Rethinking speakers

what about small(er) MBL's? I generally don't really like omni directionals, give me a wide soundstage any day, but omni directionals don't seem tickle my mind...

But,
the MBL's did. admittedly I did hear fairly larger ones (a new model, typical floorstander size...) And I was impressed. really...
Ohm walsh are an option too, yet no comparison to the MBL's...

and look for ESS Heil speakers too (well, speakers with ESS Heil tweeters in them...)
and JFYI, thiels do have a fairly large & wide soundstage too, wider than the monitor audio's, but you'll have to get floorstanders then, and go for the CS2.4 or the 3.7 :)
(but of course, I'm biased...)

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

but its not likely. the ohm As and Fs i heard were usually down to one channel as those speakers werent robust enough to endure the power they required to get loud enough for most listening tastes.

martin logans will certainly go loud enough but again, the sweet spot is smaller than consideration as an omni and the sound sitting or standing up can be quite different.

magneplanars fare well from off angle listening so may be an affordable alternative. i have MMGs and my friend has mg12s and they dont make you sit in one spot. yes, things are nicer in the sweet spot but the move from it doesnt slap you in the face.

vandersteens could be a consideration as well. as long as the side walls arent too close. if they ARE close, toeing in away from the sides can tame the overly spacey effect that can come from wide dispersion designs.

minimonitors are another choice to consider (with a sub) for somewhat omni dispersion.

i hope this helps.

So basically, if you have no need to move around the listening room, the Martin Logan are a nice choice. People are always so quick to bring up the sweet spot issue, but in reality, most do their critical listening in one spot. I suppose it's situational for each person.

to be able to move about (in canadian thats aboot) the listening room. also, when having a mancave listening session, you dont want to be too cozy with the other listener.

also, i tight sweet spot ala quad 57s is quite a limitation, the proverbial head in a vise sitch. i dont have this prob with the MMGs btw. and my other speakers are mini monitors like spendor s3/5s, and infinity primus 150s which allow more freedom of movement.

the MLs have a fairly wide SS so more than one can enjoy the dimensional qualities of them. also, the MLs meld nicely with their cone woofers so that is less of a factor than hybrids of decades past like infinity servo-statiks. another good ES is the sound labs but they might be a bit pricey.

Thanks Tommy for your suggestion of the MMG's. I could easily afford them and I could switch betweeen them and the MA RS6's. The MMG's for classical and the RS6's for rock and jazz.

JM,

Always good to rethink things from time to time.

I've built omni, open baffle and floorstanders with the same drivers all with eq to match a target response. All other things being equal I'd say I prefer omni and open baffle for their sound stage and imaging. The two are more similar than you might expect.

Harman audio do a great deal of blind testing of speakers, and they have found that what most people prefer is easily predictable based on measurements. One of the keys they found was that a speaker should have a smooth polar response transition. Speakers that had a poor polar response were always liked less even where they were much more expensive.

Omni speakers have an even radiation in all directions. I first thought the ideal was flawed and the wrong direction to take, but now I see it as a valid direction. Omnis have the biggest sweet spot you can get. It's difficult to get decent output from an omni and it's also difficult to extend the omni behaviour all the way up. If the treble isn't omni then the transition should be smooth. I've heard a Linkwitz Pluto clone and was surprised at how sharp the imaging was.

Open baffle speakers have a polar response that makes more sense to me. Side wall reflections are reduced due to the dipole null. The same is true with the ceiling. There are strong front wall reflections and you ideally should use diffusive treatments so the early reflections take a longer path.

I find open baffles much more appealing in the midrange. The stereo image doesn't collapse as you move sideways so you can actually simplify a 5 channel system into a 4 channel. (Not that open baffle really makes anything simple). The sound stage is bigger and more realistic. Not quite as sharp but there is much less of a sense of sounds coming from the speakers. If you place them correctly, you can actually cancel out the first reflection from the rear wall.

There is another approach which makes a lot of sense. Dr Earl Geddes designs speakers for constant directivity. Here is an example:

http://www.gedlee.com/summa_.htm

Notice how firstly the polar response is very smooth. You can see off axis due to the waveguide that the response is still fairly flat. Now let's say you sit off axis so you are closer to one speaker than the other. Normally this would ruin the image, causing it to shift to the closer speaker. However, if you toe in this speaker correctly so that it sits at 45 degrees and the speaker axes cross in front of you, something clever happens. The further speaker is on axis. So you hear the top line response in the chart. The closer speaker is a little more on axis. The result is that this placement with this particular design prevents the stage collapsing into the closer speaker. All this is explained in more detail in this paper:

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/directivity.pdf

I've done quite a bit of rethinking about speakers, and Earl is one of the ones who have given me a lot of food for thought. What I'd like to try is an open baffle speaker using a similar approach, extending directivity control down lower into the midrange and keeping the spacious sound of open baffle. The tricky part is the the waveguide needs more toe in than the mid. 45 degree toe in for a midrange open baffle doesn't sound right at all.

FYI my omni, tl and ob speakers on my blog:
http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com/2...dspeakers.html
http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com/2...-speakers.html
http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com/2...-speakers.html

I'm now selling the TL speakers to fund the next upgrade.

But what's the bass response like for an open baffle speaker? It seems like it would be similar to a planar or worse. Maybe some bass content but no punch or detail.

I'm not a big fan of open baffle bass, although it could be worth considering in some rooms that are very difficult. It responds to room modes differently. I've taken measurements of open baffle bass compared to my subs. Generally open baffle bass is better SQ but more expensive due to the need to move more air. You need typically four large drivers running say 40 - 120 Hz crossing to a monopole below. They have the same radiation pattern of panel speakers, but with more output and smaller size due to high excursion drivers. They don't benefit from room gain down low as they don't pressurise the room like a monopole. With my particular subs (Rytmik Directservo) I've found there is no SQ improvement, but with most drivers I'd expect a noticeable improvement. I believe the sound is similar to Infinite baffle, but with dipole roll off.

I prefer open baffle for the midrange. It's easy to get a reasonable size panel that will work just fine down to about 80 Hz - low enough to cross to a sub.

What is the difference between open baffle and infinite baffle? I haven't heard either in a home set up yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

What is the difference between open baffle and infinite baffle? I haven't heard either in a home set up yet.

---

Infinite baffle usually refers to subwoofer drivers that are mounted on a wall and use the adjacent room as their 'box'. The wall on the which the driver is mounted seals off the front sound wave from the rear sound wave. These setups render the drivers very inefficient which means you need to use several large diameter drivers which together can yield obsene SPLs in the sub 30Hz region.
Open baffle speakers are speakers (woof/tweet or full range drivers) mounted an a large sheet of wood. The idea is the same, you need to isolate the front and rear sound waves if you want any bass from such a speaker setup. They are similar to electrostats or planars in that they also fire rear radiating sound waves, but they use conventional dynamic drivers.

Thanks, AA

You should also consider some Quad ESL 63's. Quads and Ohm F's have always been at the top of my list of speakers to drool on.. They both fit in with my no "monkey coffin's" mind set.

Hey John,
It's been a while.

Here is what I've been thinking about doing.
Audio Nirvana Super 10 Alnico.
You can choose drivers and cabinet finish to your taste.

For what you are looking to achieve, the 2.8 Ambience might just do the trick.
Go to the link below and click on Customer Projects for your reference.
http://commonsenseaudio.com/

Peace,
JRA

About 600 bucks, i have a pair as well.

http://www.duevel.com/Produkte/EPlanets.shtml

http://www.avac.kr/front/ac_mdfile/P...n_due_1136.jpg