Sighted direct experience in comparing omnis with direct radiators...
…it’s even easier to place your claims in context.
We’ve had this sort of exchange before, Matt. And on the same topic too! The reason being that you write like a monumentally-biased pro-omni fan, and there is no limit to the amount of scientifically-irrelevant verbiage and inappropriate appeal-to-authority ‘evidence’ you will use to defend them from appropriate criticism.
How dare I enjoy omni speakers and report what I liked about them! Awful isn't it?
But of course you leave out that I have written enthusiastically about the sound of various types of speakers. So...no I'm not just a one-note omni fan. But then you've been temperamentally incapable of representing anything I argue accurately, which is why, yes we've had types of discussions before.
Here’s how to do appeal-to-authority correctly: share the views of an acknowledged authority on a topic that is close to his or her expertise. Eg
a link to a post by Floyd Toole where he summarises his views on omni speakers. Even if the expert authority has not conducted extensive controlled tests of that speaker type, we (ought to) trust that he only offers a view if he feels it is warranted, and that his vast knowledge of loudspeakers, and psychoacoustics, and the interface between those fields, combines with his luminary status and reliable reputation to give his considered view extraordinary weight. Only the most denialistic of omni fans (and former manufacturers, LOL) would try to dismiss the expert view with whatever nitpicking excuses they can come up with in a moment of high stress.
And here is
how to NOT do appeal-to-authority correctly: take a specific long-past purchasing decision by an acknowledged authority completely out of context, make assumptions about how and why he chose it, and try to insinuate and imply that it means he still tries to capture that sound today. When made aware of the above-linked comment, Dr Toole wrote, quote, “
I hate it when people speak for me when they don't understand what I think! Omni speakers are playback manipulations, and if you like them, fine. If not, also fine.” Having Toole hate the way you use his name is quite the achievement. Way to go, dude!
And, naturally, there isn't one iota of "inappropriate appeal-to-authority" you can find that I've made in regard to omnis, either in this thread or elsewhere. More made up B.S. And that's all red herrings.
You made a very specific claim. Here it is again:
"All the work that the production crew put into imaging and soundstaging will be largely wasted, and that’s a pity if one is into high fidelity."
I'm asking you to back up that claim using either measurements or citing blind tests.
How in the world would the "work the production crew put in to imaging and soundstaging" be "largely wasted" by an omni speaker? (Remembering again "wasted" is a qualitative/value statement!)
Again, the scenario is not simply "take an omni, put it near walls in a lively room and wash everything out." We are talking about owning an omni and being able to set it up in a good sounding (designed with an acoustician) room with the flexibility of seating distance/positioning and some level of control over room reflectivity. I was about 6 1/2 feet from the omnis so getting a lot of direct sound (if you want to cherry pick Toole, remember his remarks about the prominance of direct sound for perceiving the character of a speaker?). I set up the speaker positioning and room acoustics to get the best (I could) out of that speaker. For my forward radiating speakers, I do the same given their characteristics. As it should be with any different speakers.
Let's take a classic recording:
Miles Davis Kind Of Blue, track So What.
I play it on my forward radiating speaker box speaker (e.g. Thiel or Joseph Audio). What do I hear?
Paul Chambers bass is set back in the soundstage, slightly to the left, playing quietly to begin. Bill Evans piano is staged further to the left, just "behind" the left speaker. I can hear the light studio reverb on each. The two saxes enter quietly, Coltrane's sax panned left, Adderley's panned right. Jimmy Cobb's drums are panned right, behind the right speaker, playing a very light ride cymbal at first, and then switches to playing a ride cymbal that is more present and vivid.
Miles' trumpet enters in the center, in it's little own alcove of centered reverb surrounding it, distanced further back than Evans' piano and the sax/drums.
Each sax solo is panned hard left (Coltrane) and right (Adderley) and much closer to the speaker and more present than Mile's trumpet. The room verb around Coltrane's sax is quite audible on the left side, when Adderley plays his sax "ignites" reverb right across the stage in to the left channel in a stronger way.
Etc.
Now...what happened when I played that same track on the MBL omnis (which I did, in comparison, many times, since this was one of my test tracks)?
I heard the SAME soundstaging/imaging/room reverb characteristics described above. All the instruments placed the same exactly as described above, and no the room didn't wash out the captured acoustics in the recording. It was plainly audible too just as described above. The main difference was the absolute freedom from any sense of "box" enclosure and hence the sense of 3 dimensional "holograms" AND the audible recorded acoustic space appearing around the speakers.
So now, with my claims you can do two things:
1. Accept that they are essentially accurate. But then try to explain why, still, somehow, the efforts of the engineers in soundstaging and imaging is somehow largely wasted. How would that not amount to a wild exaggeration?
2. You can try to dispute my account of the soundstaging above. But, how will you do that? You've tried to wave it away as a claim not based on blind testing.
But sorry, that's not good enough to back up your own claim in response. Since
you were the one claiming omnis would "waste" the soundstaging/imaging created by the engineers,
you'd have to show why my account is IMPROBABLE. So...where are the blind tests establishing what I heard could not have been heard? Not there, right? (And remember, we are talking about a specific set up optimizing for those speakers). Ok, how about measurements? If you want to say what the imaging and sonic characteristics I just described from the omni are impossible, or improbable...go ahead and show this via measurements. Can you show that Mile's trumpet wouldn't have been centered and more distant than the saxes and drums on L/R channel? The bass wouldn't appear more distant and less panned from the more closer-sounding, more present saxes in the L/R channels? Measurements demonstrating that, in MY set up, all recorded reverb would be rendered inaudible, Etc? Just how plausible can you make this by appealing to measurements, so that you can demonstrate my description has to be inaccurate?
Hint: You can't.
You can't do it with citing blind tests, nor measurements, nor sound byte appeal to authority, nor especially from any experience of your own (you didn't hear the omnis in my room set up).
And most important, you were ultimately making a qualitative claim that can't be backed up.
