Is the semiomnidirectional loudspeaker clossest to live...

[Bojan Hajdinjak]

What is the favor of omni directional or semi omni directional design of loudspeakers?

Is the direct reflecting something similar to live (acoustic) presentation or only something similar to presentation of some PA (Public Address)?

When we play the violin or cimbaloms, drums, …. or if we look on symphonic orchestra, all of this is close to “semi omni directional”.



Semi omni directional design of loudspeakers (something like HL Savin)
have favor to reproduces sound in all of our living room with solid quality (not only in the from of loudspeakers like in the most of cases).

What do you think about. Where are the reasons to domination of direct reflecting in our living rooms? Is the sound stage like we know (hifi sound stage) something near live or near to sound in our imagination?

[MBK]

It's the quadrature of the cercle

Think about it:

- in an ambient recording, such as from a symphonic orchestra in a concert hall, you want to hear the ambience of the venue. It is already on the recording, so you would want to hear as direct sound as possible, with little room effects to overlay it with a second ambient reverberation - that of your listening room. For such a recording, headphone listening or highly directional speakers in a quite sound dead room would be ideal.

- in a studio recording, or a close miked live one, you have mostly the singers and instruments on the record, as pure as they get at the source. For playback then, it will sound sterile if you don't add some ambience. For that kind of recording, a quite "live" room and speakers with good dispersion would be closest to natural sounding.

Analogously, instruments have different radiating areas, and patterns. Think piano vs. trumpet. Usually, for good imaging and other reasons, speakers are designed to approximate point sources. Those speakers consequently must fail to convey the size of a piano, or the sound wall coming from an orchestra. Other speakers, such as line sources and planars, have large radiating areas. They seem to sound better with orchestras, pianos... but may overemphasize single singers' or instruments' "size". And they image not so well.

In other words for these very simple reasons, that different recordings have different optimal speaker and room setups, you can only ever reach an acceptable compromise in speaker design. Nothing will ever sound "live", even assuming zero distortion in the chain.

That compromise seems to lie in moderate, well controlled dispersion, power flatness, low power compression, and a medium reverberating room.

For what it's worth - the ratio of direct to reflected sound falls below one at a distance of barely over 1 m from the speaker, in a typical listening setup, with typical cone piston drivers. No need to get 100% reflected sound by pointing the speakers at the ceiling ... physics does it all for you.

[phase_accurate]

Theoretically the direct and the reflected sound should have the same acoustic footprint. I.e. the directionality should be the same from bottom to the top.

Not many speakers behave that way (mine neither !).

Regards

Charles

[Bojan Hajdinjak]

Originally posted by MBK
It's the quadrature of the cercle

Think about it:

- in an ambient recording, such as from a symphonic orchestra in a concert hall, you want to hear the ambience of the venue. It is already on the recording, so you would want to hear as direct sound as possible, with little room effects to overlay it with a second ambient reverberation - that of your listening room. For such a recording, headphone listening or highly directional speakers in a quite sound dead room would be ideal.

- in a studio recording, or a close miked live one, you have mostly the singers and instruments on the record, as pure as they get at the source. For playback then, it will sound sterile if you don't add some ambience. For that kind of recording, a quite "live" room and speakers with good dispersion would be closest to natural sounding.

Analogously, instruments have different radiating areas, and patterns. Think piano vs. trumpet. Usually, for good imaging and other reasons, speakers are designed to approximate point sources. Those speakers consequently must fail to convey the size of a piano, or the sound wall coming from an orchestra. Other speakers, such as line sources and planars, have large radiating areas. They seem to sound better with orchestras, pianos... but may overemphasize single singers' or instruments' "size". And they image not so well.

In other words for these very simple reasons, that different recordings have different optimal speaker and room setups, you can only ever reach an acceptable compromise in speaker design. Nothing will ever sound "live", even assuming zero distortion in the chain.

That compromise seems to lie in moderate, well controlled dispersion, power flatness, low power compression, and a medium reverberating room.

For what it's worth - the ratio of direct to reflected sound falls below one at a distance of barely over 1 m from the speaker, in a typical listening setup, with typical cone piston drivers. No need to get 100% reflected sound by pointing the speakers at the ceiling ... physics does it all for you.

Sorry, I have to disagre with...
Everything is compromise but some things are more and another is the less....

In orchestral (symphonic) music, microphones are on the top of orchestra. Imagine with direct reflecting isn’t correct. In other case, we can hardly to speak about soundstage in studio recordings – but – we know how (indirect) sounds most of instruments. Some trumpets newer plays direct into listener …. and what is the point of (home) audio? To sit between speakers in one point of seat or listen in all the room an live with music (to hear as good as possible when we staying, when goes round and down,…). 3D sound stage is term of HiFi and has nothing with live music (I think). 3D in the term of indirect reflecting its closest to the live music.

[Bojan Hajdinjak]

Originally posted by phase_accurate
Theoretically the direct and the reflected sound should have the same acoustic footprint. I.e. the directionality should be the same from bottom to the top.

Not many speakers behave that way (mine neither !).

Regards

Charles

Yes, but your hearing is not the same. If you stay before the trumpet or under the trumpet, isn't the same thing. It's the question of directivity from the position of listeners.

