which speaker is good on classical music?

[TLS Guy]

In theory, yes. But when you consider the finer points of practical use, then the answer is: not necessarily.

I pointed out earlier that the human hearing system tends to perceive easiest, the longest delays/reverbs, whether these are from the room, or from the recording. With the minimum set up of a true wide band omnipolar speaker in a normal room, significant room delay/reverb will be present. Now, this can be minimized to work well with all music types, but it's not likely in what amounts to casual placement of the speakers with little to no acoustical treatments to specifically address this issue. In the original posters circumstance, his set up is going to have significant delays that will be of negative consequence when the recorded music has very short or no delay/reverb. Now, the original poster wants to primarily listen to classical music. Nearly all of such music has substantial delays/reverb as a consequence of the recording environment(s) typical for this music genre. As such, this would dominate the perceived playback, with the room signature delay/reverb with much shorter time window would be heavily masked. Now, if you play back studio recorded music with little to no delay/reverb(rather common on present day pop/rock/etc.), the room is going to become far more audible, most likely to an annoying extent. In addition, most omnipolar speakers have substantially lower output SPL ability as compared to monopolar speakers - there for if one likes to listen at moderately high SPL - the speaker's mechanical limitations, and even amplifier limitations, may become an issue.

Now, one could have large broadband absorber panels and perhaps some diffusors to put on the side walls, and set these up behind the omnipolar speakers to remove the rear reflection(s) for low delay/low reverb music, and avoid many of the room problems. Then take down these devices for classical music or other music with heavy/long delay/reverb. If one is willing to do this, them they could have the best of two worlds. However, one more factor enters here: treble power. With an omnipolar design, the treble will usually be reduced in level more, as compared to a monpolar design, as the amount of total radiated power in both circumstances is radically different in proportion with the midbass band. The correction for this would be to add a shelving filter to the line level signal to boost/reduce the treble power for each mode of operation. A digital DSP EQ would make this a simple/easy adjustment.

-Chris

I listen to only classical music pretty much. A significant amount is recorded in highly ambient spaces.

For many years I made recordings for the local public radio station. I was very careful about phase and time delays, and used almost exclusively crossed figure of 8 or X+Y X-Y technique. This latter is a coincident microphone with one capsule set omnidirectional, and the other capsule set to figure of 8 with the null facing the performers. The front of the capsule faces left. The left channel is the addition of the capsules, and the right is the omni with the figure of 8 added out of phase, since the lobes of a figure of 8 capsule are out of phase. This technique is excellent for radio broadcast as the listener with a mono radio only hears the omni capsule. Also the technique gives you control of the depth of field and the ambient field.

One of the reasons I got into making very high quality recordings, was to have a good source of material that I knew the pedigree of for loudspeaker evaluation.

I can tell you omni polar speakers are a dead loss for reproducing music with a well preserved ambient field. They sound cavernous and make a piano for instance fill the whole space between the speakers. I would not recommend omni polar speakers at all, no matter what the often quoted professor has to say. Omni polar speaker designs have come and gone over fifty years or more that I can think of. Most have been soon gone and with good reason and good riddance.

For classical music you need an extremely smooth frequency response. Any peaks, or HF pre emphasis will stick out like a sore thumb. The sound should be non resonant. The bass should be deep and extended and fluid but without boom. Diffraction loss should be corrected to give correct balance to the chest voice, and the body of strings. Many speakers have a weakness here, that will not be evident on pop music but give orchestral and choral music a lack of weight and body. In fact speakers that are correct in this regard, may not sound good on pop music, as pop singers inhale microphones, and you have a severe proximity effect, that speakers weak in the tenor register will tend to correct. Preferably all this needs to be accomplished with minimal violence to phase and time. Quite a tall order

Go to concerts as often as you can. In the orchestra you will hear lots of color and fire, but at the same time a mellowness, or softness, that eludes the vast majority of speakers.

 

[fredk]

Any peaks, or HF pre emphasis will stick out like a sore thumb.

