oh no at all!
it's just that You are drawing illogical conclusions from what I say
but logical discourse certainly IS still possible
Perfect speaker and the word "small" is such an oxymoron to me.
To ensure we do not hear distortion we require a certain amount of displacements in the lower frequencies. If people are okay with 500Hz and above distortion free only then sure small is okay (ie. BOSE onwers) but a perfect speaker handles the full frequency range without distortion will require more displacement.
ie. Even 4" woofers are a complete compromise to SQ in the lower frequencies.
Remember in the world of audio there is no replacement for displacement. Therefore "Small" is a bad audio word
Scott, your post reflects the thread title very well; why are omni speakers not more popular
amen! therefore we need subs, preferably multiple and... small... ??? Jesus! Did I say that? Or just think it? Was I talking? Did they hear me?...
fear and loathing in diyaudio...
Scott, your post reflects the thread title very well; why are omni speakers not more popular
and the answer is: because they defy the laws of LOGIC
...fear and loathing again...
Member
Joined 2009
Remember in the world of audio there is no replacement for displacement. Therefore "Small" is a bad audio word
Yes. Good point!
This seems to be the general view that most people subscribe to. I can't say that I disagree for the most part but I am curious about what Linkwitz states on his web site about the human ear being conditioned by the room and ignoring room reflections when they come from a familiar environment. Maybe I'm understanding him wrong but I think the point he makes is that constant directivity as in flatness of the FR from all sides is more important than the pattern of dispersion. His perfect dipole describes a "fat 8" as opposed minimizing the side dispersion. What do you guys think?
guys,
with speakers as poor as they are (i estimate the best are 1 out of 10), there are lots of options for what to compromise. It is easy for 2 completely different speakers to be equally valid.
I enjoy both omni and not omni. As soon as i can gather 24 of the 35mm Foster clones of the JBL odessy out of the eMac i am going to do a pair of dodecahedrons (with matching "sub")
dave
with speakers as poor as they are (i estimate the best are 1 out of 10), there are lots of options for what to compromise. It is easy for 2 completely different speakers to be equally valid.
I enjoy both omni and not omni. As soon as i can gather 24 of the 35mm Foster clones of the JBL odessy out of the eMac i am going to do a pair of dodecahedrons (with matching "sub")
dave
I think my Artistic Audio Mobius speakers fit in this thread as they are omni directional speakers. Not well known but good sounding for my ears .
Look under my images below.
Juergen
http://profile.imageshack.us/user/wagnju/
Look under my images below.
Juergen
http://profile.imageshack.us/user/wagnju/
Last edited:
nice looking, but looks like a dipole design, and not omni
now, if they were bipole, and turned 90 degr, maybe they could be called vertical omni directional
well, due to size I concluded that it could not be bipole, but maybe a bit too fast 'logic'
are front and back connected in phase, or out of phase ?
still, I think you need to listen 120-180 degr off axis on driver, to called omni
Post #9 here Make a Dodecahedron - Wood Talk Online Woodworking Forum might come in useful. I can't swear as to his math so YMMV
I think the later mr Carlson from Sweden might have been on to something, with his special floor based speaker design
looks is one reason it didn't make it
and maybe prejustice
and another very important issue
poor drivers
there were not many good ones at the time
and his choices not the best either
and, crossover technology was far behind todays technology and understanding
probably the major issue
looks is one reason it didn't make it
and maybe prejustice
and another very important issue
poor drivers
there were not many good ones at the time
and his choices not the best either
and, crossover technology was far behind todays technology and understanding
probably the major issue
yes, I agree, especially looks is a key factor, plus short speakers with drivers on top are by design cats-and-kids incompatible
my early flooder has been destroyed by a kitten
Dave Shahinian has been making omnidirectional speakers (he refers to them as poly-directional) for many many years, and I've heard a few of them and been quite impressed. He seems to favor an omni style array for the mids and highs, and bi-polar radiation schemes (woofer on the front, transmission line port on the rear or bottom) for the bass end of things. They do benefit from careful room placement, but I believe that could be said of almost all speakers. Here is a link: Shahinian Acoustics Ltd.
In the literature I see those Carlson-like-speakers placed adjacent to a wall most of the time. Would that kind of placement qualify as "Omni" for you? I'd probably call that "half space".
another problem surely
There is little point in arranging the drivers like that unless they are acoustically in phase making them an omni
dave
Except for some very specific designs, even a single woofer in a box is omnidirectional in the bass.
dave