Semi Omni v Point and Squirt

[SteveTheShadow]

EDIT
removed my reply as the Doc got in before me.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Well an example would be Noddy visiting you. It is different so he doesn't like it, plus his brain set was that way anyway. You approach any concept in a negative fashion and you will never let it show you. It is only people who have *lived* with the presentation who will understand it. Suddenly the room is part of your music not something you are fighting to get to your music.

[SteveTheShadow]

Well yes, he did call it an "effect" and that it was pleasant to listen to.
Now I'm not singling out Phil for criticism, but this "if it sounds pleasant then it must be wrong" attitude is all too prevalent amongst the hi-fi cognescenti and frankly it gets right on my nerves.
A stereo system is for listening to music on, but it seems that a large proportion of hi-fi conformists are masochists.
But let's leave them with their illusions; they harm nothing but their ears.

[Fretless]

Let's not forget that almost all recordings will have been mixed and mastered on 'conventional' speakers and effectively optimised for that presentation - which raises the question of what would a recording sound like that is mixed to maximise the effect of a semi-omni acoustic? Now that would be interesting!

I have several small systems in use (office, lounge, bedroom) which are basically for background and non-critical use. Those all have standard speakers (some with metal-lined cabs) and sound just fine for what they are.

It's the music that matters most to me.

[SteveTheShadow]

The interesting thing about systems designed for non-critical listening, is that they invariably allow more access to the music than most hi-fi does.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Regarding how music is mixed and what it is mixed for to me is a red herring, it is what it is. You should actually see what goes on in a control room I doubt you would like it. In a way you could say that a semi omni remixes it, but that will be jumped on by the naysayers as making it artificial, FFS it is artificial anyway.

The senses, the brain, the emotions know when they like music, and that is all that matters, IF YOU LET THEM, if ego, presumed status, and other crap interferes, then that should only be your (no one specific) problem not inflicted on others.

[Frasernash]

Regarding how music is mixed and what it is mixed for to me is a red herring, it is what it is. You should actually see what goes on in a control room I doubt you would like it. In a way you could say that a semi omni remixes it, but that will be jumped on by the naysayers as making it artificial, FFS it is artificial anyway.

The senses, the brain, the emotions know when they like music, and that is all that matters, IF YOU LET THEM, if ego, presumed status, and other crap interferes, then that should only be your (no one specific) problem not inflicted on others.

I cant see why the mixing process is a red herring as its the one of the main influences on sound quality and effects on reproduced music
and is often little discussed on forums apart from loudness wars and compression, that's one of the great things about spotify you can skip between songs and tracks and the differences are huge. I often listen to classical music which often sounds amazing even on the Incar systems.

How would a semi Omni remix the sound apart from artificial a bit like DSP and room equalization which to my ears never sounds correct.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

It is a red herring for us as we have no control over it, we use what we are given, we make the best of that. That has been my purpose in life. I have worked in studios on the desks, I have been on the desks at large outdoor concerts, there is very little I don't know about mixing. Basically you are at the mercy and stupidity of the producers and sometimes the artists.

As I keep saying, like pissing into the wind, unless you live with it with an open mind you will never know. I have given the reasons over and over and over again. A semi doesn't fight the room, it is designed to work in an acoustic not in spite of an acoustic. Absolutely pointless in a studio control room as they are almost anechoic, a process to try and kill the influence of the room. Taken to a level of complete stupidity in the speakers design process with anechoic chambers to remove any and all reverb or acoustic influence, absolutely feckin' daft as we end up using them in a *living* (lived in) room.

You know when we have got it wrong when people are able to sell you room treatments and bass absorbers, correcting problems that don't exist unless stupidity brings them into existence.

[Simon Hickie]

Something I came across re. Roy Allison's designs was his observation about how traditional P&S designs resulted in bass anomalies and particularly suck-outs. My limited understanding of acoustics suggests that whenever you have speakers away from the back wall, you are going to get cancellations at the lower end due to phase issues - hence the need for room treatments etc. But stick those speakers against a wall and they can sound overblown at the bottom end unless specifically designed for wall placement.

I find my current P&S speakers least satisfactory for classical music because they fail to convey the necessary level of scale and ambience and as a result I don't listen to enough of it. Strangely enough though, a classical type film score (e.g. something by Hans Zimmer) sounds more involving on my 6.1 system due possibly to it being more omnidirectional thanks to the rear speakers.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

It is always good to rethink problems, apply a little lateral thought. Convention is the easy way, often convention is created by marketing so THEY (the slurpers) can make as much slurp as possible, and every time the hi-fi sheep fall for it. The current convention of multi smaller drivers and thin ported cabinets is about cost and profit, nothing else.