I'd love to hear the impressions of people who've actually spent some time with these speakers to share their sense of their plusses and minuses. Mapman here on Audiogon is a big fan, and has shared lots on them, but I'm wondering who else might be familiar with them.
I can understand why many put "accuracy" as the most important attribute for a speaker. As for me, I have heard speakers that measure very, very good that I did not care for at all, and other speakers that measured less so, in some cases, much less so, that I found more appealing.
It is one reason why some earlier assertions about the Ohms not being very accurate don't concern me too much. Once I have a chance to hear them in my own home with my own gear, I'll know if I will still be on the merry-go-round or not for my main room. I'd like, funds permitting, to be able to listen to different speakers for the rest of my life, though, in my secondary room.
Understandably, there is something of an obsession with "accuracy" in the A'phile community. The idea is great, but how do you ever really know what's on a record? That information doesn't exist as "sound" without SOME playback system, and even the mastering set-up (which itself would sound radically different in your listening room) isn't a perfect reproduction reference - except with records that were made in that studio and mastered on that system.
I had the experience of being the "Executive Producer" (this means that I paid for a money losing proposition) on a jazz recording about 10 years ago. I was present for a fair bit of the sessions and can tell you that identifying the most "accurate" reproduction on a home system would be highly, highly subjective - even with the unusual benefit of being present at the particular performance as my reference. So, I try to take the holy grail "accuracy" thing with a grain of salt.
I might be more judgemental if there was any kind of meaningful uniformity in the sound of source material, but IME there isn't. Given the number of crappy sounding recordings that I own (including many, if not most, of my favorites), it's hard to expect any system to sound really good on a regular basis. I suppose that I end up listening disproportionately to those recordings that sound best on my main system and relegate the rest of my preferred music to either the distributed system in my home or the CD changer in my car.
So, just get me reasonably good octave to octave balance (relative to the -preferably extended- bandwidth of the speaker) and capture a sense of live players in space and I'm usually pretty happy. IMHO, it's remarkable how many high end designs are fair to pretty darn good on both counts and how few (including the Ohms) are really exceptional.
But I do recognize that this is just my take on a very subjective experience, so - Once Again, just MHO.
Venue is a tough one. I don't attend much classical these days, so jazz clubs are the main reference point for acoustic music. I always choose them on the basis of the performers and the rooms are usually small and oddly shaped with acoustics that are generally "awkward". Vibrato in Bel Air is an exception, but straight unamplified performances haven't been the norm there.
I've been in LA over a dozen years now and the Greek Theater is probably my favorite for amplified music - programming runs all over the place, but the sound is uniformly excellent, especially for an outdoor venue. My luck at The Hollywood Bowl has been a little less consistent, but still not bad by any means.
The Gibson (at Universal) is pretty good and the Hermosa Beach PAC, and Thousand Oaks PAC are both excellent, but programming is spotty, at best. Our local club, The Canyon, gets some great r'n'r talent, but is often way too loud for good sound.
I saw more classical music when I was in New York (for about 2 decades prior) and the old Carnegie was definitely the most memorable. Pop music venues covered the gamut with Tramps supplying the happiest memmories. I just about lived in The Bottom Line (a 2 minute walk from my place) and unamplified shows usually sounded quite good. Rock shows were all over the board.
My taste in a speaker's tonal balance is not a function of a single hall, but rather a general sense from the whole range of experiences. From that, I find that a lot of high end gear is "goosed" in the mis-bass and presence region so that "impact" is enhanced relative to the live experience. Ohms are IMHO voiced closer to "the real thing" than most.
Yes, I was hoping you'd chime in on our own venue preferences. I'd forgotten about Mamboni's own experience, and being a musician at that, I should have pinged him too : )
That was a terrific mini-review of the Series 5000. Given John's description of what his goal is in voicing his speakers, I am more curious than ever, after attending some concerts, if my preference is more for the forward, dramatic sense of presence, or if I will be more drawn to the mid-hall perspective, enveloping, and grander picture of things.
Wow, mamboni, I've been waiting for some insightful assessments of the 5000s. Knowing your background in music, your accolades carry a lot of weight for me!
Now you're giving me the upgrade bug I thought I had dispersed finally once more.....