TLS Guy. would you mind answering a couple of questions?

1. Why is classical music so much more sensitive (affected by) anomalies like peaks? What I have read to date suggests that short sharp peaks are not likely to be heard.

2. What does HF pre emphasis mean? I am guessing HF is high frequency.

Thanks.

 

[TLS Guy]

TLS Guy. would you mind answering a couple of questions?

1. Why is classical music so much more sensitive (affected by) anomalies like peaks? What I have read to date suggests that short sharp peaks are not likely to be heard.

2. What does HF pre emphasis mean? I am guessing HF is high frequency.

Thanks.

The first is difficult to answer. I suspect that part of the reason is that classical music has existed for a long period of time, and the vast majority of it performed without any microphones, amplifiers or loudspeakers involved. I think most classical music lovers have had significant exposure to live music from natural instruments and voices, and have a good frame of reference. Pop music on the other hand, more often than not, can only come to life though amplification, and the speakers usually used are rather misbegotten examples of the genre. The play back chain then has a lot of license not enjoyed when reproducing natural acoustic instruments, which produce beautiful sound outside an electronic environment.

The other thing is that there are a vast number of instruments to say nothing of voices, in a lot of classical concerts. If there are peaks, it will hit an instrument or two right on the raw.

The third thing is that in good recordings there is a highly complex ambient envelope present. This does not just get mangled by the usual culprits, just try listening to a highly ambient recording via a lossy codec like mp3. It sounds a shadow of its former self.

HF or treble emphasis sounds particularly tiring on classical music, and makes for excess sibilance, so the s sounds of the chorus in particular spread all over the place in a most unnatural fashion.

 

[fredk]

Thanks, that gives me some things to ponder.

Your comments about significant exposure to live music strikes a chord. If there is one thing I have been convinced of over the last few months, it is that without exposure to a reference, we very quickly adapt to what we are hearing, making it the new reference.

 

[JerryLove]

I can tell you omni polar speakers are a dead loss for reproducing music with a well preserved ambient field. They sound cavernous and make a piano for instance fill the whole space between the speakers. I would not recommend omni polar speakers at all, no matter what the often quoted professor has to say. Omni polar speaker designs have come and gone over fifty years or more that I can think of. Most have been soon gone and with good reason and good riddance.

That sounds similar to what I was discussing earlier, and I still think that said study is accurate, but misread/misinterpreted.

Regardless (not wanting to be the one to reopen that off-topic can of worms), do you have some particular recommendations?

 

[TLS Guy]

That sounds similar to what I was discussing earlier, and I still think that said study is accurate, but misread/misinterpreted.

Regardless (not wanting to be the one to reopen that off-topic can of worms), do you have some particular recommendations?

Obviously you can't hear every speaker around. However B & W have made good consistent products over the years, especially in their higher priced offerings, the same goes for speakers from Mordant Short and Dynaudio. Quad speakers are also excellent, both electrostatic and moving coil. They have powered versions of their moving coil speakers and you would not need power amps. I have liked Mission speakers also. For those with very deep pockets ATC speakers are outstanding.

Because of the extreme difficulty of producing a decent speaker especially for the reproduction of classical music, there are a huge number of speaker manufacturers out there. Only a fraction of them are available in a given geographic area, to say nothing of the fact that many are only available over the Internet.

 

[WmAx]

I can tell you omni polar speakers are a dead loss for reproducing music with a well preserved ambient field. They sound cavernous and make a piano for instance fill the whole space between the speakers. I would not recommend omni polar speakers at all, no matter what the often quoted professor has to say. Omni polar speaker designs have come and gone over fifty years or more that I can think of. Most have been soon gone and with good reason and good riddance.

If I was to evaluate the common omnipolar speakers, which are rubbish(highly resonant, etc.), and also listen with the set up and acoustics as is typically done, I would agree with you. But specific treatment is required, as well as placement; I have emphasized this fact. Your (likely) flawed exposure to improperly set up acoustics/placement is not a valid experience to the potential of proper omni polar systems.

Simply a mono polar speaker of standard dispersion is not going to approach the sound quality of a proper omni polar system set up properly; you can ignore the perceptual research all you wish - it won't make it any less valid.

Go to concerts as often as you can. In the orchestra you will hear lots of color and fire, but at the same time a mellowness, or softness, that eludes the vast majority of speakers.

All of my references are live acoustic/classical with no amplification. I take special care in maintaining such exposures of classical performances, and isolated acoustical performances by live musicians without amplification. In fact, much of my initial fascination with speaker design was born from the desire to reproduce this type of music as realistically as possible. I have performed countess controlled tests on dispersion, room treatment, etc, in the process of replicating the perceptual research data to verify it before committing to such applications.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

That sounds similar to what I was discussing earlier, and I still think that said study is accurate, but misread/misinterpreted.

Regardless (not wanting to be the one to reopen that off-topic can of worms), do you have some particular recommendations?

The particular study quoted has to do with timbre reproduction and qualities - I referenced another article to you as well - that is a summary of many of the facets of reflections/angles in regards to perceived quality and room interactions - it's up to you to read them and form your conclusion of said research with more than one extracted paragraph, which you appear to be trying to re-interpret.

-Chris

 

[TLS Guy]

If I was to evaluate the common omnipolar speakers, which are rubbish(highly resonant, etc.), and also listen with the set up and acoustics as is typically done, I would agree with you. But specific treatment is required, as well as placement; I have emphasized this fact. Your (likely) flawed exposure to improperly set up acoustics/placement is not a valid experience to the potential of proper omni polar systems.

Simply a mono polar speaker of standard dispersion is not going to approach the sound quality of a proper omni polar system set up properly; you can ignore the perceptual research all you wish - it won't make it any less valid.



All of my references are live acoustic/classical with no amplification. I take special care in maintaining such exposures of classical performances, and isolated acoustical performances by live musicians without amplification. In fact, much of my initial fascination with speaker design was born from the desire to reproduce this type of music as realistically as possible. I have performed countess controlled tests on dispersion, room treatment, etc, in the process of replicating the perceptual research data to verify it before committing to such applications.

-Chris

Chris, we are always going to disagree on this one.

A standard moving coil driver is just not a promising prospect to make an omni polar speaker.

If you place a tweeter in a diffuser over a cone speaker, you will have all sorts of reflections to deal with. If you fire separate drivers in multiple directions, then you have comb filtering to deal with and worst of all the drivers are separated in space and therefore time. I know you are not as concerned about time aberrations in speakers as I am, but everything I have done tells me time aberrations are limiting of excellent results, and I don't think it something to be cavalier about at all.

The whole issue is difficult without a perfect solution. It begins with the problem of the different radiation patterns of the instruments themselves. Just look at a violin and trumpet for instance.

Then of course there is the time AND direction of reflected sound. In any two channel recording that preserves ambiance, much of the ambient field is going to be reproduced coming from the wrong direction.

I think the Ambiosonic Calrec microphone was a step in the right direction. I think if multichannel audio had continued in that direction results would be better.

And in the end, I don't want a speaker that is fussy as to room and placement. I have no space to hang any room treatments even if I wanted to. And I do believe speakers with good voicing and balance are much more tolerant of room differences.

I think there are good reasons, that with the current development of the moving coil drivers, that most speakers are monopoles. Certainly the best moving coil speakers I'm aware of are monopoles.

 

[WmAx]

Chris, we are always going to disagree on this one.

A standard moving coil driver is just not a promising prospect to make an omni polar speaker.

If you place a tweeter in a diffuser over a cone speaker, you will have all sorts of reflections to deal with. If you fire separate drivers in multiple directions, then you have comb filtering to deal with and worst of all the drivers are separated in space and therefore time. I know you are not as concerned about time aberrations in speakers as I am, but everything I have done tells me time aberrations are limiting of excellent results, and I don't think it something to be cavalier about at all.

You can build extremely high fidelity omni polar speakers without diffusors and upward firing tweeters. One solution is exotic, costly designs like the MBL speakers use, another is a hybrid design using a driver similar to the Ohm/Walsh, but more highly refined for greater linearity, such as the German Physiks DDD variant. Combined with a tweeter such at the CDT from Gallo, this can result in high fidelity combination in drivers providing a true omnipolar horizontal dispersion patterns. There is another option: virtual omnipolar. This is a mirrored bipole speaker(front/back radiators) using a driver combination of unusually wide dispersion drivers, a mid with no dispersion limits in it's used passband, and a tweeter that is the same, even at high frequencies(15khz), is flat into the treble. Such drivers do exist that can be combined to effect this result, but are not common, especially the tweeter(I know of 2 tweeters in the world, right off hand, that are suitable for this application). This method will load the room almost exactly like a true omnipolar system, thus my reference as 'virtual omnipolar'. There may be additional ways to have a very high fidelity omnipolar radiation system - but these are the 1st three that I am familiar with. The 'virtual omnipolar' is IMO, the best solution, since you can switch off the rear speakers for reproduction of 'dry' music with little to no delay/reverb.

The whole issue is difficult without a perfect solution. It begins with the problem of the different radiation patterns of the instruments themselves. Just look at a violin and trumpet for instance.

It's not that simple, and it is presumptious to think the reason for very wide dispersion is to try and replicate the radiation pattern of the original recorded sound source(s). It has to do with the limitations of 2 channel audio and the lack of current recordings standards. A completely different animal. It just happens that science has found many of the key ways the human hearing interprets recorded material played back over loudspeakers and the related reflections, and their impact, as isolated variables.

And in the end, I don't want a speaker that is fussy as to room and placement. I have no space to hang any room treatments even if I wanted to. And I do believe speakers with good voicing and balance are much more tolerant of room differences.

Then it's your loss. So much better can be had if one is specifically targeting the absolute best sound quality possible and willing to adjust the acoustics accordingly.

I think there are good reasons, that with the current development of the moving coil drivers, that most speakers are monopoles. Certainly the best moving coil speakers I'm aware of are monopoles.

I can't argue with this. If you have paid attention, I never recommend super wide dispersion speaker systems for normal acoustical environments - in fact - I rarely recommend them at all because of the requirements for set up and acoustics of the environment. But when someone makes a specific request, as the original poster, I will explain how to best achieve their goal and also the full disclosure of disadvantages.

-Chris

 

[TLS Guy]

You can build extremely high fidelity omni polar speakers without diffusors and upward firing tweeters. One solution is exotic, costly designs like the MBL speakers use, another is a hybrid design using a driver similar to the Ohm/Walsh, but more highly refined for greater linearity, such as the German Physiks DDD variant. Combined with a tweeter such at the CDT from Gallo, this can result in high fidelity combination in drivers providing a true omnipolar horizontal dispersion patterns. There is another option: virtual omnipolar. This is a mirrored bipole speaker(front/back radiators) using a driver combination of unusually wide dispersion drivers, a mid with no dispersion limits in it's used passband, and a tweeter that is the same, even at high frequencies(15khz), is flat into the treble. Such drivers do exist that can be combined to effect this result, but are not common, especially the tweeter(I know of 2 tweeters in the world, right off hand, that are suitable for this application). This method will load the room almost exactly like a true omnipolar system, thus my reference as 'virtual omnipolar'. There may be additional ways to have a very high fidelity omnipolar radiation system - but these are the 1st three that I am familiar with. The 'virtual omnipolar' is IMO, the best solution, since you can switch off the rear speakers for reproduction of 'dry' music with little to no delay/reverb.



It's not that simple, and it is presumptious to think the reason for very wide dispersion is to try and replicate the radiation pattern of the original recorded sound source(s). It has to do with the limitations of 2 channel audio and the lack of current recordings standards. A completely different animal. It just happens that science has found many of the key ways the human hearing interprets recorded material played back over loudspeakers and the related reflections, and their impact, as isolated variables.


Then it's your loss. So much better can be had if one is specifically targeting the absolute best sound quality possible and willing to adjust the acoustics accordingly.



I can't argue with this. If you have paid attention, I never recommend super wide dispersion speaker systems for normal acoustical environments - in fact - I rarely recommend them at all because of the requirements for set up and acoustics of the environment. But when someone makes a specific request, as the original poster, I will explain how to best achieve their goal and also the full disclosure of disadvantages.

-Chris

Chris, I don't actually think we are as far apart as it may seem. I do think however it is a dead end to have drivers with very different radiation patterns. That is my chief objection the Martin Logan line. I find the transition from the electrostatic panel to the moving coil driver most disconcerting. I think the most promising approach is the Walsh approach. To me that has been the best of the bunch, but it somehow falls short. I have often considered obtaining a Walsh driver to play with. And I must say I always thought it sounded better before they added the tweeters.

I think if an omnipolar speaker that is going to be any good is to be developed, then a full range driver of some type is going to be required. I have maintained for years, that the best place any speaker manufacturer should put their R & D dollars, is to the development of full range drivers.

And by the way I'm not suggesting that you should try and reproduce the radiation pattern of every instrument. I'm just pointing out that the ambient field is complex, and that at least for the rest of my lifetime, I think how to best capture and reproduce it will remain controversial. I expect this will always be a matter for compromise. As I have stated so often before the root to pleasing and believable reproduction in the home, is to a very large extent the sum of the compromises chosen.

 

[JerryLove]

Apparently the topic is back on

The particular study quoted has to do with timbre reproduction and qualities

Right. It said nothing about omni-polar vs. mono-polar sources, and instead said that "distorted sound, even off-axis, is bad"; but you cited it in a discussion where my sole issue was the accurate reproduction of reflections on the source material.

I referenced another article to you as well - that is a summary of many of the facets of reflections/angles in regards to perceived quality and room interactions - it's up to you to read them and form your conclusion of said research with more than one extracted paragraph, which you appear to be trying to re-interpret.

It's up to me to interpret but I'd have to agree with you or I'm mis-interpreting (deliberately re-interpreting?) it?!?

"Perceived quality"? Isn't that what we get from "hot mastering", "bass boosting", "speaker break-in" and letting people know that they have more expensive cabling?

I thought we were discussing accurate reproduction of the source sound. Bouncing the entire orchestra, and the echoes already made in the recording hall, off your roof, floor, and walls will not make it sound more like it originally did.

You are introducing *new* echoes.

Maybe you like them (perceived quality). Certainly if I took a recording of an orchestra made in an anechoic chamber, and then played it in the orchestral pit in a concert hall, it might sound "better" because of the acoustics of the concert hall. It would not, however, sound more accurate to the source material.

So which are we discussing? Hearing what is recorded or improving the experience at the cost of accuracy?

Also, as I have mentioned, reflections are impossible for most of us to avoid. Given that: control of those reflections is very important, quality of off-axis sound is very important, and those reflections can create the perception of quality.

 

[fredk]

So which are we discussing? Hearing what is recorded or improving the experience at the cost of accuracy?

I think there is a range of what people are looking for and that should be relevant to the discussion, unless we are just arguing about who is smarter or right.

I don't understand why it is that people are so insistant that their particular choice of speaker or that their particular choice of technology is 'the best' and that all others should be disregarded. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Heck, if you really want all that reflected sound without any extras, get yourself a good set of surrounds and listen to your music in surround. The algorithms are very good at delivering the reflected sound with the right timing (that which is in the original recording).

And if you are really that picky, save your 20 grand and spend it on a lifetime subscription to your favourite orchestra. It dosn't get better than that!

 

[the grunt]

I don't understand why it is that people are so insistant that their particular choice of speaker or that their particular choice of technology is 'the best' and that all others should be disregarded.

Cognitive dissonance.

 

[WmAx]

Chris, I don't actually think we are as far apart as it may seem. I do think however it is a dead end to have drivers with very different radiation patterns. That is my chief objection the Martin Logan line. I find the transition from the electrostatic panel to the moving coil driver most disconcerting.

I tend to agree, and I never proposed anything of this sort. The drivers in my applications have very similar dispersion patterns.

I think the most promising approach is the Walsh approach. To me that has been the best of the bunch, but it somehow falls short. I have often considered obtaining a Walsh driver to play with. And I must say I always thought it sounded better before they added the tweeters.

They use the wrong tweeters. They need true omnipolar type radiation tweeters of high grade. I do think for Walsh in particular, a modified version of the Gallo CDT cylinder driver would be a good solution. As far as modification, it needs to a shortened version. The CDT is around 4" high, if I remember correctly; making it far too directive in the vertical plane. A 2" version would be suitable, however.

I think if an omnipolar speaker that is going to be any good is to be developed, then a full range driver of some type is going to be required. I have maintained for years, that the best place any speaker manufacturer should put their R & D dollars, is to the development of full range drivers.

A full range omnipolar of high fidelity is more difficult than a full range monopolar driver. I know of no practical realizations.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

It's up to me to interpret but I'd have to agree with you or I'm mis-interpreting (deliberately re-interpreting?) it?!?

At this point, I'm not even sure what YOU think it means. Perhaps you should clarify your precise thoughts so that I can respond accurately.

"Perceived quality"? Isn't that what we get from "hot mastering", "bass boosting", "speaker break-in" and letting people know that they have more expensive cabling?

Perception has everything to do with loudspeakers, which are devices that have to operate within the complex auditory system of humans. It would not be correct to refer to something as measured quality alone - as plenty of things that can be measured are not very audible. For example: lossy audio compression. You can throw out lots of information, and have a signal that does not measure all that well(try compressing an impulse response), but can be pretty much transparent to most people on most music material. So, the actual performance/signal characteristics are designed with the objective of how it will be perceived by the human auditory system; and measured behaviors can directly dictate this by cross correlation with perceptual research.

I thought we were discussing accurate reproduction of the source sound. Bouncing the entire orchestra, and the echoes already made in the recording hall, off your roof, floor, and walls will not make it sound more like it originally did.

You are introducing *new* echoes.

This was already covered. The 'echo' audibility is very small, when it is shorter in time by a substantial degree, compared to the recorded echo/delay/reverb. And this is only relevant to very limited scope, and certain reflections. The primary 1st reflections on the side walls, for example, if kept within the proper time window, are not detected as echoes, only as phantom images, that serve to widen the sound stage and enhance timbre resolution in the recording. The rear signal, also, can be beneficial most of the time, the only real exception being on completely dry recordings(not all that common, but they are around), but you can apply absorption for those recordings if it is important to you. Also, no one is talking about an echoey room. My listening room, which is about 15' wide, 13.5' deep, and 7.5' high, has on the order of 250-400 square feet of acoustical treatment products depending on the application, that are very careful positioned/set up for specific purposes. I do vary the amount often, for specific applications.

A stereo recording of a classical piece in ambient environment will simply sound far more realistic/convincing in the specific situations I have described earlier; this is a function of how human auditory perception functions. No limited dispersion/low reflection point application is going to be as convincing in terms of spatial or timbre characteristics.

Maybe you like them (perceived quality). Certainly if I took a recording of an orchestra made in an anechoic chamber, and then played it in the orchestral pit in a concert hall, it might sound "better" because of the acoustics of the concert hall. It would not, however, sound more accurate to the source material.

