot.

I really think there is no right or wrong in this question, it's more preference and it also depends on the room.

Having made the experience with the fullranges, it would be very interesting to have some narrow beam controlled directivity speakers. But they are rare.

 

[Speaker_tweaker]

Erin of Erin's audio corner asked this of Floyd Toole and he said "I don't know."

 

[mj30250]

Based on every speaker I've tried in my listening space(s) for which we have dispersion measurements, wide for me all the way. My current favorite speaker by a decent margin = wide horizontal and limited vertical.

 

[dfuller]

I find I like a middling width (55-60 degree beamwidth).

 

[puppet]

I like a 100+ degree angle. So, a little room contribution.

 

[al2002]

Very much prefer wide dispersion speakers or dipoles for stereo.

 

[AlexanderM]

Wide.

 

[muad]

Not sure what I prefer.

1. The image stability of 180 degree dispersion is incredible. Far off axis (70-80degrees) in the kitchen I still heard a solid center image with the BMR. Almost surreal.

2. They always sound too treble heavy to me. Maybe it's due to the lack of treble droop, there's more treble energy in the horizontal plane, affecting direct and reflected sound?

I wish used peq when I had the BMRs to see if I could correct the perceived brightness while keeping the magic.

 

[MattHooper]

Interesting. Though not to surprising there seems wider dispersion is more often preferred.

My MBL omnis, as one can imagine, had that aspect nailed.

Both my Joseph and Thiel speakers sound very even in a wide listening area too. The Thiels are coax designs and they can cast off a fair amount of energy to the sidewalls which can liven up the sound. I'm finding that I am cutting down more of the sidewall higher frequency reflections these days. Not because it sounds bad, or too bright or anything with those reflections, but I hear a bit more of the recorded acoustic/reverb/ambience with side wall reflections tamped down. And yet it doesn't lead to head-in-the-vice as if I was using limited dispersion speakers. The dispersion characteristics of the Thiels seem to ensure a stable tonality (and imaging somewhat) when I move around in my seat. Same with the Joseph speakers.

 

[just1n]

I prefer coaxial speakers because sometimes my head height changes and I sit on the floor or do yoga. Why wouldn't someone want a speaker more similar to an OLED TV where the colors don't shift?

Always frustrates me seeing the hundreds of inferior non-coaxial speakers that people buy for the same or more than a Kali or Genelec.

Agree with the analogy. Love my OLED for the same reason. Same expectation with speakers for me.

 

[oversky]

Depends on your application.

https://en-de.neumann.com/product_files/7941/download

 

[rwortman]

I am not a speaker designer (although I have designed and built a few) so I don’t know. Whatever Paul Barton thinks seems to agree with my ears. Pinpoint imaging is kind of neat but not necessary to me as PA systems in concert halls don’t do it and from what I am told, orchestras don’t either. Live music in good hall results in more reflected than direct sound for most listeners. I have a very good friend who knows a guy that spend a career in symphony halls. This guy says the Bose 901 produces that spaciousness better than anything he‘s heard. It was what Dr. Bose was trying to do. Mostly reflected sound with a bit of direct. Influences from the room are not always negative or unwanted. For pure timbre accuracy, my equalized nearfield monitors are the best thing I own. However, it’s like headphone listening. No matter now accurate they are, they don’t sound as “live” as my main speakers with a generous helping of room effects.

 

[YSC]

As long as it’s controlled I don’t have a preference, though I think medium to wide would work better for daily usage to allow tonality not shifting a lot

 

[fineMen]

Interesting. Though not to surprising there seems wider dispersion is more often preferred.

The impression I get from my horns (90x60, hence 'wide' in terms of p/a) can be described as airy, means a finer textured reverberation as it presumably originates in the recording, but also a bit distant. Another design under current evaluation is even by hifi-standards a bit wide, pulling me more in. With that the spaciousness from the recording is still identifiable, but it feels a bit ruffled. Of course, the latter design is more forgiving in regards to head movement.

I proposed to blend the two principles (diffuse/direct) a few months back, but then didn't get any response.

Question was, also asked already without an answer: is it so, that the direct sound from the two individual speakers give the cues for the so called 'imaging', while the tonal balance, the sweet tone is determined solely by the grand total of the sound-field, reverberation included?

If the two tasks are separable, there's a lot left to improve beyond the in-the-vise posture of a true audiophile. Yoga?