Small room, "budget priced" speaker advice, please

Jpaik,

Thanks for the link. It looks like the Morrison speakers use more conventional drivers to achieve the same general effect as the Ohms. Interesting that he is rather fixated on the poor "quality" of most "stereo" recordings - have to wonder if this is an explanation for why some (most?) recordings might sound a bit "incoherent" when reproduced on omni-directional speakers? Perhaps we live in an age where most recordings are designed to be reproduced through what Morrison calls "PA speakers". I would have to agree that the number of true stereo two mic recordings is probably a minuscule fraction of the total recordings made.

In addition, Morrison seems to agree with my friend who owns the Walsh Ohms that fancy cables are just a bunch of Who-Ha. Very interesting. Morrison also suggests a valid approach for double blind testing.

http://www.morrisonaudio.com/morrison_donsview.htm

Will have to try this sometime.

In addition to the design and production of his line of speakers, Morrison has been very active in the recording of music: typically done in a venue other than a recording studio. Morrison's recordings feature just one pair of microphones, and no mix. "Live off the floor" recordings of unamplified instruments -- and depending on the music genre there may be a vocalist. Call it "real stereo", or "true stereo" or whatever, the results are jaw-dropping. I have a couple of his recordings and they are wonderful.

So to some people his views on multi-microphones and mixes may seem rather fixated, but in truth his vantage point is based on years of experience and results. I wish there more than a miniscule number of true stereo recordings available.

KN,

I think there is a lot of validity and insight to the assertions on the Morrison site regarding nature of recordings and stereo playback.

I would still assert though that recordings are what they are in regards to how miked, mixed etc. Good stereo recordings that apply or approach the two mike configuration sound phenominal on omnis (or pseudo omnis like the Ohms which intentionally attenuate the output towards the walls to make placement easier). This is where there is the biggest gap between omnis and conventional designs, in my opinion. Conventional designs cannot approach omnis, in my opinion, in the ideal scenario, as described by Morrison.

Listen to a good two miked Mercury Living Presence recording on a pair of Ohms, and welcome to a place that few systems have ever gone before.

In the much more common scenario where more complex mikings are used in recordings, omnis will still deliver the image location information better than conventional designs, but the difference is more marginal. Those used to conventional designs will more likely levitate to the imaging inherent in these rather than omnis, because it comes across as more pinpoint, at least in the horizontal dimension (I'd argue about the vertical dimension even in this case, however, and this is where much of the difference is between the omnis and box designs in this case).

I'd take issue with Morrison in describing the more common recording scenario as a "jumble" in that this infers a lack of imaging precision or accuracy, whereas there can be and often is imaging precision in these recordings, however it is based on the whims of the person who did the mix rather than on any inherent natural location of instruments.

Then there are the recordings that are miked and mixed in a more complex manner AND it is done poorly. Traditional box designs will do a better job of masking this due to their inherent imaging limitations even though the garbage is still there. Omnis will let the garbage "shine through", for whatever it may be worth.

Mapman, the Morrison speaker line has been somewhat below the radar screen, which is why you may not have heard about them. To the extent that his omni-directional point source speakers share concepts with Duevel and others, there may be similarities. I own the Model 7, and the experience of listening to music through them is a real "ear-opener": no endless fussing to find the sweet spot, no constant micro-measuring to find the perfect placement in the room. Taming room reflection points and spending a little time experimenting with finding a good spot for the speakers is all it takes.

Jpaik,

What you describe with Morrisons is very similar to the Ohm experience.

Ohm describes their Walsh wide-range drivers as a "Coherent Line Source", not a point source, though I think the difference here is marginal.

Ohm wide-range Walsh driver omni-output is also attenuated in the direction of the walls as I mentioned.

Ohm uses a separate tweeter (non-omni) for the very top end and this fires 45 degrees inward in a standard placement. I think I recall in some Walsh speakers, they may place the tweeter in an upward firing configuration similar to Morrison and Dueval, I believe, but I think this is by special requestl I believe, and more common for use in surround systems than two channel stereo.

Not sure why Ohm doesn't just aim the tweeter up and use a diffusion device of some sort to disperse 360 degrees along with the Walsh driver, like I think the Morrisons and Duevals do. Maybe for ease of placement due to the apparent Ohm focus on controlling early reflections from walls.

Morrisons appear to use a more sophisticated porting design than the Ohms. Would like to hear that in comparison though I have no grievances regarding bass on the Ohms when used with proper amplification.