It was a T34B on top of a MW16TX. The midrange start to beam around 1800Hz and the Bliesma is all over the place at that frequency. Unless fitted with at WG... that tweeter to me is ... well... not optimal.
This is a good point. Omnidirectional can sound really good with the right recording, and in the right room. But similar to dipole speakers, they have to be set up right, and that usually means far from the walls.
I once spent some time listening to a pair of Mirage M1 speakers, which are close to omnidirectional. They sounded best when pulled out into the middle of the room, set up on a diagonal, and the listening position was fairly close. The speakers were much closer to me than they were to any wall. They sounded best with classical music, but particularly with Telarc recordings. If you recall, Telarc used a microphone technique of a pair of widely spaced omnidirectional mics. I did not put the connection together back then, but it makes sense to me 30 years later. To me, Telarcs have always had good tonal balance, but I have always struggled to get good imaging and 3D sound from Telarcs. Those M1's did a really good job of it.
Another speaker which demands a unique placement is a dipole such as Magnepans. When set up right, a pair of big Maggies can be really special. The small maggies don't seem to have enough dynamics and SPL, in my opinion, but the big ones can do... But again, you have to position them properly in the room.
j.
Attachments
Keeping the directivity constant across the entire FR is the key to a spesker which will sound good in a reflective room. Having an unbalanced spectrum of reflections bounce back at your ears will make a soeaker that measures balanced on axis in an anechoic chamber sound unbalanced overall in a normally furnished room. This can only be fixed if listening on axis in a heavily treated and acoutsically dampened room (very unrealistic and costly to do). This is where WGs can shine and cardioid bass setups work well, especially in very hot sounding locations which are hard to tame or if a wide listening window is desired.
Is this your finding? Although it appears intuitive that one set of room ambience would only confuse another superimposed on it, that's not necessarily the case. The concept of whether a speaker setup sounds good can have more to do with our ability to resolve it, whatever it may be.
It is just a statement, Allen. Omnidirectional can sound really good with the right recording, and in the right room. It implies that most rooms are not "the right room" and that most recordings are not "the right recording". I am sure we have some omni-fans on this site, and there is no value in being overly critical of someone's pet project. I was being polite.
For the record, there is no way an omni speaker would work in my listening space. I suspect most people have a similar situation... we can be somewhat flexible about speaker and listener positioning, but the demands of an omni (or dipole) speaker are just too great.
I can certainly see the truth in this. An Omni speaker interacts with the room more, and creates more early reflections and late reflections. As @profiguy said, this can be a pleasant listening experience, but a sound professional needs a monitor to be an accurate tool to evaluate what is in the signal. My understanding is that most control rooms and mastering rooms try to minimize reflections, so an omni speaker would seem to be completely out of place.
For the record, there is no way an omni speaker would work in my listening space. I suspect most people have a similar situation... we can be somewhat flexible about speaker and listener positioning, but the demands of an omni (or dipole) speaker are just too great.
No one is being overly critical, if anything, the opposite. It's difficult to set up such a reflective type of speaker but I think one needs to have done it right before commenting on what it really does. I'm sure those that have, would say that once done it's possible to have balance, and imaging. Those that haven't tend to point out those areas as problems.
I'm have a lot of issues with speakers that have rear radiating HF drivers. They don't make sense in a critical application where its important to have a coherent and temporally accurate monitoring situation, which only should contain the spacial cues of the environment where the sound has been originally created in. Anything else added, smearing the main balance temporally and spectrally, arriving at the engineers ears is considered not a part of the actual audio being monitored. Recording engineers need speakers that are as accurate as possible in every sense, so a speaker which adds an additional set of spacial cues isn't desirable from a standpoint of using the speaker as a tool of the trade. The main problem is successfully translating the mix into the final product for consumers to enjoy on a wide variety of playback setups. This is why an omni radiating speaker is practically never used for engineering and mastering. It just doesn't make sense. The only place it does potentially work is when a very dry recording is played back and can benefit from extra fluff. That's about it.
If you watch a movie on a projection screen with a beamer, you brain has to adapt to black not being black as on a good LCD or in our reality, like if you look out of a window.
If it is a high quality system, after a short while anything is fine and you enjoy the movie.
Some may not like the somehow milky picture, but will understand the movie too.
I see reflecting systems just similar. A good omni directional speaker can be fun, but is different to a direct radiating cabinet.
I did like the SONAB speakers of the 70s/80s. You could not spot a single instrument, but in a large room with high carpet the music was anywhere. Not for concentrated listening to details, but very nice for background music and civilised party's.
I do not really understand this pro and contra discussion, you may ride a bike or a car, you can reach another point in space if you use them.
