Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo Best Omnidirectional Speaker ever?

Happened to see this on "How It's Made" earlier today.
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mbl-101-x-treme-omnidirectional-loudspeaker
http://www.mbl-northamerica.com/mbl-101-x-treme/

Just crazy, but would love to hear these things!
The pictures don't do it justice compared to watching it being built in HD.

I'd love to hear them of course but I'd bet they don't image as well as more traditional designs. That is the drawback of an omni with uniform polar response. The LFRs are omnis but with a bipolar bias and they image extremely well.

Keep in mind your definition of 'better' is different from everyone else or some of everyone else.
Some people like an immersed sound, like standing amongst the musicians with music all around, not knowing where the speakers are, and perhaps that is what these German speakers provide.
You may prefer to be sitting in front of a band and expect the 'imaging' of which you speak and for that, you are preferring a different speaker design/configuration. My spouse prefers a 'laid' back speaker whereas i prefer one with more 'detail' which she refers to as too much 'treble'.

One thing i noted from the LFR when i heard them is actually parallel to the review done in 2001 on the Mirage OM5s is related to imaging (if we define imaging by the descriptors listed here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/describing-sound-a-glossary.220770/).
"very full-range sound, a vast soundstage that doesn't require you to sit still in one ideal spot to enjoy it, an overall friendly character, and powerful bass that's adjustable to your room and tastes. They don't present images with the laser-like precision that some other speakers do,"

My observation was that the LFR provided a wide soundstage, it didn't pull left or right if you moved around the room, BUT that it felt like it was less easy to pinpoint the sound source compared to the non-LFR version. Was the guitar on the left or right or neither?
Again, this 'imaging' concept, as defined by being able to locate specific sound sources IMO was more 'muddled' compared to the non-LFR speaker. Note that does NOT say the LFR don't have good imaging, but per the reviewers comments i had to agree, my observation of the LFR was similar to his observation of the OM-5s, another omnidirectional speaker. I think the term he used was 'accurate' in that the omnis were did not seem as accurate as other speaker types which IMO is caused by that more dispersed sound, the big soundstage with less imaging.

The Mirage OM-5s were still by far the best overall speaker of the ones i got to hear last weekend.
The list was:
Ruark Broadswords (https://www.iavscanada.com/innovative-audio-ruark-acoustic-broadsword-speakers/)
Waveform Machs (http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/waveform_mach_mc.htm)
Mirage OM-5s
ADS 1590

I can't speak for the passive LFRs but my actives are not only dispersive, they are also imaging monsters, totally transparent and acoustically invisible.

You can sit far and listen to the band "up there". You can sit close and be up in the front rows. Or you can sit closer and join the band.

I am betting my left 'nad the passive LFRs you heard at Axiom suffered from position error or were connected wrong or both.

As for the OM-5, Andrew did the best he could but he didn't have the benefit of a DSP. Even if he had a DSP at that time, he likely would not have been given the resources to leverage it. I'd bet my right 'nad the images from them are fuzzy relative to the LFR.

No way! Not even position error could account for that kind of sin. Axiom did something very wrong in that set-up.

I'll tell you this. I heard passive 1100s once. But not really because I knew there was something very wrong. My M80v2 sounded better and the owner who came over to my place agreed. The owner followed up with Axiom and discovered the DSP was messed up. Maybe that set-up suffered from a similar problem.

Or your bias is showing. The one assumption you keep leaving out of your explanations.
Occam's razor.

Your assumption again is that without a DSP a speaker design could not possibly produce a similar sound. You haven't heard the OM5s so making that assumption is again showing your bias towards your favorite speaker.

Highly unlikely.
Again, just because someone doesn't agree with your assessment of the sound of the LFR doesn't mean there has to be something wrong with that setup or what they heard.
Come on Mojo. Not everyone has to agree with your perceptions of the LFR.

If you couldn't place the guitars, either your ears-brain were messed up, or most likely, Axiom pooched that set-up. Or maybe the guitars really were recorded all over the stage. I am so sure, I'll take the one 'nad bet off the table and slap both wrinkly 'nads down.

Yeah, I'm biased towards my actives after listening to almost all the Axioms. And I'm biased towards the M2 and M5 over the M100. I like the M2 so much, I think it's all most people need with a sub.

As for the Mirages, e-mail Andrew and get his opinion. Wanna bet 'nads he'll tell you the same thing I did? Note however that some may prefer more fuzzy images but the vast majority wouldn't. It's interesting for example how I can enjoy the fuzzier images from the M3 and M50, and at times prefer them over the sharper images of the M2, M5, M100 and LFRs.

Again, you are ignoring my observation because it doesn't agree with your opinions on the speaker.
If you haven't noticed, these comments are rather disrespecting to other people.
If you want to dismiss their observations, just say you disagree and have different observations rather than continue on telling them how they are wrong based on nothing but assumptions of improbable reasons.

I've done the Axiom blind testing room three times (and a few times at home) and it is quite effective a tool to make valid observations. In fact, i recall i ended up selecting the other speaker and not the Axiom as my favored one during the blind group test at the reunion (though they were as Alan used to state 'similarly good'). Because i didn't select the Axiom speaker, what would be your laundry list of reasons of what was wrong with me or the setup for that one??

Now this is outright ignorant. You're looking for something to validate your opinion on something you have never heard. Andrew could very well prefer the Axiom version over something he made two decades ago but that isn't the point. I also never said anything sounded "fuzzy" so you are putting words in my mouth (a poor interpretation of what i am saying).
Perhaps you should hear the OM5s first yourself and maybe you will understand something i'm saying.

Geez Mojo, respectfully, if it wasn't obvious, Craig left over this overbearing, opinionated posting. It is rather off-putting for people to want to post. Try your opinions at AVS or ASR and see how far you get.

Indeed, my observations differ. I fought like hell to properly position the actives and the M100s in my room and know very well they can sound off if not positioned properly. The M2, M3, M5 were quite easy to position compared to the behemoths. I also know Axiom makes mistakes.

I have no issue with you not selecting the Axiom.

I didn't say you said "fuzzy". That's what I said. I maintain they are bound to sound more fuzzy. I have no issue with you liking them BTW.