The Old Carnegie Hall was acoustically superior to the new refurbished hall of today, though the latter is still an excellent acoustic. The old hall had scintillating air and a responsiveness that was magical.
I've been listening to my Ohm Walsh 5000s driven by the superb Wyred 4 Sound ST1000 amp for several months now and taking full measure of these loudspeakers. They are magical! Vis a vis the Walsh 5 Series III the 5000s are very much the same animal. But, the 5000s are better in many ways: more refined presentation, more nuanced, with remarkable transparency and delicacy. Yet, the 5000s go substantially lower and have extraordinary dynamics - they can play orchestral ensembles with breathtaking power and control. The background is so black and quiet. The bass is incredibly fast and tuneful - the cabinet tuning is so spot on perfect that I get goose bumps hearing low bass quitar sixteenth notes tripping so nimble and clean and perfectly articulated that I never cease to marvel at it. I'm hearing a lot more in familar recordings, much more presence and all the interstices and low level happening that I never heard before. The vocals are just perfect - so lifelike and natural, vivid and startling. I have been postponing writing a detailed review of the 5000s because of time restraints and also, inability to conjure up the words to describe these loudspeakers. They are truly exquisite and special - best money I ever spent. Ohm and John S. have built something very special here, light years superior to the classic Walsh 5, and fundamentally superior to the Series 3 drivers in a ways I have difficulty putting in words. By way of metaphor, imagine comparing a drawing by a very skilled artist to one deftly and exquisitely rendered with remarkable suppleness and shading by a da Vinci: the former is quite good; but the latter is exquisite, eye-grabbing and a one-of-a-kind masterpiece bespeaking the unique talents and years of experience and mastery of the creator. The Walsh 5000s are loudspeakers built by a da Vinci - you can hear the quality and excellence of sound that could only be the work of a master builder seasoned by years of refinement of his techniques. Such a work is priceless to one who can appreciate it's beauty and special qualities.
If John Strohbeen ever comes up with a newer Walsh 5000, maybe called the Walsh 5000-deluxe, I might buy it just to see if John can do what I think may be impossible: improving on the sound of the 5000s. Yes, I know that no device is 'perfect.' But, the 5000s are that good that I wonder if they are not now the absolute apex of sound reproduction achievable with Ohm's ingenious and elegant CLS architecture. We shall see.
We do our yearly trip to NY every June. Its coming up again. We stay at the Parker Meridian, down the block from Carnegie. Last year I got to hear a performance at Carnegie listening just right of center in Dress Circle level. I had heard that you voice the OHMs based on listening at Carnegie and as I was sitting there listening, I felt right at home. The sound there was indeed quite exceptional and holographic even at times.
I find the seating location critical to good sound in live performances.
My favorite listening position is in rows L,M & N, dead center at Carnegie Hall. Having attended hundreds of performances in this hall and in many, many locations from front row to "up with the angels", I find this the most balanced for full symphonic performances.
I try to make the Ohms sound like listening from my favorite listening position.
I have never heard a performances that used microphone and speakers that would match these pure acoustical events.
PS I usually try to post when I feel like I've got something (that might be) beneficial to add to the conversation. Many times, I find that I agree with what's been posted so I just sit it out. But......I'm still out there.
Thanks. Really, I just like to blather on and on about OHMs more than anyone else i suppose. I do try to be consistent!
Yes, at a live concert I tend to go for the sweet spot if possible. Most other locations in most venues deliver more compromise.
Regarding shifting soundstage at live events, it can happen in some venues with un amplified acoustic instruments and vocals, but there is usually mikes, amps and speakers involved to some extent, which works against that. When it works, its mostly a result of venue acoustics and the geometry involved with how the sound reaches your ears. When the geometry supports the ears ability to triangulate to determine location of instruments, it can happen. It is probably true though that in general it is less common and pronounced in experience than listening to a good pair of OHMs or mbls even with a recording miked in an appropriate manner to capture the relative location of instruments to a good degree.
The new amps are a home run. OHMs really benefit from the power, current and damping factor to a great degree I believe, as do many dynamic speaker designs. The Dynaudios also sound better than ever, the timbre of the BCs on these is less towards the hot side now. The OHM Ls sound way better than I have ever heard them, and even the little Relaistic Minimus 7s on my deck are happy as can be.