[thoriated]

This isn't a complete answer, but this influences my personal preference. A good system puts the performers in your room, an effect which lotsa reflected sound can sometimes assist. A great system (and recording) takes you to the venue. Omni sound generally works against this.

(Part of) the idea of having a well controlled dispersion and flat power response is to avoid audibly obscuring the initial sound front from the speakers as much as possible, presumably to help take the listener to the venue.

[MBK]

I agree that the soundstage recreated by the recording mixer does not generally reflect a "true live" soundstage. This is another compromise to make the recording pleasing to listen to.

The level of ambience recorded varies. Some orchestras may be close miked. Some recordings may record a maximum of ambient signature of the venue. The recording engineers and the HiFi system designers can only make a one fits all compromise.

The recording is not the live event. You can never have a "true live" recreation.

I still wouldn't simply blanket diffuse everything into the room and listen to nothing but to the maximum listening room signature - especially since people's listening rooms are usually less balanced, acoustically, than recording venues. And, with singers, I think most people are used to hear them singing at them, not at the wall... The sweet spot problem you mentionmostly arises out of nonuniform radiation patterns with frequency. A reflex speaker goes the easy way to get around that, at the price of having maximum room impact on the sound. A well designed speaker with controlled dispersion patterns will sound equally well anywhere in the room, and more precise right in front of it..

I don't think there is a one fits all speaker. There may, however, be good compromises.

[thoriated]

Any call for a speaker that you can switch from front radiating to more 'omni' by turning on, say, rear radiating drivers? Then you could tailor its ambient characteristics to the recording, your mood, etc. With active processing and a couple more amps, you could go from 'front radiating' to 'dipole' to full blown 'Bose'.

I'd better stop now. I'm scaring myself.

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

Originally posted by Bojan Hajdinjak
What is the favor of omni directional or semi omni directional design of loudspeakers?

Non.

I have had enough chances to compare the sound at the mike location to that reporduced by quite directional monitors in well designed control rooms to suggest that you might wish to add a digital reverb to your system instead of the semi-omni speaker. That way you can at least control the amount of distortion and switch it off.

If you increase the diffuse sound even more over the already usually very high level with the usual marginally competent designed HiFi speakers you can rest assured that the spatiality you observe has nothing to do with what was recorded.

In effect, semi-omnis, Bose 901's and true Omni's, as well as true full range dipoles without carefully absorbed rear wave press, smash or otherwise cramp the original acoustic event into your room (the "they are here" effect), while suitably controlled directivity designs of speakers which promote a high ratio between direct and reflected sound often successd in removing the walls (the "I am there" effect).

I tend to be of the opinion that recorded and replayed music should transport to the original setting.

Originally posted by Bojan Hajdinjak
Is the direct reflecting something similar to live (acoustic) presentation or only something similar to presentation of some PA (Public Address)?

Neither. It merely maximises the sound of your listening room, eliminating most acosutic cues from the original recording venue. Of course, with totally artifically created in a laboratory or factory music, such as most modern rock & pop such a thing may be desirable.

Originally posted by Bojan Hajdinjak
When we play the violin or cimbaloms, drums, …. or if we look on symphonic orchestra, all of this is close to “semi omni directional”.

Hardly. All of these instruments have spectral components that are quite directional and remain so even (or especially) if combined into large sound bodies, such as in orchestras.

Originally posted by Bojan Hajdinjak
Semi omni directional design of loudspeakers (something like HL Savin) have favor to reproduces sound in all of our living room with solid quality (not only in the from of loudspeakers like in the most of cases).

Yes, you mean they fill the room with sound by bouncing it off all surfaces. In a good stereo system with a competent recording the sound does not appear to come from the speaker at all and it is so precisely BECAUSE they promote the original recorded acoustics over those of the room.

Originally posted by Bojan Hajdinjak
What do you think about. Where are the reasons to domination of direct reflecting in our living rooms?

There are no reasons and "direct reflecting"/"omni"/"semi-omni" and wideband dipolar designs reamin an quiered taste for some listeners rather than something most people are either happy or comforatble with.

Originally posted by Bojan Hajdinjak
Is the sound stage like we know (hifi sound stage) something near live or near to sound in our imagination?

If you suitably directional speakers and use recordings that attempt to capture the original recording rooms acoustics you will find the soundstage/soundscape produced to be quite realistic. This requires a speaker setup that maximises direct sound at the listeners ears and which has a much wider "angle" between the speakers than usual, combined with strong toe in.

The reproduction can become holographic in ways that Omni's and related never manage. In fact, any Omni, Semi Omni and Wideband (as opposed to LF only) dipole system I have heard tends to present a strong spatialk sameness in the recordings, even with recordings that I know to sound drstically different in their spatiality.

I guess it makes sure all recordings have the same diffuse, somewhat airy but highly diffuse and indistinct imaging, regardless what the recording was like.

Sayonara

[thoriated]

I guess it makes sure all recordings have the same diffuse, somewhat airy but highly diffuse and indistinct imaging, regardless what the recording was like.

This may actually be a good thing with some cruddy multitracked recordings having 6 foot wide guitars, choirs in a closet and drummers with 10 foot long arms.


Ha!