Omnidirectional speakers. The future?

Sean- I think Richard Shahinian would have constructed a pulsating sphere type loudspeaker if he had the technology. I agree that the greatest problem with current omni drivers are the lack of high spl ability and limited dynamic range. Shahinian chose to deal with this shortcoming by using conventional dynamic drivers arranged so as to mimic the sphere. I have not detected the lobing problems you mentioned. I don't understand why you think the Bose 901's are as much omnis as the Shahinians. Doesn't the 901 radiate sound forward and back only?
Eldartford- I don't think of musical instuments as being a point source for sound. A vibrating guitar string has sound waves emminating from the entire length. At any given point along the string, the sound would radiate in all directions from that point wouldn't it. Richard said he adopted the theories of Stuart Hegeman. Does anyone know exactly what those are? I would like to read more about this if I could.
Jrd351- agreed

Check these out. Decware Radials

El: I commented that most "omni's" like the Ohm's are not true Omni's due to the limited vertical dispersion. Other than that, until you can do a side by side and listen to the differences in presentation between a panel and an "omni", it is all "theory".

Holzhauer: There are speakers that have tried to do the "pulsating sphere" thing. The first one that comes to mind is the Design Acoustics D-12. This was a dodecahedron ( 12 sided ) cabinet with a driver on every panel. In effect, you kind of had a wooden "disco ball" with speakers in it. The thing here was that these used conventional woofers, mids, tweeters, etc... and the sound was crossed over and "sprayed" at random. Never heard these in person or read any "real" test reports on them, but i bet it was a disaster both sonically and electrically. Once again, another example in speakers of "good in theory, horrible in implimentation".

As to Stuart Hegemann, there are some articles about his theories and speaker designs in a recent Audio Xpress. From what i can recall, i think that there will be a follow up article. If you're not familiar with Audio Xpress, it is a DIY type magazine that covers everything from electronics to speakers, both SS and tube. I can get you the info on the specific issue(s) if you want.

As to why i said what i did about 901's and the Shahinian's, the 901's effectively radiate in every direction horizontally due to the layout of their drivers on the front and angled rear panels and the purposely designed amount of reflections that they encounter. In effect, they are "spraying & bouncing" everywhere. In the same respect, the Shahinian's ( specifically the Obelisk ) "spray & bounce" the upper frequencies all over due to the use of multiple drivers and the use of angled panels. Having said that, the Shahinian's have far more vertical dispersion, make use of far better quality drivers and actually have a LOT more thought and research put into them. As such, they are similar yet VERY different designs and that is all that i was implying. Once again, i'll point out that i consider the Shahinian's to be a "good" speaker even though there are things about them that i would do differently. With that in mind, i have recommended these speakers to others and have gotten emails from Agon members that are very happy with them after purchasing them based on my recommendations. One should bare in mind that most of these are not designed to "crank" ( much like my Ohm's ) but at "reasonable" volume levels, they produce "magic".

For that matter, i don't know of any speaker made that i think does everything as well as it should and believe that most designs could be easily improved upon. That is why i've modified most everything that i have. Then again, it is quite easy to pass judgment / criticize / "talk shit" in public if one is strictly a spectator and not really in the game "professionally" so to speak : )

Matchstikman: I could give you a LOT of background of how the "radials" came to be and none of it is very supportive. Let's just say that Steve Deckert had a set of my Ohm's and very nearly destroyed them. After playing with them and experiencing what these could do, even though they weren't working correctly due to his "repairs", Steve started working on the "Radials". For that matter, if one can't look at the "Radials" and then Ohm's "Sound Cylinders" and see an amazing amount of resemblance, there's something wrong with their vision. Sean
>

PS... While the Decware site and information that is provided looks impressive, believe me, things are NOTHING like that in the real world. Either at their shop or in the services provided. Obviously, some folks know their way around a computer and can create wonderful websites. How close the information presented compares to reality is another matter. Personally, i've "been there, done that, won't EVER go back".

Thanks Sean. I learned some more about Hegeman on the Asylum "Shahinians Anyone" thread. Shahinians Arc has identical shape as the original Hegeman loudspeaker. Shahinian states that Hegeman and others were his inspiration. Admirably, Shahinian does not take credit for much of his inspiration. He is proud of assimilating the knowledge of some nearly ignored geniuses. Although not a true omni, I like his design because it allows for extreme dyamics and deep bass. The most prevalent complaint I've heard is with respect to blurring of the image with overly diffuse sound. I also expeienced this until deadening the rear and side walls so as to absorb the early reflections. After treatment, the imaging/ instrument placement became better than anything i've heard from a box.

How about breaking it down to the theoretical fundamentals: What would be best if it could be perfectly realized in physical implementation (an impossibility)?

>A completely omnidirectional, evenly radiating pulsating sphere (or point, if you prefer)

>Same as the above, but a monopolar hemisphere only, maybe wall-mounted to simulate an infinite baffle constituting a listening room boundary

>A true monopolar, laser-like (parallel-focused) 'ray of sound' eminating from a point-source (actual or simulated) and aimed directly at one of the listener's ears (what would the difference be between this and a set of headphones?)

>A 360-degree radiating, cylindrical line-source with zero vertical dispersion

>Same as above, but a 180-degree cylindrical half-section only ('monopolar' line-source, analogous to the sphere/hemisphere example above), again maybe wall-mounted to simulate an infinite-baffle

>A dipolar version of of any of the above, such as a Quad ESL is to a simulated pulsating sphere

>None of the above: The ideal radiation pattern should be an exact inverse of the recording microphone's 'acceptance-field' pattern, whatever that may be (in realistic terms, this kind of thinking could only even begin to apply with a very tiny minority of recordings actually made, due to prevalent recording methods)

>None of the above: Given the preceeding, stipulate that you'll never be able to standardize and optimize the recording process to conform to some idealized encode/decode protocol with an equally-conforming playback system, and thus there is no one 'correct' ideal radition pattern possible, so you should just work with whatever sounds good to you in your room

>It doesn't matter, as long as you listen inside a perfect anechoic chamber, maybe in a multi-channel setup