I deeply dislike todays BOSE systems, nothing they do has anything to do with fidelity. Not even in PA. I remember the classic "direct-reflecting" speakers to sound interesting if used with the equalizer. Then Bose started to do this inflated, unreal bass, some call typical.
Other brands or DIYS, well made omni's sound fine and can even be used for "real" listening, but need too much care how you put them into the room, at least for my life. Best you build the room and furniture for them.
Open baffle, made right, are very similar, easier to set up for precise listening, but still not useable in many (most) rooms.
Also, many think this is the easy to do loudspeaker you need not to know much about and can simply screw some cheap stuff on a left over wood panel. Personaly I think without measuring and a DSP you are lost with open baffle.
If it is a high quality system, after a short while anything is fine and you enjoy the movie.
Some may not like the somehow milky picture, but will understand the movie too.
I see reflecting systems just similar. A good omni directional speaker can be fun, but is different to a direct radiating cabinet.
I did like the SONAB speakers of the 70s/80s. You could not spot a single instrument, but in a large room with high carpet the music was anywhere. Not for concentrated listening to details, but very nice for background music and civilised party's.
I do not really understand this pro and contra discussion, you may ride a bike or a car, you can reach another point in space if you use them.
I deeply dislike todays BOSE systems, nothing they do has anything to do with fidelity. Not even in PA. I remember the classic "direct-reflecting" speakers to sound interesting if used with the equalizer. Then Bose started to do this inflated, unreal bass, some call typical.
Other brands or DIYS, well made omni's sound fine and can even be used for "real" listening, but need too much care how you put them into the room, at least for my life. Best you build the room and furniture for them.
Open baffle, made right, are very similar, easier to set up for precise listening, but still not useable in many (most) rooms.
Also, many think this is the easy to do loudspeaker you need not to know much about and can simply screw some cheap stuff on a left over wood panel. Personaly I think without measuring and a DSP you are lost with open baffle.
Maybe one idea to think about. In audio the best solutions never get commercial mainstream. If we had some evolution in speaker building, like in the rest of the world, no one would build any passive speaker any more. Also there would be no sub or woofer without MFB.
Instead we are told to buy "gold-silver doped" capacitors. While silver is a superior conductor, it may make some sense, but gold is only added because it is expensive. So you can add a digit or two to the usual price of a good capacitor. Get a knife or a Colt and have it gold plated. The tecnical performance will not improve even .00001%. In capacitors gold should be seen as an ipurity, but no advantage.
Same is the use of exotic fibers in speaker cones. Some may show advantages, but why do they have to get more exotic every year? Take papyrus, carbon or Kevlar and your done. No cause to put lilly flowers from the white Nile in your woofer. Just a sign of no ideas any more.
A lot of the possible evolution of high performance audio is supressed by the industry and exchanged for voodoo like nonsense. Same soup, new pot.
Sure, if sales drop, the manufacturers can instandly pull ready made, real improvements out of the drawer, maybe this is the cause. Maybe there is a great audio conspiracy. I bet a Purify woofers advantages can be destilled and put into a 45$ 6" chassis. It is just not wanted.
Instead we are told to buy "gold-silver doped" capacitors. While silver is a superior conductor, it may make some sense, but gold is only added because it is expensive. So you can add a digit or two to the usual price of a good capacitor. Get a knife or a Colt and have it gold plated. The tecnical performance will not improve even .00001%. In capacitors gold should be seen as an ipurity, but no advantage.
Same is the use of exotic fibers in speaker cones. Some may show advantages, but why do they have to get more exotic every year? Take papyrus, carbon or Kevlar and your done. No cause to put lilly flowers from the white Nile in your woofer. Just a sign of no ideas any more.
A lot of the possible evolution of high performance audio is supressed by the industry and exchanged for voodoo like nonsense. Same soup, new pot.
Sure, if sales drop, the manufacturers can instandly pull ready made, real improvements out of the drawer, maybe this is the cause. Maybe there is a great audio conspiracy. I bet a Purify woofers advantages can be destilled and put into a 45$ 6" chassis. It is just not wanted.
Think of a large lounge, where you want to produce decent ambient music whitout loud or silent spots. Many people in the room, in small groups, maybe.
4 omni speaker, one near each corner. As you move away from one, you get nearer to another speaker. Reflections over the ceiling and walls distribute sound. It works, very well. Not for you, probaply, but for the situation.
It may be a design thing too, some may not like to look speakers at the wall.
4 omni speaker, one near each corner. As you move away from one, you get nearer to another speaker. Reflections over the ceiling and walls distribute sound. It works, very well. Not for you, probaply, but for the situation.