I am of the opinion that the vast majority of OHM owners out there have never heard their speakers optimally driven to the max and are missing out. That's because a lot of OHMs have been sold over the years starting at relatively low price points (under $500) as part of nice sounding but underpowered systems running off less ballsy amplification typical in receivers and even many integrated's. That works fine for most, but those who care might wean a lot more out of their OHMs by looking at bigger yet still greener Class D amps.
Thanks, Mapman. That helps a lot seeing that you are the primary contributor to this thread with extensive experience (pinging Martykl). I take it that where you sit at a concert mirrors, more or less, where you like to sit at home? How's it going with your new amps?
One nice thing about good omnis is you can sit if different locations and get different presentations without moving the speakers, which can make for a nice and easy change of pace.
Too bad the same thing can't be said about concert halls.
BTW, it looks as if Rebbi, the OP, is still on his speaker hunt. I see he is now looking at the new Merlin monitors. I wish him luck on his speaker quest.
I like to generally sit in the "sweet spot", dead center and a bit further back than the performance width.
I listen with my larger OHMs in a similar configuration but I listen to the 100s in the smaller room more nearfield like being front row just left of center.
Sometimes with the larger OHMs in the larger room, I sit near field also, just 1.5 feet in front of and a tad outside of the left speaker (they are about 6 feet apart) and the soundstage shifts yet remains detailed and coherent.
One nice thing about good omnis is you can sit if different locations and get different presentations without moving the speakers, which can make for a nice and easy change of pace.
OHM Micro Talls...is the little speaker that could....The micro OHM had a "perspective" of the front or second row of a concert hall while the other OHMs seem to place the listener too far back for me. Hifidon (Answers
Interesting MWTs (which I have not heard) were more forward. No Walshes I have heard are. Mapman (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers)
The reviewer of the Blue Circle BM2 writes "...the BM2Â’s woofers and tweeter are used in pretty typical fashion.
I am going to agree with Hifidon who further states ""where you like to sit at a music event or movie theater" is relevant to a choice of a reproducing loudspeaker."
So, keeping in mind different speakers, rooms, equipment, different everything, which is more likely to be the more common experience for someone owning Ohms vs the BC BM2: Sound that is a little removed from us, less physically immediate, putting us back a few rows in the concert hall, or sound that is more closer, where we are aware of the instruments presence?
My sense is, after reading the comments and Doug Schneider's review, it is generally the former, but until Hifidon brought the matter up, no one much mentioned it (concert hall perspective). So, those who have considerable experience with Ohms and live musical experiences, I'd like to get your take. When you go to concerts, where do you like to sit?
For the first time in my life, I am going to attend a number of indoor concerts, musicals, etc. in a relatively short period of time, and I am purposely selecting different seats in the hall to gain a better perspective on live music from different seating positions. I expect to be buying new speakers later in the year.
BC did a nice job putting a unique twist to the design of this speaker to help make their product standout!
Should help OHM get more exposure in teh high end audio world as well, though I'm not sure how much JS really cares about that. He probably knows most of his sales will come from the much larger portion of the music listening population that are closer to the mainstream.
Here's a review of Blue Circle's speaker that uses a Walsh driver. Interesting to read the reviewer's impressions of mid range resolution and soundstage. BC made a good decision to enlist Ohm...
mapman, I agree! Ohm was way ahead of their time. I have been following them since the 70's as a teenager. They developed surround before it was even developed. I owned bose 901's too and there is no comparison. Having planars, electrostats and srslabs klayman signature now discontinued, what makes the ohm's unique is that it creates a combination of all those unique designs in one design. I look at loudspeakers like instruments. Ohm surround sound is the ultimate affordable high end home theater loudspeakers. I was using my 4xo as main, 2xo rears and pro 200 as center and it blends well with NAD or carver/sunfire amp/processor or receiver which I use and it's magic when you use DAKIOM feedback stablizers and sound processors like carver holography or srslabs,bbe or behringer processors. I haven't tried tubes yet. I use my tubes for my bookshelfs! I like the clean sound of tubes. Until I bought inexpensive tube amps, now I understand why many audiophiles spent $$ on tube amps. It's really worth it for the hobby. Until I heard planars and electrostats, I didn't know any other sound. Until I heard ohm's I didn't know true omni and combination electrostat/planar and dynamic all rolled into one! ohm inspired the more expensive german designs such as german physiks, duevel and mbl omni directional designs, especially german physiks which uses the walsh concepts. I'd like to hear those ultra high end designs. ohm do not stay posted on ebay and audiogon for very long because every ohm fan will jump to buy or bid on them not like other speakers
Line -- Yes, I have two or three binaural recordings from the 1980's, and they are indeed awesome! Too bad that a lot more recordings aren't done that way.
I think though that the subjective results they provide will vary significantly from listener to listener. What the listener hears essentially depends on the physical and acoustical characteristics of the ears on the dummy head that was used in the recording process, which will deviate to different degrees from the hearing characteristics of different listeners.
Yes, I did the measurement thing years ago out of curiosity, and I also had an Audio Control auto EQ unit at one point. These days, I have no interest and just trust my ears.
I can add that increasing treble levels on Walsh 5s using the on-board adjustments do make the sound a tad more forward than otherwise based on my experience listening with different levels set on the Walsh 5 drivers.
A Walsh that sounds forward is probably having somewhat more of the overall sound being produced by the super tweeter rather than the Walsh driver, which, like most omnis I believe, is naturally laid back as a result of more sound being emitted towards the rear than most box designs.
Al--I see. What I thing comes much closer to reaching that goal is to listen to binaurally recorded music with headphones. I wish there was a large selection of such recordings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRih10xLhD8&feature=related.
Line -- That was a good reference you provided earlier. However what I think you are overlooking is that if the room is truly "flat," in whatever way that is best defined (taking into account both frequency response and arrival times), and the rest of the audio system is flat, and the recording process was flat, and the playback volume is realistic, then our non-flat ears will hear the sound in the same non-flat manner as they would have at the original event.
I'm at a loss on what is really meant by a flat room. For instance, if the room is flat (at the listening position) according to a mike/meter in witch the mike has been calibrated to be flat, then to the human ear the room will not sound flat, because human hearing is 'not' flat. Now if the mike is calibrated in such a was as to match the way human ear hears, then the room should truly sound flat. Or am I missing something?
Output gently falling as frequency increases from app 100hz to 8 or 10khz, flat above that. Flat to gently rising below 100hz to the lowest limit of system response (app. 25hz in my case). Tricky to achieve without multiple and/or EQ'd subs.
Simply a personal preference. We're talking a couple a three db spread over just over 6 octaves (with something vaguely like a 2 db offset rising in the bottom 2 1/2 octaves) for the most "natural" sound in my room (and, actually, the other two rooms that I've measured extensively) to my ears. All of the listening rooms I've measured strike me as just a touch bright when response is perfectly flat - so I chalk this up to personal preference.
Tvad said, "How do you measure your room to determine if you have a flat response? I am interested to learn from your experience."
Try REW at the Home Theater Shack. It is free. A Radio Shack SPL meter can be used for 20 to 2000hz, or you can go full range with a clibrated mic. The meter is around $40 or a calibrated mic around $100. Then it is the free progam and a laptop.
Of course there is a trade-away, although it may not be the direct result of the active design vs a passive design. The real world trade away is whatever particular characteristic you find compelling in a particular passive speaker that you can't find in any active speaker. In the case of Ohms, I am unaware of any active omnidirectionals. Similarly, some may prefer the specific tonal qualities of the "fill in the blank" and can't find an active equivalent. IOW, I suspect that, if I had to choose between equally well executed passive and active versions of the same speaker design, I'd generally choose the active version. In the real world, this is rarely the choice.
Bottom line: don't fall so in love with your theory regarding the superiority of active designs. They have their advantages, but I doubt that you really believe that every active design is superior to every passive design. The little NHT active sub/sat system is a great value that undoubtedly offers very low distortion within its operational limits (and at its price point), but there are definitely passive designs, even with the attendant higher distortion, that I clearly prefer. I suspect that you'd agree (who knows, maybe not?) Minimizing x-over impact is NOT the only game here. To your priorities, it may trump all other considerations. To mine, it does not. Note, I DO actively cross to subwoofers, so I get your main point here and, to a more limited degree than you , share this priority.
Newbee, don't confuse published "flat response" (which is usually measured anechoically) with flat in-room response. The former will, just as you note, almost always sound too bright. Truly flat in-room is also usually a touch bright for my taste. I actually prefer the gently falling in-room response of my Ohms (and my Verity P/E, for that matter) to really flat in-room response.
As to direct FR vs power response, I have limited experience with the latter, but I do find that the former - if executed carefully - conforms pretty closely with what I hear. However, the point is conceded, simple on-axis FR isn't the entire story either. I'd also note that I never said it was. I merely mentioned that, as caveated in my OP - IN MY ROOM, MEASURED DIRECTLY ON-AXIS - the dispositive factor in evaluating Ohm 100s is unlikely to be "sub optimally flat FR" per Kristian's OP, but rather the perceived impact of the omnipolar dispersion.
Indeed, my main point was/is that FR, compression, distortion, etc - whatever your measurable - isn't the only factor. Speaker evaluation will always have a subjective component. There are also some pretty good tools (i.e. room wizard) to help with the objective side. As Kristian points out, distorion meausrement are another good objective tool. Hopefully, each contributes to any informed overall evaluation of any given speaker system.
Tvad, it's difficult, and requires more sophisticated measuring techniques involving measurements from many places in the room. See Lyngdorf's website for how they recommend doing it with their digital room correction system. Which is difficult in and of itself.
It is indeed impossible to get accurate results out of Radio Shack gear. Plus, I'm not beholden to the artifices of pin-sharp imaging and stereoscopy, which don't exist anywhere in real life to the extent it can on some systems. It's why I don't really bother with room correction or damping; I optimize speaker positioning and go directly to enjoying music. I'm far less interested in tweaking about than I used to--I'm a red giant in astronomical terms, at the end of my long audiophile life.
Martykl, there is never anything to be traded away by using electronic crossovers. I don't know why you think that. There are only strong advantages. There is no credible debate over the statement that it is always desirable to reduce speaker distortion. Passive crossovers produce several hundreds of times more distortion than a good electronic crossover. It is *always* desirable to remove that distortion from the signal.
The more important factors are speaker-room interaction, which affect the signal endlessly more than getting a new amplifier, new cables, etc., and general speaker quality--as in a better active speaker!
Almarg is correct; shoving a highly resolving system's signal through the electronic nightmare that was an Audio Control 101 to achieve flat response at the listening seat is an error. It would also ruin the sound due to the sheer amount of electronics, though they worked fine for mid/lo-fi systems. I sold those things 20 years ago from a store 4 blocks from the Lynnwood, WA factory, and sold LOTS of their excellent car gear, electronic crossovers and EQs alike.
In-room response is absolutely desirable. What I cannot abide are speakers with messy FR and dispersion curves as that can only worsen in-room FR.
For a simple test done by a fine Brit manufacturer showing the superiority of active vs. passive crossovers, see http://avihifi.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html . Of course, that is just one aspect; the amplifiers needed to drive drivers directly don't need a lot of current, so are far cheaper, smaller, and easier to make.
Interesting MWTs (which I have not heard) were more forward. No Walshes I have heard are.
It could have to do with tonal balance in a particular room. WHen the supertweeter is more predominant, I have noticed soundstage tends to be smaller. Perhaps things also become more forward?
OHM Walshes in general are not for those that prefer a more forward presentation. Not much goes on in front of the speakers in general I have found. Same true of mbl omnis I have heard. THis may be a general trait of omnis but I am not certain.
Rpfef: FWIW, I listen to some classical, but not a majority of the time. My impressions wih both small and larger scale classical is that the Ohms do this well. The strings are not the sweetest or most liquid I have heard, but neither are they etched, brittle or overly dry. The best part is that the character of strings (and everything else) that the Ohms have does not deteriorate as the SPLs increase. There is no sense of compression or pinched sound on loud passages (provided the recording is decent). Now, I do not run my Ohms full range. I do have subs, and the Ohms see a first order roll off below 80Hz. But in the critical upper midrange for strings, the Ohms simply blow my Vandy 1Cs out of the water.
Kristian85: I don't mean to rag on ATC. Far be it from me to denigrate a loudspeaker that J. Gordon Holt loved so much. That said, regardless of the technical measurements the ATCs I heard might produce, I simply did not care for the sound.
Also, note that some of the finest mastering studios in the world use passive loudspeakers like the B&W 802D and the KEF 207.2. These expensive speakers do detail and dynamics like the ATC, but also have other audiophile capabilities that I did not hear when I listened to the ATCs.
Zkzpb8 said it best - studio monitors have different design goals than most home hifi speakers. Home audio tries to reproduce the original performance in a home environment (which is usually far from perfect). A studio monitor is designed to let the professional hear, in his controlled environment, every minute detail so that any problems in a mix will be heard and then corrected. Soundstage, bloom, image placement and other audiophile focuses are simply not that important in the studio context. This, in fact, was exactly what I said when I heard the ATCs. They were ruthlessly revealling. If you like that kind of presentation, fine, but I don't. Now, with my Ohms, as I mentioned in my review, there is a pretty well-balanced combination of detail retreival with an absence of harshness and etch. I much prefer the Ohm's balance to the ATCs I heard.
As for the merits of powered speakers, sure, there are definite advantages. However, most audiophile powered loudspeakers are beyond my reach financially (especially those suited to my large-ish listening space). Note that the Ohm Walsh drivers run full range up to about 8kHz, and then, I believe, naturally roll off. The tweeter that comes in above 8kHz is, I think, only passively attenuated at lower frequencies. Is there any distortion in this design? I dunno, but I don't hear any. But then, I am not a trained listener.
Another thing to consider is the reason that most loudspeaker manufacturers do not offer powered loudspeakers. In the world of subjective audiophiles, amplifiers sound different. Besides the logistical issues of solid state vs. tubes vs. Class D amps, most audiophiles prefer to use their own preferred amplifiers. Does that involve a compromise in performance? Perhaps. But it also means that consumers can go for the sound they like, and put a system together that they find pleasing. But think of it this way: If I run a speaker manufacturer, do I want to eliminate from my potential customer base any audiophile who prefers, say, tube amps, by building only solid state-powered loudspeakers?
I am getting the impression that Kristian85 is an objectivist. That isn't a criticism, but it does place into context his concern for flat response, low distortion, etc. I will paraphrase Einstein here: Not everything that matters can be measured, and not everything that can be measured matters.
Bottom line, I know what I like. Other audiophiles that I hang out with in my local audiophile society had similar impressions with the ATC. As for my Ohms, I had a few audiophile buddies over to listen. Most agreed that the Ohm Walsh 2000s sounded pretty good overall. Some were bothered by a gentle roll-off in the highs, but this was due, I believe, to my set up of the speakers, and I like the balance where it is, for the most part.
Tvad, do you happen to remember I think Stereophile or one of the hi-fi rags a number of years ago offering a pair of little leather flaps or cups you hung off of your ears? I need to Google that. I found it kind of funny at the time.
This is all interesting reading though. Many interesting points being brought up. Must be why there are so many different types and companies that make speakers, we all have ears, but listen in differing ways. I just say enjoy whatever floats your boat! I know I do enjoy my Ohm's very much, and also, when I had ATC Active 20's, I enjoyed them as well. It takes all types! Enjoy the tunes! Tim
This is a very hot debate and I'm not sure I have much to contribute except that I've owned both passive and active loudspeakers (Emerald Physics 2.3s)and a long list of internet available speakers (Axiom 80's, OHM Micro Talls, MMG's, SVS, Ascend Acoustics, Magnestand MMGs, well, you get the idea. Since this thread is in regard to OHM's, let me just say I enjoyed the Micro OHM's more than any of the other OHM speakers I tried. (100s and Micro Talls) This is the little speaker that could. It totally disappeared in my room and was much more "immediate" in "feeling" than the other OHM speakers which I felt projected an image too far away for my tastes (though this little speaker is dynamically limited). The micro OHM had a "perspective" of the front or second row of a concert hall while the other OHMs seem to place the listener too far back for me. This worked fine for movies, however, as "background" became what it should be "background". For music, however, I found the "OHM" sound to be a bit "removed" given it's image projection. I know this is a "taste" thing and has nothing to do with "accuracy". I think it just depends on where you like to "sit" at a concert. I must also add I've NOT heard the latest incarnations of the upper end OHMs so maybe this has changed. This is a remarkable speaker and I wish in no way to diminish it's contribution to accurate sound reproduction but I do think "where you like to sit at a music event or movie theater" is relevent to a choice of a reproducing loudspeaker.
Al, what you describe seems to me to be an argument against the goal of a system that measures flat in-room since the measuring is inaccurate, unless there's some measurement device that avoids or compensates for reflected sound.
Yes, exactly, although I wouldn't say "avoids." I would say the measurements, and the analysis of the measurements, need to take into account arrival time as well as frequency domain characteristics. Some computer programs will do that, to an approximation that apparently can sometimes be useful (I haven't used any of them myself).
Re flat frequency response at the listening position.
Every time I've heard cones in boxes that promised something like FFR +/- 2db a 2 meters for example, they were just bright as hell, and even more so if they had a strong off axis response.
That experience causes me to wonder what the frequency response of an omni would be on axis in a space with out boundaries to reinforce the on axis FR.
I suspect that proper set up in a room is what makes or breaks omni's and that properly situated the FFR is the sum of the on axis, 360 degree off axis, and room reinforcement, to a much larger degree than cones in boxes.
I think FFR with an omni might be fine - but not so much with cones in boxes (or maybe electrostatics and panels, not just so much so.)
By *set up* are you referring specifically to the EQ I used, or by *set up* are you including any system that measures flat at the listening position?
Any system, unless the measurement equipment is extremely sophisticated and has response characteristics in the time domain that closely correspond to those of our hearing mechanisms.
In other words, a system that produces measured flat frequency response at the listening position, based on test tones, will give equal weight to sound that arrives via the direct path from speakers to listening position, and sound that arrives via reflected paths from walls and furniture.
But our ears don't work that way -- consider the Haas Effect, for example, which describes the fact that, within certain limits, our hearing mechanisms give greater emphasis to early arriving sounds than to later arriving sounds (which are presumably reflections).
And adding to that is the fact that even in the frequency domain the directional characteristics of our ears are unlikely to match those of the measuring microphone. So the microphone will "hear" reflections from side walls, for example, differently than our ears will.
I remember one time using an Audio Control C-101 equalizer to EQ my system's room response so it measured flat. The Audio Control unit came with a microphone and automatic EQ software to enable this to be done.
The funny thing is the results absolutely sucked, and the Audio Control manual (which is perhaps the best manual I've ever read...helpful and humorous at the same time) said they'd probably suck.
I'd be very surprised if most listeners would really prefer flat room response given the opportunity to A/B the options.
I remember one time using an Audio Control C-101 equalizer to EQ my system's room response so it measured flat. The Audio Control unit came with a microphone and automatic EQ software to enable this to be done.
The funny thing is the results absolutely sucked, and the Audio Control manual (which is perhaps the best manual I've ever read...helpful and humorous at the same time) said they'd probably suck.
I'd be very surprised if most listeners would really prefer flat room response given the opportunity to A/B the options.
Grant, I believe that a major reason for that is that the mic + equalizer/analyzer, unless it is very sophisticated, doesn't discriminate between direct (early arriving) sound, and reflected (later arriving) sound, while our ears do.
Which would seem to say that unless the room is an anechoic chamber, a setup that produces measured flat frequency response at the listening position is wrong "a priori."
Kristian makes some good points - but the pro worlds and civilian worlds are very different. I listen to studio monitors all day long, and I'd never want a pair at home. I've heard every kind of passive and active monitor in studios all around NYC, but my living room is not a control room or mastering lab.
I've had my Ohm's since '04, I immediately knew they were great when I heard them, and I've had no reason to replace them. I love active monitors, and rely on them, but at home I don't want my head in vice, and my wife would kill me if I started installing room treatments. The Ohms are the best balance of neutrality and user friendliness that I can live with.
I don't think passive speakers are outdated - especially considering that there are many more passive designs to try than active - the only active monitors that I've heard are all cone 'n dome. When Ohm makes active speakers, I'll sell my amp...
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
