I know it goes against everything we 'believe', or believe to know
but I think its best to keep an omni 'low profile'
I would say about one feet high, or half a meter, max
and not use any diffusers
to mount the drivers at listening height with diffusors seems to me contradicting to the very nature of omni design
kind of like forced directivity
and drivers do not need to be mounted on top of each other
maybe they actually should't
might be one of the usual mistakes
its already here clear why its not going to be popular
no impressive 'looks', and too much like a Bose, or worse
but I think its best to keep an omni 'low profile'
I would say about one feet high, or half a meter, max
and not use any diffusers
to mount the drivers at listening height with diffusors seems to me contradicting to the very nature of omni design
kind of like forced directivity
and drivers do not need to be mounted on top of each other
maybe they actually should't
might be one of the usual mistakes
its already here clear why its not going to be popular
no impressive 'looks', and too much like a Bose, or worse
btw, its funny tho that my experiment clearly showed that floor positioned drivers had great and precise imaging/soundstage
and even more funny that singers etc were positioned with the correct height
and that with all sorts of things placed around
furniture, boxes, project, etc
far from optimal
placed close to walls
and below a big bookshelf
probably couldn't be worse
but it still worked
and the 3way xo, even more silly
and even more funny that singers etc were positioned with the correct height
and that with all sorts of things placed around
furniture, boxes, project, etc
far from optimal
placed close to walls
and below a big bookshelf
probably couldn't be worse
but it still worked
and the 3way xo, even more silly
Attachments
I hear the same effect from line arrays that contain 8 x 4" drivers, in the center of the wall.
Height of positioning is perceived as reflection from floor during recording session. When some studios put deep carpet on floor in order to silence steps this information is lost.
I have a pair of Ohm 1000's and am very pleased with them. I find it hard to switch back to conventional speakers.
I agree with much of what you say. I think the failed Bose 901 design did a lot to deter audiophiles from showing interest in anything but highly directional speakers. Even wide dispersion tweeters have lost favor. Despite mountains of different tweeters on the market, there are no acceptable substitutes for wide dispersion models such as AR's 3/4" or Roy Allison own brand designs. The current market vogue and expectations are for highly directional tweeters that beam their sound. These often sound shrill to me and very unnatural. They also require you to be in a "sweet spot" to get the best they have to offer. When you listen to real musical instruments, most are nearly omnidirectional radiators or indirect radiators and sound very different.
I think for the consumer sector it's that little domes are omni enough for most. The great time of the omnis was when there had to be done something for enhancing the dispersion of the drivers anyway. And among audiophiles pinpoint imaging has become a criterion for quality.
yes, Hegeman designed Lowther speaker-based Harman Citation X: http://www.roger-russell.com/eico/citationxstu.htm
before (?) there was also Lowther the Ace and after JBL Aquarius and others
perhaps such a flooder is omni enough?
perhaps as gainphile says:
as to the room interface
this is probably true with regard to typical omni, on the other hand a short flooder can work well also against the wall and is very room-placement-tolerant in general
as tinitus observes:
yes indeed! behold the magic of the real (short) flooder! 😀
absolutely!
I agree, and mounting drivers on top of each other inevitably leads to this
on the other hand there were times and places when flooders were very popular - I mean Sweden and Carlsson/Sonab speakers in particular
yeah, that's the main problem
the second is that it goes against everything we know, according to common knowledge, too
therefore most direct-reflecting designs - Bose and others, more specialty like Shahinians or more mass consumer oriented like spherical speakers of JVC and Grundig - were hit-and-miss, mostly miss...
They were popular in Sweden, the whole Carlsson line was omnidirectional.
Personally I've built a clone of a speaker inspired by the Carlsson line, the pop box. That speaker solves the tweeter directonality problem by having multiple tweeters like this:
Sound imaging is godlike compared to ordinary directional speakers, I will never be able to go back them... next project is to try to make a true omnidirectional open baffle speaker by placing a tweeter ring both on the front and at the back of the baffle =)
// Olle
Personally I've built a clone of a speaker inspired by the Carlsson line, the pop box. That speaker solves the tweeter directonality problem by having multiple tweeters like this:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Sound imaging is godlike compared to ordinary directional speakers, I will never be able to go back them... next project is to try to make a true omnidirectional open baffle speaker by placing a tweeter ring both on the front and at the back of the baffle =)
// Olle
Answer to the OP's question: IMHO, the part of the reason is that it is hard to implement omnipole right. MBL 101 is close to being perfect implementation, but they costs a fortune.
So,
Omnipole = hard to make it right = expensive = lower popularity
Doug
So,
Omnipole = hard to make it right = expensive = lower popularity
Doug
yes, very, I mean very well said! 😀 definitely godlike is the right word!
AudioPro has a model following Carlsson design principles:
http://www.audiopro.se/media.php?id_file=527
typical flooder, short, everything up-firing
Audio Pro have a great website. The speakers look well nice with the grills in place, simple/slightly retro urban-chic.
My second system consists of wide beam coaxials, crossover point not measurable from any direction, compared to that the polar response of my Carlssons is probably a mess (didn't measure due to lack of interest), but their imaging is in a different league.
This was pre-saged 2 years earlier by the Eico HFS90 (i have the whole Radio Electronics article but haven't prepped it into a usable format). Picture attached
dave
Attachments
I'm not a fan of omni. When listening to them, to me it sounds like there is too much reverberant field, and not enough direct sound. Although the imaging can be quite sharp, and tonally quite neutral, the overall soundstage doesn't give the impression of listening to live music. Dipoles (open baffle speakers), on the other hand, to me sound most lifelike. Box speakers are in the middle.
My experience is with SL's Pluto speakers (both revisions), and with a no-name speaker based on the Mirage design (made by the same company).
My experience is with SL's Pluto speakers (both revisions), and with a no-name speaker based on the Mirage design (made by the same company).
ah, they forgot how to mount wires and terminal, and just left out a woofer instead
thats clever, considering it costs a fortune
expencive waste scrap
shoot, I did wonder about the size of that 'box', for that many woofers
but maybe they thought; hell, lets make it a ripole instead
thats clever, considering it costs a fortune
expencive waste scrap
shoot, I did wonder about the size of that 'box', for that many woofers
but maybe they thought; hell, lets make it a ripole instead
No Lars, the design is sort of open baffle. The gaping hole is part of the design.
dave