It may be a design thing too, some may not like to look speakers at the wall.
Attachments
If the whole system or most of the midrange on up is open baffle, that's a different animal than just a tweeter firing backwards (in or out of phase). It the imbalance of treble shooting backwards that is a problem for me, in most cases being an afterthought of design. It never sounds acoustically right or correct in any room and is a novelty at most. Definitely not for serious music monitoring and falls into the Bose philosophy of designing something by accident and labeling it as something scientifically well though out.
I've heard open baffle systems with a tweeter wired out of phase taking over where the rear radiating mid leaves off to maintain a balanced FR going rearward, which made sort of sense. It sounded pretty nice, but there was still a veiled sound up top with that exaggerated stereo image. Still, it made more sense to make the same FR of audio go backwards and forwards instead of just having the mid open and no treble to complete the rearward out of phase signal itself. The mids of this setup did however sound very open and natural, likely also due to lack of rear enclosure. I'm a big fan of open baffle speakers when they're executed properly and set up in the right location. Its just the rear facing tweeter that bugs the crap out of me and it has no place in a speaker designed for critical listening or monitoring. I've listened to higher end designs like the MBL and Walsh, but those also can be great in the correct setting.
I've heard open baffle systems with a tweeter wired out of phase taking over where the rear radiating mid leaves off to maintain a balanced FR going rearward, which made sort of sense. It sounded pretty nice, but there was still a veiled sound up top with that exaggerated stereo image. Still, it made more sense to make the same FR of audio go backwards and forwards instead of just having the mid open and no treble to complete the rearward out of phase signal itself. The mids of this setup did however sound very open and natural, likely also due to lack of rear enclosure. I'm a big fan of open baffle speakers when they're executed properly and set up in the right location. Its just the rear facing tweeter that bugs the crap out of me and it has no place in a speaker designed for critical listening or monitoring. I've listened to higher end designs like the MBL and Walsh, but those also can be great in the correct setting.
Sligthy OT : As I can not afford a big wave guide than can goes low enough in the 500/600 hz range with a 1.4 compression driver as FR from there, I am going to try for music purpose (I have no home theater needs) only, two Vifa NE128-08 per channel in a MTM or MMT (possibly in the back opened Statement loudspeaker layout) lwith a 12" (300/350 hz cut off) .
Hoping it will be good soundstaging enough despite a single 6" should be better for that purpose. But I do no find good midrange (theorical datasheet I mean) unit to cross the 6" river bridge.
Needing 91 dB /2.83 V , The Purifi mid is more a 5" iirc and is 90 dB/2.83V in its usefull bandwidth. The PA 18thSounds 6nd430 has my preference in spite of the Purifi because the price ratio as well.
But the good electric phase of the Vifas, as the titanium voice coil and low Rms for medium band reproduction are very attractive theorical datas... Ah and people that experienced them say it sounds very good : like SS Revelators without the aging issue talked elswhere here at Diya. But I really try after the compression driver in a mabat WG with a 1000/1200 hz cut-off.
Very intrigued in a competition there: WG compression driver 1000/1200 hz VS the Vifas 4" crossed over around 2500/3000 hz in the highs with a good tweeter like a Bliesma 25B or a small good enough ribbon according my wallet like the Fountek CD 3.5 H for a 12 dB slope (the horn recess for acoustical horizontal time alignement in the crossover pass band should help with a 12 dB slope... like a Bessel for instance)
Hoping it will be good soundstaging enough despite a single 6" should be better for that purpose. But I do no find good midrange (theorical datasheet I mean) unit to cross the 6" river bridge.
Needing 91 dB /2.83 V , The Purifi mid is more a 5" iirc and is 90 dB/2.83V in its usefull bandwidth. The PA 18thSounds 6nd430 has my preference in spite of the Purifi because the price ratio as well.
But the good electric phase of the Vifas, as the titanium voice coil and low Rms for medium band reproduction are very attractive theorical datas... Ah and people that experienced them say it sounds very good : like SS Revelators without the aging issue talked elswhere here at Diya. But I really try after the compression driver in a mabat WG with a 1000/1200 hz cut-off.
Very intrigued in a competition there: WG compression driver 1000/1200 hz VS the Vifas 4" crossed over around 2500/3000 hz in the highs with a good tweeter like a Bliesma 25B or a small good enough ribbon according my wallet like the Fountek CD 3.5 H for a 12 dB slope (the horn recess for acoustical horizontal time alignement in the crossover pass band should help with a 12 dB slope... like a Bessel for instance)
Last edited:
The Peerless/Vifa NE-W line is amazing. My favorite mid drivers at just about any price, specifically the NE123, 149 and 180 as well as the NE315W for low end sealed.
