I meant "blurry", no clarity. Low level details get lost. Which is exactly what a concert hall does but do you really want to hear each and every recording "concert hall style"?
Which omni and dipole designs have you auditioned, properly setup, at the right listening distance in a suitable room to justify your statements ?I don't. I consider both inferior
Orion
What is a suitable room and what setup is best? When I read through the posts of most omni/dipole proponents here, completely opposite setup recommendations can be found.I felt inclined to play around with a simple low SPL (mean 75 dB) nude dipole. I attached the nice 3" Vifa full range to 10" woofers and cross electronically around 500 Hz. I wanted to see how they differ from omni.
One thing that bothers me about these types of speakers (omni, dipole) and their need to be away from walls, is that they force you into the near field where the problems with stereo are accentuated. Small physical movements become large w.r.t. the stereo triangle.
I really think it's better to get the speaker as far away as possible, if one wants to give stereo a chance.
One thing that bothers me about these types of speakers (omni, dipole) and their need to be away from walls, is that they force you into the near field where the problems with stereo are accentuated. Small physical movements become large w.r.t. the stereo triangle.
I really think it's better to get the speaker as far away as possible, if one wants to give stereo a chance.
Talking about MBL - is this the best way to place an omni?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I'm not so sure the traditional stereo triangle is an optimal layout for dipoles. I prefer a setup that puts the speaker(s) an equal distance to the listener (slightly off axis to the listener) ... and almost twice that between the L/R channels. So, a triangle with a much wider base. The sound stage seems to be broader.
Well, its surely better than a 1" dome...no?
It would also be open backed, so no need for 2.
I'm sure a 2" could be crossed at 3kHz rather than 7kHz for better vertical polar response?
Ok, so you have heard one dipole. Did you at least have enough time to adapt to it ?Orion
What about omnis beside the Beolab that you did not like ?
Since when do you care for marketing pictures ?
And what if a narrow dispersion speaker would simply concentrate and bundle these details like a lense and thus over represent them ? Have you thought about that possibility ?
That claim is missing some arguments.
Have you ever done binaural recordings of different configurations? I did. You should too.
Maybe I wasn't clear. What I'm saying is that if you put a 3 inch driver in a closed box, and actively EQ it to be acoustically flat down to 100 Hz, it will require about 1/3 the Xmax (cone displacement) compared to the same driver set up as open baffle and actively EQ'd to be acoustically flat to 100HZ.
When I suggested I would consider back to back drivers, I should have mentioned that I would put them in separate closed boxes, and actively EQ if necessary. I would no longer have the Xmax issue of open baffle speakers, but I would have the dipole radiation pattern.
How big is the baffle on the box going to be to prevent dipole cancellation down to 100 Hz? The only way you would accomplish what you are talking about is to have the baffle big enough so that the front and rear drivers are operating in 2Pi space. A baffle big enough to do that at 100 Hz probably won't fit in a room, and would not yield dipole response.
John is correct, this won't increase the efficiency of the system over two drivers in an open baffle. Adding to monopoles out of phase reducves the sound radiation down to that of a dipole and the X-max problem just comes back again.
Oh sh*t, you guys are right... Sorry. I didn't think it out all the way... We're all aloud to embarrass ourselves once aren't we?
Oh sh*t, you guys are right... Sorry. I didn't think it out all the way... We're all aloud to embarrass ourselves once aren't we?
twice?
But I might as well tell you about my recent perception (and then we move on):
I have some difficulties to see what your posts are all about. Do you want to re-educate people, tell them that all their builds are a waste of time (although probably most of them are pround and happy whith what has been achieved), show a better way or anything else ?
To me it seems as if you are striving for the perfect way to do it. That's good. But I guess everybody here knows that there is no perfect speaker and way to do it. To me such threads go more into the direction: How good can a dipole or omni be built. So I find it a bit tiring that you are trashing omnis and dipoles all the time.
Also, if all your assertions are based on theory then you are lacking the ability to rate and weigh behaviors of those speakers because you cannot know how theoretical knowledge translates into practical experiences. That's why I was asking what speakers have you heard and maybe even built so far.
6.283, Your goal might be to build the best omni/dipole. My goal is best sound reproduction. Speakers are just a means to an end. If it helps, I don't consider the typical boxed speaker a good idea either. You want to talk about "car", I'm talking about "means of transport". You don't need to join that discussion if you don't want to.
And no, I'm not lacking practical experience. The claims I made are based on experience.
And no, I'm not lacking practical experience. The claims I made are based on experience.