If you have to ask that question, then why are you even bothering to spend time posting on this forum.
Last edited:
It would depend on whether the recording captures that well, I suspect many don't and he wants added ambience, however that would only work well if there was sufficient delay.
...closest to "no trade-off" for me must be the big multidriver line source/line array based systems with separate bass towers like Infinity IRS, Genesis 1, Gryphon Pendragon, Piega Master Line Source - big enough but not too big
Some may disagree, but it is compelling. By using the compact constant directivity approach, the reverberant field is largely made up of diffuse later reflections. This spaciousness is wanted. It doesn't necessarily affect imaging.
It also doesn't necessarily cause listening fatigue, something I tend to see of un-planned for earlier reflections.
I totally agree - that's why it is #5. It pays to know if someone is wanting that party / outdoor speaker. Who knows what they will use it for.
This is about someone elses goals. Whether we agree or not - it's a valid parameter to know.
My current 3 ways are only 84dB efficient. I barely get them above 90dB average listening. I think they are excursion limited at 105dB but I don't care.
Again, the correct answer is live performance is superior to two channel stereo. Now, why does that matter?
Because two channel stereo is a compromise resulting from legacy technology. Multi-channel is better than two channel stereo at approximating live performance, therefore, multi-channel will increasingly replace two channel stereo as technology changes the relative value of compromises. Multi-channel is standard operating procedure in Hollywood and we see the music transition underway with Apple's Atmos and Tidal's 360 streaming audio offerings.
There are different ways of looking at it. In some cases, SPL/power is the most limiting factor/tradeoff and in other cases it is the least limiting factor/tradeoff. That's why I figure it is best to make an informed decision about that before anything else.
Dipoles are claimed to provide excellent constant directivity, which seems to make the case for using open baffles rather than box speakers.
Stereo is fine as long as the channel separation is perfect. With loudspeakers it is not anywhere near it no matter how directive the speakers are or how many of them are used. Maybe some kind of speaker close to your ears but not like headphones plus some subwoofer for LF extension and slam could give you close to perfect experience. Anyone listen wit the headphones and a subwoofer at the same time? That might sound cool (maybe not to the other people in the house but anyway).
Yes, however don't confuse OB with dipoles 😉 Linkwitz was a classical music fan and said the reflections from the front wall should be diffused, I suppose this has a similar effect to a longer delay?
Last edited:
I tend to listen mostly nearfield, (my speakers are light and movable "fullrange" with separate subs) most of the problems go away due to the precedence effect.
True. Which is why you can't put OBs up against the front wall. You need to leave enough space for back wave to be diffused and delayed.
But OBs are dipoles and therefore should be good at providing constant directivity, which was the point being made.
I was just pointing out that OBs are dipoles and therefore provide the desirable characteristic of constant directivity. Not trying to compare them to omnis.
I understand your point about dipoles, I'm just saying an OB doesn't necessarily make for CD, a dipole, by definition, does. For example, a fullrange driver in a baffle will not give dipole radiation.