The same is true for the opposite I guess
The problem is that psychoacoustics didn't advance much in the past decades for something really new and unique to happen. So any concept is recycled over and over again because all of them have their merit - and drawbacks.
Last edited:
status-quo-Markus
@tinitus - Markus didn't like the bass of Beolab, problem is that Beolab dealers are not audiophiles, so to speak..., and to make things worse they are told to pump up the bass correction at max position as it pleases generally the consuming crowd, and the bass was probably screwing up the rest
Last edited:
Nope, simple old. 16th century and probably without any two surfaces anywhere being at 90 degrees.
Is there anybody in this discussion who is actively using an OMNI Speaker?
Where OMNI would mean 360° radiation horizontally (at least) and at least 1 m distance to all walls (maybe with the floor as exception). Carlson-type speakers who sit in the edge between floor and a wall illuminate only a quarter of full space - so no reason to call them OMNI.
Where OMNI would mean 360° radiation horizontally (at least) and at least 1 m distance to all walls (maybe with the floor as exception). Carlson-type speakers who sit in the edge between floor and a wall illuminate only a quarter of full space - so no reason to call them OMNI.
errrrrrr....... reread the title - "why aren't they more popular?" That does not equate to your twisting of the term "unpopular". The question is - why are they not more popular.
As mentioned by several - omni speakers are in fact fairly popular - but they are not as popular as conventional speakers. You could say the same thing about OB's or di-bi pole speakers as there are not a lot of them around either and thus they are not as popular as the conventional "box" speakers sold to the masses. Same for ESL's and magnetic planer speakers -
The rest of the discussion comes down to listening preferences - wants - and needs.
Last edited:
errrrrrr....... reread the title - "why aren't they more popular?" That does not equate to your twisting of the term "unpopular". The question is - why are they not more popular.
Oh, right. That is a little "glass half empty" isn't it?
The question still stands, though. I'd really like to hear what some of you who like omnidirectional speakers feel the reason is that we don't see more of them.
Aren't we really just talking about a conventional speaker, the only difference in reality is that it's allowed, or designed to radiate in all directions?
In my head, I can quantify the reasons why some people don't like a different "type" of speaker, but what we're really talking about isn't a different tech, but more a radiating pattern, as "omnidirectional speakers" can be made out of boxes or ESLs alike, right?
I'm using a pair, though they are closer to the wall than 1 m since I can't tell a difference from positioning further from the wall.
All in I find them quite insensitive to positioning, even if I block the direct output they sound basically the same.
Attachments
where does this definition with "and at least 1 m distance to all walls " come from? it looks strange and unfounded
Last edited:
I can tell the same
be prepared however to read here that You obviously like objectively bad sound and haven't got even a passing interest in accurate reproduction of recorded music
So, Graaf, you contend that an omnidirectional speaker is capable of reproducing the sound captured by a dipole microphone more accurately than a conventional speaker?
I guess I'm flawed in the way that I prefer to emulate the sound of musicians playing in my room rather than a recording studio
Nothing fancy, if I remember correctly they all operate in the same phase.
thank You! my favourite topic
before I answer I have to understand Your question precisely so please define what accuracy means for You
I guess I'm flawed in the way that I prefer to emulate the sound of musicians playing in my room rather than a recording studio
That would be wonderful if we captured it in that manner, but we really don't.
It's kinda like when they first introduced stereo recordings. It was a great idea, but the debate raged on because they weren't sure what to do with the left channel. Suddenly, we've got drums and guitar on the left channel and bass with vocals on the right. Great idea, but sucky tech.
Then they figured out how to mic it and bam! Now we have recordings that convey breadth, depth and height.
What I think we're doing with omnidirectional at this point is quite similar. We've got ways to get sound to radiate in all directions, but what we're doing is artificially creating a bunch of information by simply radiating the original signal out in a fan and bouncing it off of our living room walls.
The idea is great, but I don't think it's going to be even slightly accurate until recording tech decides to catch up to it. It's just like artificial DSP. While it may be pleasing, we can't really accuse it of being accurate, can we?
I guess I'm flawed in the way that I prefer to emulate the sound of musicians playing in my room rather than a recording studio
That's what a lot of people prefer but they forget that most recording and mixing engineers do NOT strive for spatial realism. Acoustically treated control rooms prevent spaciousness from happening. Stereo recordings are a cultural phenomenon like symphonic orchestras and concert halls.
So why insist on driving a F1 car on a dirt road? Just because you like driving on a dirt road so much? The car was made for something else.
Last edited:
thank You! my favourite topic
before I answer I have to understand Your question precisely so please define what accuracy means for You
What accuracy means for me is how analogous what I'm hearing in my chair is to what was received by the microphone at the beginning of the recording.
this descrpition is completely incorrect
this is not how it works, there is no creation of a bunch of information etc.
that could certainly be one step towards understanding
but can you say that as fact ?
how about I claim that its just equal directivity in all angles
only true omni polar will do that
at least I can't think of any other
and maybe the only reason why 'it' might be interesting