The way commercial recordings are now done: there is NOTHING accurate about them. Here is an interesting thing: I have 1st rate monopolar speaker system that I use on my computer. It has resonance levels in both the drivers and cabinet systems, that is far below what is standard even in the high end speaker sector - and the linearity is near perfect (+/- 0.6dB up to 16kHz). It is a fully active digital system - and it has virtually unlimited dynamic ability for practical purposes - using over 1000 RMS per stereo channel of amplification. The surrounding environment is treated to the same degree as you would expect in a pro studio monitoring system - but the speakers by every measurable aspect to perception, are much better than you will normally find in a pro studio. So, here we have a very accurate speaker system in terms of your definition. So it should sound more accurate? But yet, it can't come close to reproducing the spatial details of a classical music recording, and the timbre of the instruments does not sound quite real, either. But I play a high quality classical recording over an omnipolar system of high quality and set up to my specifications and it will sound very similar to a real event - in terms of space and timbre. Perhaps it does not sound THE original event - but it sounds almost exactly like A event. So one can make their choice: an 'accurate' play back, that has a constrained space with not-so-real sounding timbre, or a 'less accurate' playback that has immense perceived space and realistic timbre. I don't either way is particularly accurate. I think to get accuracy, entire new standards have to be defined for recording and playback. Look up Tom Hollman and his 10.1 surround format which defines specific recording standards and playback standards to accurately reproduce large or small scale performances in every sense.

So which are we discussing? Hearing what is recorded or improving the experience at the cost of accuracy?

But the only accuracy which you refer to is the accuracy of the recorded signal, not the accuracy of the recording to the original performance that was recorded, or the accuracy of reproducing it from a perceptual stand point in order to attempt to restore elements lost in the original recording process such as spatial properties.

Also, as I have mentioned, reflections are impossible for most of us to avoid. Given that: control of those reflections is very important, quality of off-axis sound is very important, and those reflections can create the perception of quality.

Yes.

-Chris

 

[Spkr_Bldr]

A full range omnipolar of high fidelity is more difficult than a full range monopolar driver. I know of no practical realizations.

-Chris

Shahinian Obelisk

I've had the pleasure of hearing them on two occasions ...

 

[WmAx]

Shahinian Obelisk

I've had the pleasure of hearing them on two occasions ...

Do you mean this thing?

http://www.hiendfi.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=958

If so, I don't think it qualifies as a full-range driver omnipolar, like TLS guy meant, since it has 3 driver types(woofer, midranges and tweeters).

I also seriously doubt this unit could come close to my standards. Looks to have standard highly resonant cabinets, and I can't imagine the response of those drivers is very linear, nor very consistent on and off axis. I have not seen measurements, but based on my experiences/trials, I am speculating; which is all I can do without credible 3rd party measurements.

If you mean a different speaker system, please correct me.

-Chris

 

[TLS Guy]

Do you mean this thing?

http://www.hiendfi.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=958

If so, I don't think it qualifies as a full-range driver omnipolar, like TLS guy meant, since it has 3 driver types(woofer, midranges and tweeters).

I also seriously doubt this unit could come close to my standards. Looks to have standard highly resonant cabinets, and I can't imagine the response of those drivers is very linear, nor very consistent on and off axis. I have not seen measurements, but based on my experiences/trials, I am speculating; which is all I can do without credible 3rd party measurements.

If you mean a different speaker system, please correct me.

-Chris

You are correct, that is not what I had in mind. I agree with you Chris, that is exactly the sort of speaker we can do without. The design concept in my view has nothing to recommend it.

I do not know of any practical realization of an omni polar full range driver. However I do believe it would be worth spending R & D dollars on. I don't really believe you could produce a fully coherent omni polar speaker without such a device.

 

[louisgce]

Hi All,

I went down to town y'day and try to find some hifi dealers. unfortunately, they didn't carry the brand that you all mention, it is a shame. I think it is not too demanding at the local market.

The few brands I have had a chance to audit are:-

1. Quad (do not know with model)
2 Mission (do not know with model)
3. Wharfedale (do not know with model)
4. Tannoy DC4

It is quite impressive on Quad & Tannoy. Quad is slightly stronger, but the size are also bigger. Tannoy is small & cute maybe easier for me to position them. Any commend?

I really feel sorry to those who had put in a lot of afford in this thread.