Your NE123Ws in MTM would be great, but consider crossing lower to the HF to avoid excess combing, unless shooting for a mild Fletcher Munson dip off vert axis, crossing around 2500 to 2800 and stagger the HP to 3600 to 3800 elliptical 2nd order. If you want max flat mids without the slight BBC dip, cross lower to a capable HF dome ie T25B or my favorite Morel CAT378. The Morel works great being a WGed dome and so effortless at any volume. The T25B is my other choice. You can cross virtually anywhere with those NE123Ws, so you habe lots of options. Don't HP them lower than 250 2nd order unless you don't need the dynamics, in which case 1st order HP at 300 - 350 would be my choice with a pair of decent 8" LF drivers a side ie Seas U22RNX, CA22RNX, Satori WOP24-8. If you want a good efficient 10" instead, stick with the SB or Satori paper cone stuff.
In any event, the NE123Ws are amazing and a great platform to build the rest of your system around. I always believe in starting with a good mid and designing the rest of the system around it as a start point for a successful 3 way. That mid (as well as 149W and 180W) driver does everything so well. It's such a good wide bander and so flexible to work.with. a shame they made it so hard to purchase. Possibly my all-time favorite cone drivers at any price. They're that good, possibly better than any SS revelator without the slit cone fizz up top when pushed hard.
Your NE123Ws in MTM would be great, but consider crossing lower to the HF to avoid excess combing, unless shooting for a mild Fletcher Munson dip off vert axis, crossing around 2500 to 2800 and stagger the HP to 3600 to 3800 elliptical 2nd order. If you want max flat mids without the slight BBC dip, cross lower to a capable HF dome ie T25B or my favorite Morel CAT378. The Morel works great being a WGed dome and so effortless at any volume. The T25B is my other choice. You can cross virtually anywhere with those NE123Ws, so you habe lots of options. Don't HP them lower than 250 2nd order unless you don't need the dynamics, in which case 1st order HP at 300 - 350 would be my choice with a pair of decent 8" LF drivers a side ie Seas U22RNX, CA22RNX, Satori WOP24-8. If you want a good efficient 10" instead, stick with the SB or Satori paper cone stuff.
In any event, the NE123Ws are amazing and a great platform to build the rest of your system around. I always believe in starting with a good mid and designing the rest of the system around it as a start point for a successful 3 way. That mid (as well as 149W and 180W) driver does everything so well. It's such a good wide bander and so flexible to work.with. a shame they made it so hard to purchase. Possibly my all-time favorite cone drivers at any price. They're that good, possibly better than any SS revelator without the slit cone fizz up top when pushed hard.
Last edited:
Thats really the idea and benefit of a quasi omni or diffuse field radiating speaker that just scatters HF everywhere. Its best suited for background noise and ear candy IOW nothing critical. Thats really sadly where everything is going towards nowadays, as most people view music listening as a passive activity to distract rather than a main focus event to pay full attention to. In the world of sound bars, Alexa and Apple homepods, this world is going down the drain music listening wise. Very very SAD and pathetic, but thats a whole different argument I try to not depress myself with.
I always wondered btw if Jim Holtz had his vertical MTM cancelation in mind when he chose a ribon as a tweeter between the two NE128 ???
Or just he and Curt were sensible to the ribbon sound definition (see ATS2500 driver after as well... not distributed here in Europe, The close Harwood we can find here doesn't seem to be really the same as the Aurum Cantus while perhaps comingf from the same chineese plant !)
Edit (off topic) : Seing at the measurements of our good ukrainian fellow here (HifiCompass), seems 350 hz is the minimal for a second order... certainly above that if playing always loud... I favor second order Bessel... at least electrically.
Or just he and Curt were sensible to the ribbon sound definition (see ATS2500 driver after as well... not distributed here in Europe, The close Harwood we can find here doesn't seem to be really the same as the Aurum Cantus while perhaps comingf from the same chineese plant !)
Edit (off topic) : Seing at the measurements of our good ukrainian fellow here (HifiCompass), seems 350 hz is the minimal for a second order... certainly above that if playing always loud... I favor second order Bessel... at least electrically.
Last edited:
Walsh ! That was the other omni speaker I had heard once... It seemed very musical and natural, but again, with certain kinds of music, and with the right middle-of-the-room setup.
I think it has been that way for decades. I remember in the 1980's trying to talk people into buying, or at least listening to a quality speaker, rather than the bling-filled crap they were about to buy. At the time I remember recommending the Mission 707 and Boston Acoustics A70 to many people, but instead most of them bought giant sized department store speakers. So it has not really changed.
There is still hope and many music to listen to everywhere. May the music be with you !
