Omnidirectional speakers. The future?

Talk about a coincidence. The speakers in my bedroom system i.e. the time aligned mini-monitors, are very similar to the little Sequerra Pyramids. As mentioned, these are supplemented by two down-firing subs. That system is actively crossed and multi-amped. Sean
>

Living in Moscow, I have the luxury of being able to go to a lot of concerts for litte money, especially classical music. My favourite venue is the Great Hall of the Moscow Conservatoty, which is as beautiful as it offers outstanding acoustics. I go to jazz clubs, and rock concerts, too. Besides of that, Moscow has become a heaven for high end-nuts, as you can go and listen to any high end-speaker imaginable, which I have done often. Having said that, I found that omnidirectional speakers (in my case Diapasons as well) - if well executed, and coupled with good room acoostics, such as dampaning the wall behind the speakers - give me by far the most convincing memory of what the music in the real venue sounds like. I have had quite a few die-hard direct-sound only guys coming over to my place, leaving as converts for omnis.
May I ask one again, then: Did ayone here compare Shahinia and Ohm speakers?

Hassel: i've heard both brands of speakers, but never with anything remotely resembling similar electronics or in the same room. As such, i'm no help there. Sean
>

Hi All,

This response is not to questions anyones opinion or sonic preference, "but" it seems that there is significant misunderstanding (even by major manufacturers) regarding reproduction of what is on a recording.

First and foremost, "ANY" sonic artifact created "after" the recording process, in the reproduction space, cannot be reality, and can do nothing but degrade the original.

While bouncing sound around the room can be quite pleasing, it is not true to the original recorded event.

Additionally, the concept of "wide dispersion" as a good thing, is ill conceived. The psychoacoustic recreation of a performance through 2 stereo speakers will only be accurate if all room interaction is reduced as much as possible.

Further, the miked ambience and reflections from the original venue are extremely delicate and subtle. They are easily destroyed by adding a second group of "in-room" sonics that cannot be filtered out.

The soundstage, and images on, and in it, are recreated by the "combination" of clear and detailed information from each speaker by the ear/brain.

A serious audiophile is generally after the most accurate reproduction of that signal. Degrading it by "spraying" sonic info all over the room cannot accomplish this.

Now, in all my years, I have certainly heard "many" beautiful sonic delights that "were not" true to the original, and further more, might even have been "better sounding" than the original, by using the room.

Amar Bose worked for years studying this application to a science. Only problem is, it doesn't work to reproduce the original performance.

Again, this is not meant to "ruffle feathers" of those with Bose, or B&O, or MBL, or even Maggies, but taking the room "out of the sonic equation" will take you closer to the original performance.

Really, its a preference thing.

If being a serious audiophile requires that I dispose of my omnis then I don't want to be one. Summitav and I live on different planets. My planet and my speakers are more or less round. Real musical instruments have "wide dispersion" and "spray" music all over the room. Isn't it possible that a speaker that mimics this might come closer to the real thing? I understand that some prefer the anechoic monitor experience. But I'll bet a dollar thata majority of listeners would prefer the sound of a good pair of omnis over a monitor setup.
Amar Bose really was on to something. Most "audiophiles" laugh about him and discount his work. I think they are making a big mistake.
As Summitav says, it is a preference thing. I just hope that more people make it a point to hear both types before they spend big bucks on a system.