2. speakers
  3. 1071972130

Omnidirectional speakers. The future?

I have been interested in hi-fi for about 25 years. I usually get the hankering to buy something if it knocks my socks off. Like most I started with a pair of box speakers. Then I heard a pair of Magnepans and was instantly hooked on planars. The next sock knocker was a pair of Soundlabs. I saved until I could afford a pair of Millenium 2's. Sock knocker number 3 was a pair of Shahinian Diapasons (Omnidirectional radiators utilizing multiple conventional drivers pointed in four directions). These sounded as much like real music as anything I had ever heard.
Duke from Audiokinesis seems to be onto the importance of loudspeaker radiation patterns. I don't see alot of other posts about the subject.
Sock knocker number four was a pair of Quad 988's. But wait, I'm back to planars. Or am I? It seems the Quads emmulate a point source by utilizing time delay in concentric rings in the diaphragms. At low volumes, the Quads might be better than my Shahinians. Unfortunately they lack deep bass and extreme dynamics so the Shahinians are still my # 1 choice. And what about the highly acclaimed (and rightly so) Soundlabs. These planars are actually constructed on a radius.
I agree with Richard Shahinian. Sound waves in nature propagate in a polyradial trajectory from their point of source. So then doesn't it seem logical that a loudspeaker should try to emmulate nature?

holzhauer
twilo
357 posts
 
Zaikesman, HSU set up the system. What I can tell you, when I had the Mirage M1 speakers, they were definitely laid back with an airy sound. But they were to warm sounding and lacked detail.
When you use the back to back setup, you get that 360 degree sound with nice detail. It definitely sounded much better then the Mirage Bipolar speakers I had.
But I'm convinced the back to back setup is the best way to get the omni directional sound with detail and a good bass response.
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Twilo: I agree with you that the Mirage bipolars, while very popular in their day, were not completely satisfying speakers. A couple of things you could potentially experiment with in an opposed/twinned set-up would be slightly shelving down the volume level being directed to the rearward-facing pair, or mirroring a small toe-in angle front-to-back, both in order to fine-tune the imaging/soundstaging.
gonglee3
304 posts
 
We all have extra amps and speakers from upgrading - you can connect 2 amps by RCA "Tape out" to "Tape in" on another amp. Now you have 4 channels to hook up your speakers - 4 good ones, unlike most surround receivers.

Place 2 speakers back to back - one firing backwards and now you will enjoy deeper soundstage along with other benefits. You can add a third set and make it more omni-directional.

This improves most speakers - I was in search of a deep realistic soundstage, and I got it by doing this. The depth was what I was going for, and now I am happy to find it with the equipments I already own.
doug99
288 posts
 
Twilo, Gonglee3, if you use 2 amps, With this arrangement, you have no master volume control. Use the preamp outs on amp
jfbundy
1 posts
 
I am reminded by this subject, that while at Rutgers U., in the late '50's, I had the pleasure of visiting Hegeman's home and auditioning a stereo pair of his unusual design. The enclosures were large transmission-line loaded, with the woofer/mid mounted on top at a visible angle to the listener, and fitted with his own take on the venerable "whizzer" cone. They were driven by a pair of Dynaco amps, fed from a stereo reel-to-reel tape (RCA Menotti: Sebastian), and the sound was *fabulous*! I will never forget it.

John
More to discover