but then how can You know what was received?
and what about all those things that sound engineers do to it? You must be thinking about some very rare totally purist recordings
but the fundamental question is this - how can You know what was received?
Simply because I find conventional directional speakers sound unnatural, while the omni speakers sound much more real, even with non-omni recordings.
And shouldn't the recordings made in the treated studios be better for omnis, since the music when played by my speaker sounds only as if it's played only in my room, and not my room and another?
If you aren't creating the reflections then where did they come from? They weren't recorded.
It IS unfounded
. But someone has to draw a borderline between OMNI and IN WALL aka INFINITE BAFFLE. You may have noticed that this discussion is meandering about OMNI without anybody having yet given a precise definition what OMNI is meant to be. Feel free to propose a better definition - but do it precisely!
It IS unfounded
I think that came from something someone posted way back in the first couple of pages about some Lamborghini priced bizarre multi-directional speaker that probably only sold to Sheiks because it matched their gold plated bathroom fixtures.
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
and how would you get a big symphony orchestra into you room
I would say its the other way round
close you eyes
and you should feel like being in the musicians room
the other day I experienced that with a big symphony orchestra
and yes, I have heard it real life too
but being in a recording studio
I don't think would be nice at all
I agree that spaciousness adds realism but omnis also take away features for which the artist and recording/mixing engineer worked hard.
How does a symphony orchestra recorded in an anechoic chamber sound like on your speakers?
and how would you get a big symphony orchestra into you room
I would say its the other way round
close you eyes
and you should feel like being in the musicians room
the other day I experienced that with a big symphony orchestra
and yes, I have heard it real life too
but being in a recording studio
I don't think would be nice at all
Exactly why I think audiophilia is quite often a slave to the limitations of recording. What I won't do is take it upon myself to artistically attempt to pen my own version of a space.
It's almost as if photography was limited to 4 inches wide. We wouldn't be able to get a good picture of the mona lisa, however I would still contend that my 4 inch picture was an accurate representation of the middle 4 inches of her face. I wouldn't take a pencil and try to draw the rest of it myself.
but the truth is that You can't hear those reflections as such, instead they work as a kind of corrective glasses - what is repeated many times in reflections can be heard easier, quite contrary to popular belief, it only has to be reflected in the right way - reflected copies must preserve the structure of the original sound (they can be somewhat filtered though) - which only a properly designed omni can do
what You can hear is what was always in the recording but was obscured by conventional speakers
It IS unfounded
I think it's misleading to define what omni is or not. The underlying question is "What reflection pattern is desirable in sound reproduction and how can it be achieved"?
I just did
180 degr perfect homogene polar pattern
name any other speaker doing that 100%
if not, it could be one exclusive definition of true omni polar designs
Every better waveguide and dipole would have equal directivity - but they lack sound pressure in some directions.
OMNI to me has to be defined by 360° radiation angle - at least in one plane, preferably lateral. If not - why would we call it OMNI at all?That they do, and since I value realism far above the features the mixing engineers put in I'm satisfied with my omnis.
They sound like the orchestra is in my room, rather than soundling like I'm in the studio. The worst recordings as I see it is those that are recorded in normal rooms with reflections, like live recordings. Those sound horrible compared to anechoic chamber recordings.
Oh, I've got plenty of recordings that convey spacial information that defies the boundaries of my room by several orders of magnitude in some cases and I'm only listening to 2-way mains and a pair of subs, such as "Ry Cooder and Vishwa Mohan Bhatt - Ganges Delta Blues"
Now why would I want to take a space that they Blumlein paired with $40,000 worth of microphones and color it with my own spacial recreation by reflecting it infinitely around my room?
Member
Joined 2009
Is wide or narrow dispersion design better in the living room?
DrDyna, it's obvious that the best speaker is the one that is designed to match the recording pattern of the microphone. I don't think anybody will contend that.
