Ohm Walsh Micro Talls: who's actually heard 'em?

CDC,

Who's to say what the best concept is? There are many different designs out there with various strengths and weaknesses . No one design works best always for everyone.

Personally, new designs that think out of the box and attempt to make top notch sound affordable to more people and designs with a focus on doing whatever it is they do best are the ones that generally catch my interest.

CDC,

The problem with choosing a design concept is that it ignores the execution, which is almost always the more important factor. Quads do not sound very much like Soundlabs, yet both are electrostats. Vandy's model 2 doesn't sound like any Thiel that I've heard, yet both trumpet the exclusive use of 1st order x-overs. Ohm and MBL couldn't sound more dissimilar if they tried, yet both are omnis. Whichever design approach is employed, octave to octave balance can vary all over the board and this alone will be very, very audible.

Re: Jordan's specific comments. Ironically, his observations were almost surely based on on-axis frequency response measurements to the exclusion of power response measurements. In most environments, omnipolar speakers will sound relatively "thinner" (more treble energy for a given amount of mid and bass) than direct radiators, if you measure for flat on-axis response. On-axis measurements don't capture all of the reflected energy so the omnis are providing more treble energy than the on-axis measurement reflects (sorry for the pun). Of course, as Jordan notes, some of this will be room dependant.

OTOH, if you measure for flat power response, the omnis are likely to show a better correlation between measured data and what you actually hear. They will not sound "thin" unless they measure "thin". My observations on this matter are based on my own experience using both on-axis and power measurements in my room with speakers using just about every radiation patern you can think of. I'd add that this point doesn't validate the use of power response, it merely points out that different designs tend to perform best on different tests.

My main point here is that using any FR test measurement to make a point like Jordan's is deceiving. No single test that I've ever seen is particularly reliable in predicting the way a speaker will sound in a given listening room. And the test you choose will tend to either validate or diminish the performance of one design vs. another, irrespective of the way that said speaker actually sounds.

I'm pretty sure that Ted Jordan knows this all too well. His comments should not be taken for an attempt to educate, but rather should be understood as an attempt to market his product. More power to him - and you could do worse than buying one of the better single driver Jordan based loudspeakers, like Carolina Audio.

Marty

Matrykl

The problem with choosing a design concept is that it ignores the execution, which is almost always the more important factor.

Which is why I didn't like the Deuval's and most active speakers although I like both concepts.
But what do you think about waveguide's, at least in theory?

Put another way, what happens when the recording has reverb and then the omni speaker, by design, intentionally adds more due to room interactions?

"But what do you think about waveguide's, at least in theory?"

I find directional speakers in general to be an unnatural way to reproduce sound naturally. Some designs do it very well, but to me sound in the real world is largely not directional in nature (save perhaps at a live amplified concert event of some sort).

Having said that, in lieu of having studied waveguide theory in detail, my gut feel regarding waveguides is that they may be a useful approach if done correctly, but as was pointed out the key would be in the execution, which I could only judge were I to hear it. Theory alone seldom describes real world phenomena completely, especially in nit picky areas like hi fidelity audio.