Which speakers have wide dispersion?


In one of the earlier threads reference was made to omni directional speakers sounding better due to the wide dispersion and that is the key to their signature.
Obviously this effects required room dimensions, is wide dispersion the way to go.
pedrillo
I lived with a pair of Mirage M-1's from 1988 (bought new) until 2002 and loved them for all the reasons well articulated by Johnnb53. I auditioned Martin Logan's in my space and found the beaming to be unacceptable. Sound Labs gave me everything I loved about the Mirages, and much much more. I recently had the opportunity to bring the Mirages out of storage and listen again, and they did not disappoint, although the SL's far surpass them. I am told the percentage of audiophiles who prefer the "planar" type sound vs. traditional box speakers is about 20%. You have to decide for yourself, but make sure you have experienced a well done "wide dispersion" system.
You want uniform dispersion up to a few kilohertz with a gradual reduction in total power response at the high end.

While "omni" speakers are one way to achieve that, designs with controlled directivity (dipoles, wave guides) accomplish the same end-goal with fewer interactions with nearby surfaces and a preservation of detail and "correctness" farther into the room.

Planar speakers don't qualify as dipoles. While they have sound coming off the front and back-sides, they're acoustically large at high frequencies so they suffer lobing problems instead of having an acoustic dipole's nice off-axis behavior (off-axis response is -3dB down from on-axis at 45 degrees, -6dB at 60 degrees, and non-existant by the time you move out to 90 degrees).

I've built pairs of Linkwitz Orions (open baffle) and Plutos (they don't really start getting directive until 2-3KHz. and have no baffle outside the 2" mid-tweeter). The Orions have more reach into the room.

Some time I'll get around to trying a wave guide without the problems that go with horns - Earl Geddes work looks real interesting.
Yeah, by today's standards the 1st-gen Mirage M series is a bit thick-sounding and not so transparent. To make them jump you need to pump them with lots of power with low output impedance, high damping factor, and high current. The 2nd-gen Mxsi series took a significant jump in transparency and clarity; they introduced Mirage's cloth-surround titanium tweeter and bi-wire/biamp capability. The new tweeter added a good dose of speed and airiness up top. The dual speaker terminals rewarded bi-wiring or bi-amping with improved top-to-bottom transparency.

But none of this compares to the entirely new levels of transparency, efficiency, detail, and realistic dispersion of the new OMD series. My brand new OMD-15s trump my old M5si's in every way, and are about 1/3 the mass and bulk.

And some (including professional reviewers) consider Mirage's new flagship OMD-28 to be a standard-setter at its price point ($7500/pair).

"Lifestyle" speakers? I don't think so.
Drew, note that the SoundLabs espoused by Twb2 do not suffer from the narrowed radiation pattern one would normally expect from a large panel. This is because the diaphragm of the SoundLabs is a faceted curve, which radiates over a 90 degree arc (reduced to 45 degrees on some recent models to improve efficiency).

Interesting that you mention Earl Geddes - my own efforts owe a great deal to his work, though I don't think he approves of my bipolar variation.

Duke
dealer/manufacturer