I think what this discussion boils down to is what is the best type of speaker that works for the TYPICAL living room? I think "omni" is an ambiguous term when it comes to practical sound reproduction that no speaker(or instrument) achieves fully. I would like to restate the original question to which speaker design works best in the living room - Wide dispersion ( > -90 to +90 ) or Narrow dispersion ( -45 to +45 ). To clarify a bit further I will give examples of Wide Dispersion designs as the typical 5" woofer bookshelf, 3" fullrangers and SL's Pluto. For Narrow Dispersion design some examples will be the Geddes speakers, the Econowave and large electrostatics. Let's keep dipoles out of this discussion for now because they may fall in either category.
In MY OPINION and I feel many other people share this view the answer is ALL well designed speakers with an even power response. With that said Wide Dispersion designs will engage the room earlier and so Narrow Dispersion designs can be played louder but they suffer from a smaller sweet spot. A person should make their pick based on their listening preferences. In the nearfield small fullrangers should sound the best. For a big sweet spot (home theater) small bookshelves will work very well. If you must play very loud you need an Econowave.
In the end let me clarify what I meant by "speakers will engage the room". That's the inevitable peaks and dips in the bass, the plates rattling when you slam a door and the echo from the ceiling when you scream loudly.
DrDyna, it's obvious that the best speaker is the one that is designed to match the recording pattern of the microphone. I don't think anybody will contend that.
I think what this discussion boils down to is what is the best type of speaker that works for the TYPICAL living room? I think "omni" is an ambiguous term when it comes to practical sound reproduction that no speaker(or instrument) achieves fully. I would like to restate the original question to which speaker design works best in the living room - Wide dispersion ( > -90 to +90 ) or Narrow dispersion ( -45 to +45 ). To clarify a bit further I will give examples of Wide Dispersion designs as the typical 5" woofer bookshelf, 3" fullrangers and SL's Pluto. For Narrow Dispersion design some examples will be the Geddes speakers, the Econowave and large electrostatics. Let's keep dipoles out of this discussion for now because they may fall in either category.
In MY OPINION and I feel many other people share this view the answer is ALL well designed speakers with an even power response. With that said Wide Dispersion designs will engage the room earlier and so Narrow Dispersion designs can be played louder but they suffer from a smaller sweet spot. A person should make their pick based on their listening preferences. In the nearfield small fullrangers should sound the best. For a big sweet spot (home theater) small bookshelves will work very well. If you must play very loud you need an Econowave.
In the end let me clarify what I meant by "speakers will engage the room". That's the inevitable peaks and dips in the bass, the plates rattling when you slam a door and the echo from the ceiling when you scream loudly.
180° polar pattern could well be achieved with an in wall 3-way-system - up to 4 kHz at least. I need to see measurements to believe that your Carlson speaker with four tweeters has any better accuracy above 4 kHz.
BTW: I would never call a 180° pattern OMNI - strange
me too, the other way round, with the flooder I can hear a variety of spaces changing from record to record
I think that Rudolf insists on a capital point : when 360° radiating sources are very far from the boundaries ( 1 meter is still pretty close), then the reflections are enough delayed to not being combinated with the direct sound. 20 ms would be a must, then what a big room !
Like this, the omni send "in yer face" the holy real information that some people expect with reason but provide also the spaciousness that makes the result closer to a real event, as other people like.
The omni have here a big advantage on the directive designs IF the room is normally alive and not stuffed : except a roll off in the Hf (longer distance attenuation), the spectra of the reflections is the same that the spectra of the direct sound, with the consequences that everybody knows.
It's not rocket science then to understand why omni are not more popular : they need a huge space so are a luxury item.
Like this, the omni send "in yer face" the holy real information that some people expect with reason but provide also the spaciousness that makes the result closer to a real event, as other people like.
The omni have here a big advantage on the directive designs IF the room is normally alive and not stuffed : except a roll off in the Hf (longer distance attenuation), the spectra of the reflections is the same that the spectra of the direct sound, with the consequences that everybody knows.
It's not rocket science then to understand why omni are not more popular : they need a huge space so are a luxury item.
reflecting infinitely??
seriously what are You talking about? Are You living in a giant bathroom?