Why are OMNI speakers not more popular?

Jump to Latest
#61
Scottmoose said:
So you believe that different room sizes, shapes, and contents with their different levels of reflection and absorbtion have no affect whatsoever upon the sound.

Oh dear. I was right. No logical discourse is possible
Click to expand...

oh no at all!
it's just that You are drawing illogical conclusions from what I say

but logical discourse certainly IS still possible
 
#62
boris81 said:
The perfect speaker is a small point source dispersing sound equally into all directions.

OMNI designs are not very popular because many of them don't meet those requirements very well. Many small bookshelf type speakers with a 4" woofer and a 1" tweeter come close to being omni sources and are also very popular.
Click to expand...

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 😉
 
#63
Scottmoose said:
Sigh. As I have stated, an omnidirectional speaker in a room significantly increases the ratio of reflected to direct radiation. By definition, this means the end results are more heavily dependant upon the acoustic environment, and its absorbitions, reflections etc. than a conventional loudspeaker. If you are unable to grasp this basic point, there is no possibility of logical discourse on the matter.
Click to expand...

Scott, your post reflects the thread title very well; why are omni speakers not more popular 😉
 
#66
doug20 said:
Remember in the world of audio there is no replacement for displacement. Therefore "Small" is a bad audio word 😉
Click to expand...

Yes. Good point!


Scottmoose said:
Sigh. As I have stated, an omnidirectional speaker in a room significantly increases the ratio of reflected to direct radiation. By definition, this means the end results are more heavily dependant upon the acoustic environment, and its absorbitions, reflections etc. than a conventional loudspeaker. If you are unable to grasp this basic point, there is no possibility of logical discourse on the matter.
Click to expand...


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?
 
#67
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
 
#69
wagnju said:
........omni directional speakers.
Click to expand...

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
 
#71
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
 
#72
tinitus said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
#73
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom