Paul McGowan on Horn Loudspeakers

[Hear Here]

I've not been impressed with horns as the few i've heard (Klipsch, Avantguard, Impulse, Acapella, JBL) haven't delivered solid 3d imaging. Is this always the case with horns?

I have been using Avantgarde horns since 2002 and their imaging is so much better than any other type of speaker I've heard, electrostatics perhaps excepted.

My room lends itself to omnis and I recently demo'd MBL and German Physics models - both expensive systems - but what let them down hugely for me was their poor imaging compared with AG speakers.

What you have to accept with horns is that they require very careful setting up to get best sound quality, but it certainly pays off, albeit from a smaller sweet spot than most other types. Properly set up their imaging is second to none.

 

[Argonaut]

Try Dusty Springfield, Son of a Preacher Man, you should be able to 'see' an image of Dusty moving up to the mic in the centre and her backing singers off to the left in a separate acoustic space. The version I have is from the Pulp Fiction CD but it may be the same version as the one on Dusty in Memphis.

Is this not as much a product of the miking and situ of the performers on the recording rather than an audible efffect which a given transducer transducer either can or cannot reproduce?

 

[Hear Here]

Thanks, for reference can you name a track that delivers 3d imaging via the Odeons?
Cheers!

Imaging is not related to any particular track or album, but on the quality of the recording and the system it is played through. The test for me of good imaging is to listen to just about any well recorded music with eyes closed and to be able to unambiguously point towards any particular instrument or singer. If that's not possible, you are not experiencing good imaging.

 

[treitz3]

Good morning, @Hear Here. I would tend to argue that one mustn't need to close their eyes to be able to "see" this, although it does seem to enhance the placement/aura.

Tom

 

[Rexp]

Is this not as much a product of the miking and situ of the performers on the recording rather than an audible efffect which a given transducer transducer either can or cannot reproduce?

The imaging is embedded in the recording, your speakers will reveal it or not, depending how good they are.

 

[Argonaut]

The imaging is embedded in the recording, your speakers will reveal it or not, depending how good they are.

Exactly so , If such an effect is present on the recording then most competent transducers should convey as such regardless of topology or type.

 

[Jägerst.]

What is the ratio of amp power for woofers compared to horns In a multi way system?
at a few audio shows the flagship advant guards were very good
way to close and all dcs stack too.
very few times have I heard horns done so well

I assume you're referring to a horn-hybrid example with a direct radiating, moderately efficient woofer section coupled to a high eff. horn ditto? And by multi-way do you mean actively? With a, say, 110dB sensitive midrange/tweeter horn obviously you can get by with very little amp power for prodigious output, whereas a woofer section of, say, 97dB sensitivity (still very eff. compared to the standard hifi speakers that barely exceed honest 87dB's sensitivity) requires about 20x more power at least for the same SPL. This leads many into a differentiated amp approach with low wattage tube amps for the top end and higher powered SS (often class D) variants for the lower bands, but to someone like me who's a stickler for coherency it's an approach that has negative impact here.

While I understand the want for wringing out certain qualities in the horn section with specifically "tailored" and lower wattage tube amps or other of particular interest, and with the rest of the frequency range being fed - it seems - more or less by power necessity and not much else, the summed output of these different "ingredients" makes for a less appealing sonic meal to my ears. The thing is though, you don't really notice it until comparing it with a scenario of using similar amps top to bottom, and by 'similar' I mean the same amp brand, series and overall topology that may have smaller variations in output power.

In my own 3-way actively configured setup I went from a 30W class A Belles unbalanced power amp for the midrange/tweeter horn section, an 800W (4 ohm) Crown K2 balanced class D amp for the mid basses and a +1.3kW LabGruppen balanced class D amp for the tapped horn subs, to essentially 3 similar MC² Audio class A/B amps - that is, 2x T2000 (625W 8 ohm) and one T1500 (575W 8 ohm), all of them fully differential balanced. To my surprise the slightly more powerful T2000 model sounded a wee bit better on the midrange/tweeter horn section; it was a wash on the midbasses why the T1500 ended up here, and the subs dug the T2000 over the T1500 a bit more.

Three different and incarnated audio nerd friends of mine have now listened rather extensively to my setup before and after amp swaps, and all them - by a mile - favor the MC² Audio powered system. One of them even expressed outright surprise to find the MC² Audio T2000 model bettered the class A Belles SA30 over the horns, to which I agree. I'm sure most audiophiles would assume, even downright proclaim without having listened to either scenario that the hifi brand 30W class A Belles SA30 amp (a great amp in and by itself) would trump the studio/pro segment 625W class A/B MC² Audio ditto in named context, but it just goes to show.

Why that much power for a horn-based setup, top to bottom not least? To me it was more or less about starting with the power requirements over the subs, which then led to experimenting with quite a few amps and learning how they affected the remaining frequency range. As it turned out the best full-range amp of the bunch (the T2000) also sounded best over the subs, which was then effectively "duplicated" to the rest of the driver segments on up. Who cares if you have close to a kW over a 111dB sensitive horn/compression driver combo when it's the best sounding combination? Prior to this experience I no doubt would have thought of this as being "overkill," as well as blindly assuming class A would - in general - beat a class A/B amp, but post experience tells a different story, and one that of course mayn't serve as an example for the same outcome in every other situation and context.

Sorry this got a bit out of hand, only to tell you that I wouldn't worry too much about power differentiation between a horn and woofer section; in fact I'd maintain what's effectively the same amp over the entire frequency range to aid coherency the best way possible, and if that means having prodigious power reserve for the very high eff. horns it's nothing to worry about. For as they say: headroom is your friend.

 

[morricab]

I assume you're referring to a horn-hybrid example with a direct radiating, moderately efficient woofer section coupled to a high eff. horn ditto? And by multi-way do you mean actively? With a, say, 110dB sensitive midrange/tweeter horn obviously you can get by with very little amp power for prodigious output, whereas a woofer section of, say, 97dB sensitivity (still very eff. compared to the standard hifi speakers that barely exceed honest 87dB's sensitivity) requires about 20x more power at least for the same SPL. This leads many into a differentiated amp approach with low wattage tube amps for the top end and higher powered SS (often class D) variants for the lower bands, but to someone like me who's a stickler for coherency it's an approach that has negative impact here.

While I understand the want for wringing out certain qualities in the horn section with specifically "tailored" and lower wattage tube amps or other of particular interest, and with the rest of the frequency range being fed - it seems - more or less by power necessity and not much else, the summed output of these different "ingredients" makes for a less appealing sonic meal to my ears. The thing is though, you don't really notice it until comparing it with a scenario of using similar amps top to bottom, and by 'similar' I mean the same amp brand, series and overall topology that may have smaller variations in output power.

In my own 3-way actively configured setup I went from a 30W class A Belles unbalanced power amp for the midrange/tweeter horn section, an 800W (4 ohm) Crown K2 balanced class D amp for the mid basses and a +1.3kW LabGruppen balanced class D amp for the tapped horn subs, to essentially 3 similar MC² Audio class A/B amps - that is, 2x T2000 (625W 8 ohm) and one T1500 (575W 8 ohm), all of them fully differential balanced. To my surprise the slightly more powerful T2000 model sounded a wee bit better on the midrange/tweeter horn section; it was a wash on the midbasses why the T1500 ended up here, and the subs dug the T2000 over the T1500 a bit more.

Three different and incarnated audio nerd friends of mine have now listened rather extensively to my setup before and after amp swaps, and all them - by a mile - favor the MC² Audio powered system. One of them even expressed outright surprise to find the MC² Audio T2000 model bettered the class A Belles SA30 over the horns, to which I agree. I'm sure most audiophiles would assume, even downright proclaim without having listened to either scenario that the hifi brand 30W class A Belles SA30 amp (a great amp in and by itself) would trump the studio/pro segment 625W class A/B MC² Audio ditto in named context, but it just goes to show.

Why that much power for a horn-based setup, top to bottom not least? To me it was more or less about starting with the power requirements over the subs, which then led to experimenting with quite a few amps and learning how they affected the remaining frequency range. As it turned out the best full-range amp of the bunch (the T2000) also sounded best over the subs, which was then effectively "duplicated" to the rest of the driver segments on up. Who cares if you have close to a kW over a 111dB sensitive horn/compression driver combo when it's the best sounding combination? Prior to this experience I no doubt would have thought of this as being "overkill," as well as blindly assuming class A would - in general - beat a class A/B amp, but post experience tells a different story, and one that of course mayn't serve as an example for the same outcome in every other situation and context.

Sorry this got a bit out of hand, only to tell you that I wouldn't worry too much about power differentiation between a horn and woofer section; in fact I'd maintain what's effectively the same amp over the entire frequency range to aid coherency the best way possible, and if that means having prodigious power reserve for the very high eff. horns it's nothing to worry about. For as they say: headroom is your friend.

What is the sensitivity of your subs and what levels do you listen at (average and peak)? I can't really see the need in a domestic environment for this kind of power...also for the subs. You could probably drive the subs to sufficient volume with, say a 100 watt PP tube amp or Class A SS or hybrid amp of similar power. Then using low powered SETs for the rest. Given the sensitivity of your drivers, I can't imagine that these are the best sounding amps for the whole system.

You could probably get away with using a mid-high powered SET for the subwoofers as well and then you are SET from top to bottom. Or you could go with PP tubes from top to bottom...or hybrids...or simply something that sounds better...

 

[Lagonda]

What is the sensitivity of your subs and what levels do you listen at (average and peak)? I can't really see the need in a domestic environment for this kind of power...also for the subs. You could probably drive the subs to sufficient volume with, say a 100 watt PP tube amp or Class A SS or hybrid amp of similar power. Then using low powered SETs for the rest. Given the sensitivity of your drivers, I can't imagine that these are the best sounding amps for the whole system.

You could probably get away with using a mid-high powered SET for the subwoofers as well and then you are SET from top to bottom. Or you could go with PP tubes from top to bottom...or hybrids...or simply something that sounds better...

Or 3 top of the line SS amps !

 

[Jägerst.]

I've not been impressed with horns as the few i've heard (Klipsch, Avantguard, Impulse, Acapella, JBL) haven't delivered solid 3d imaging. Is this always the case with horns?

It's a classic case leveled against horn-based speakers with regard to their lack of imaging abilities, and not entirely without merit, it seems. However, is the typically more laid-back, less-than-life-sized, über sharply cut and 3D holographic imaging that's often ascribed to low efficiency, direct radiating speakers really what's found with live acoustic and amplified musical events? I mean, does it sound eerily "real" as has it become more a thing-of-its-own that's been cultivated in audiophilia for years?

Horn speakers are mostly passively configured and thus often have timing issues between the drivers, unless physically aligned (or delay corrected digitally in active setups), and this is said to be an impediment with regard to image precision in particular. And yet in spite of their deficiencies here many find horn-based speakers to bring that "musicians in the room"-sensation that comes predominantly, or so I guess, from their dynamic capabilities, prodigious air radiation area, how the cones couple gradually to the medium of air as well as their dispersive nature.

More closely fine tuning horns in the time domain, further improving power response and overall implementation has them imaging excellently, to my ears.

 

[Jägerst.]

What is the sensitivity of your subs and what levels do you listen at (average and peak)? I can't really see the need in a domestic environment for this kind of power...also for the subs. You could probably drive the subs to sufficient volume with, say a 100 watt PP tube amp or Class A SS or hybrid amp of similar power. Then using low powered SETs for the rest. Given the sensitivity of your drivers, I can't imagine that these are the best sounding amps for the whole system.

You could probably get away with using a mid-high powered SET for the subwoofers as well and then you are SET from top to bottom. Or you could go with PP tubes from top to bottom...or hybrids...or simply something that sounds better...

The tapped horn subs are 97dB sensitive, but being they're both corner mounted it's rather somewhat above 100dB's. Listening levels vary quite a lot, from the 70's average to the occasional +100dB peaks.

Sensitivity rating isn't always a giveaway with regards to the power needed, certainly not with tapped horn subs and their large voice coil drivers that tend to thrive on loads of power even when listening a more moderate SPL's; you want to properly resonate those tapped horns I can tell you amp power and overall grunt is very important.

My point is staying with what's essentially the same amps throughout the entire frequency range for the best perceived coherency, and moreover: why worry about plenty of wattages when the sound at hand impresses? By your logic the 30W Belles amp should have proved perhaps the better match (yet it wasn't to our ears), or better yet - and this may be your main point - a tube powered amplifier. I'm not against tube amplifier sound, on the contrary, but mostly I don't see them working that well in active setups due to noise issues, and when you configure SS amps actively I actually find them to be more "tubey" sounding - that is: more resolved, free-flowing and with a more authentic tonality. Look up the sound of MC² Audio amps to get a bearing (i.e.: not all SS amps sound the same, and pro segment amp aren't necessarily crap), but if tube amps is your thing mostly it mayn't matter.

 

[morricab]

The tapped horn subs are 97dB sensitive, but being they're both corner mounted it's rather somewhat above 100dB's. Listening levels vary quite a lot, from the 70's average to the occasional +100dB peaks.

Sensitivity rating isn't always a giveaway with regards to the power needed, certainly not with tapped horn subs and their large voice coil drivers that tend to thrive on loads of power even when listening a more moderate SPL's; you want to properly resonate those tapped horns I can tell you amp power and overall grunt is very important.

My point is staying with what's essentially the same amps throughout the entire frequency range for the best perceived coherency, and moreover: why worry about plenty of wattages when the sound at hand impresses? By your logic the 30W Belles amp should have proved perhaps the better match (yet it wasn't to our ears), or better yet - and this may be your main point - a tube powered amplifier. I'm not against tube amplifier sound, on the contrary, but mostly I don't see them working that well in active setups due to noise issues, and when you configure SS amps actively I actually find them to be more "tubey" sounding - that is: more resolved, free-flowing and with a more authentic tonality. Look up the sound of MC² Audio amps to get a bearing (i.e.: not all SS amps sound the same, and pro segment amp aren't necessarily crap), but if tube amps is your thing mostly it mayn't matter.

I have a full active system as well where the mid bass is in.a TQWT loaded horn and the high frequency is a 110dB driver crossed at 800 hz. Total system sensitivity is about 99dB and I use an Accuphase F15 crossover. I drive the midbass with a 20 watt SET and the high with either a 6 watt 300b or a 3.5 watt 2A3 amp. At no time am I drawing much over 1 watt.

I agree using the same type of amp across all drivers …just not SS …

 

[morricab]

Or 3 top of the line SS amps !

Let me guess… MBL???

 

[Emperyan]

I just happened to come across this thread and would like to comment on the (mis)conceptions about omnis.
I am into the hobby for almost 25 years and have listened extensively to all kinds of loudspeaker concepts (including many horns). And I finally settled with omnis being the way to go for me. In my home, it´s the Bayz Courante.

I keep hearing that omnis don´t image well, but have a huge listening sweetspot.
Well, not to my experience!

I have listened to different omni brands like Bayz, MBL and German Physiks. If they are set-up correctly, they image perfectly well. I can pinpoint each instrument in the room in width and depth. I can´t even see how this is in any way "worse" than good horns or other direct radiators. The imaging is a little bit different in it´s presentation as instruments and voices tend to have more body to them. They have a width and height to themselves (differing per instrument) instead of coming from a small point in space. To me, this sounds way more natural and similar to live music and I find the horn presentation more artificial in this regard. But it might come down to a matter of taste. Fact is, that all sounds are placed very well defined, distinct and appropriately in the room. I can not note any imaging flaws with omnis, at all.

Now on the speetspot: This is something even brands like MBL promote. And I agree that omnis have a bigger listening sweetspot if it comes to tonality alone. Off axis, the sound tends to stay uncolored longer than with directs or even horns.
But when it comes to imaging, I find the sweetspot of omnis comparably small like direct speakers and also hardly wider than with horns. Also with my omnis, if I move out of the center even 2-3 feet, the image starts collapsing. Actually, I have never heard any speaker of any construction, with a good imaging off center.

MBL and German Physiks kept telling me, you don´t need a center speaker in a surround setup anymore with omnis. I tried it and I think it´s simply not true. I mean, think about it. If you move out of center, your distance to one of the speakers is closer than to the other one. Therefore this speaker will be perceived louder at your listening position, than the other one - no matter the dispersion pattern. Stereo relies on phantom sound sources for imaging, which is basically a balance of loudness between left and right channels. If this balance changes due to listeing position, the phantom image simply can´t work anymore as expected and starts moving in the room as well.

Narrow dispersion concepts like horns try to eliminate most of the room and therefore might be easier to set-up for good imaging. Omnis interact with the room way more and therefore a higher chance that the room could "destroy" the imaging somehow. But with omnis you completely get rid of the problem of off-axis coloration. So all the reflections sound natural and it´s easy for our brain to put a phantom image together. I have heard very good images from omnis which have just been trown in an untreated room.
While with horns, there are less side and back wall reflections in the room, the ones which still appear are quite colored in tonality. This is something which seldomly happens with real instruments and therefore this artificial reflection pattern is harder for our brains to put togehter again. I assume this is why some people consider horns "colored" or "artificial" sounding.

 

[Hear Here]

Narrow dispersion concepts like horns try to eliminate most of the room and therefore might be easier to set-up for good imaging. Omnis interact with the room way more and therefore a higher chance that the room could "destroy" the imaging somehow. But with omnis you completely get rid of the problem of off-axis coloration. So all the reflections sound natural and it´s easy for our brain to put a phantom image together. I have heard very good images from omnis which have just been trown in an untreated room.
While with horns, there are less side and back wall reflections in the room, the ones which still appear are quite colored in tonality. This is something which seldomly happens with real instruments and therefore this artificial reflection pattern is harder for our brains to put togehter again. I assume this is why some people consider horns "colored" or "artificial" sounding.

My reason for seriously considering omnis was because my speaker placement is centre of the room and the dining and kitchen areas are behind the speakers. My horns are of course very directional and much of the music's detail (from the top end of the frequency range) is diminished, so music sounds somewhat bassy or muffled from the areas behind the speakers. As you'd expect, omnis would seem the best solution.

However after auditioning systems from MBL and GP, I appreciated their off-axis sound was much clearer with no tail off in top end, but, even in the ideal listening position, their imaging was not a patch on my well set up horns.

Your suggestion that horns "might be easier to set-up for good imaging" is 100% wrong in my view and perhaps leads you to the opinions you hold about horns! In fact, I'd suggest that horns need greater care with precise setting up than any other type. Certainly omnis should require the least setting up but their design brief. Toeing in an omni should make zero difference to the sound, whereas this is a vital element of the setting up procedure with horns.

I would have switched to omnis as these are the obvious choice for my strange-shaped room, but I am sticking to horns for their far superior imaging – a feature I value perhaps too highly! In fact I’ve been considering getting a pair of GP’s PQS-100 speakers and somehow being able to switch between the Avantgarde’s mid and top horns to the PQS-100, but both sharing the AG’s twin 12” bass drivers -depending on whether I’m listening from in front of or behind the speakers. The big difficulty of course is the massive difference in sensitivity – 107 vs 84 dB. Although the subs’ volume could be adjusted, the amp that powers the AG horns wouldn’t cope with the poor sensitivity of the PQS-100s. I’ve rather abandoned that idea though.

 

[Emperyan]

Your suggestion that horns "might be easier to set-up for good imaging" is 100% wrong in my view and perhaps leads you to the opinions you hold about horns! In fact, I'd suggest that horns need greater care with precise setting up than any other type. Certainly omnis should require the least setting up but their design brief. Toeing in an omni should make zero difference to the sound, whereas this is a vital element of the setting up procedure with horns.

That´s why I put the "might" in the sentence.

With horns (and other narrow dispersion concepts) it´s really hard to deal with the coloured first reflections. Ideally you would get rid of them through absorption. Hard reflective surfaces are a bit unforgiving here. Or if the room is large enough and you put the horns in the middle of the room in a narrow listening triangle, it´s less of a problem (might be the case in your room).
A friend of mine has Acapella horns and we tried to set them up in different rooms. We were never able to get a wide stereo triangle without the sound starting to get colored.

Omnis are easier in this regard, but there is other stuff that could go really wrong with them. Actually, I have never listened to omnis without some kind of solid wall behind them. The wider the stereo setup, the further from the back wall you can pull omnis into the room for a nice and deep soundstage. But only up to a certain point. If the back wall is too far away, the early reflections from this back wall take too long and start smearing the image and give you a strange kind of reverb effect. I assume this is what happened in your room with that much space between the speakers and the hard glass reflection surfaces. I get your point of having good sound in the dining area, still, but I fear this is not a good room placement for critical listening with omnis.
In my room, the omnis are set in a super wide stereo triangle (wider than deep), and still the phantom image is perfectly centered and of natural proportions.

I certainly can not agree to the notion that horns feature a "far superior imaging" than omnis, per se. But it might be easier to achieve in a listening room.

 

[Hear Here]

That´s why I put the "might" in the sentence.

With horns (and other narrow dispersion concepts) it´s really hard to deal with the coloured first reflections. Ideally you would get rid of them through absorption. Hard reflective surfaces are a bit unforgiving here. Or if the room is large enough and you put the horns in the middle of the room in a narrow listening triangle, it´s less of a problem (might be the case in your room).
A friend of mine has Acapella horns and we tried to set them up in different rooms. We were never able to get a wide stereo triangle without the sound starting to get colored.

Omnis are easier in this regard, but there is other stuff that could go really wrong with them. Actually, I have never listened to omnis without some kind of solid wall behind them. The wider the stereo setup, the further from the back wall you can pull omnis into the room for a nice and deep soundstage. But only up to a certain point. If the back wall is too far away, the early reflections from this back wall take too long and start smearing the image and give you a strange kind of reverb effect. I assume this is what happened in your room with that much space between the speakers and the hard glass reflection surfaces. I get your point of having good sound in the dining area, still, but I fear this is not a good room placement for critical listening with omnis.
In my room, the omnis are set in a super wide stereo triangle (wider than deep), and still the phantom image is perfectly centered and of natural proportions.

I certainly can not agree to the notion that horns feature a "far superior imaging" than omnis, per se. But it might be easier to achieve in a listening room.

Interesting. I think all things considered that horns are best in my room as they don't need any wall behind them and are unfussy with the presence of side walls - not that that's a problem in my room. I did try electrostatics with interesting results. The big 2905 Quads were remarkably good (but unacceptable for aesthetic reasons), but the Martin Logan 13A Expressions were a serious disappointment that I put down to the absence of a rear wall that would normally harvest some of the energy that these speakers project backwards. Certainly they sounded better than my horns in the dining area, but at the main listening area, not a patch on my then 17 year old Unos. I decided to stick with AG horns and moved on to used 2006-vintage Duos and now new Duo XDs.

I'd love to hear Bayz speakers in my room, but no UK distribution yet. In my own room, I doubt the distance of the back wall from Bayz speakers would generate a reverberation as you suggest because the wall is curved and at an angle (12 ft behind one and 15 ft behind the other speaker), so reflections would not come back to the speakers or main listening position. Interesting to try though!

Room sketch attached if interested. It looks a nightmare and was initially, but with carpets, curtains and more soft furnishings, I'm happy with the sound (using AG horns) without resorting to artificial room treatment or "room correction" DSP.

 

[Emperyan]

That´s a really unique room shape and speaker placement. It´s hardly comparable to normal room setups.

You wrote that you auditioned MBL and GP before. Were they auditioned in this room or in a regular room?
I would assume, if an MBL design does not work well in this room, a Bayz would also not do the trick. They are somewhat different, but the general principle is the same. GP PQS series are a bit different as their dispersion is not completely omni. Their cabinets guide the sound somehow in the back.

But in any case, I would always expect a horn to deliver better imaging in this specific room and placement. The round shape is a benefit in terms of diffusing reflections from those hard glas surfaces. But then the whole area behind the speakers is very asymmetrical as well. This does not help if the speaker concept relies on those back reflections as part of the overall soundscape. So my guess would be, that what you are looking for is pretty much impossible. For a better sound at the dining area, you need much dispersion from the back of the speakers. But this is exactly what will mess with the room acoustics and imaging at the critical listening position.

Have you thought about simply installing a second system for the dining area, instead? Maybe even in-ceiling speakers? This way you would not have to compromise for critical listening.

 

[Lagonda]

That´s a really unique room shape and speaker placement. It´s hardly comparable to normal room setups.

You wrote that you auditioned MBL and GP before. Were they auditioned in this room or in a regular room?
I would assume, if an MBL design does not work well in this room, a Bayz would also not do the trick. They are somewhat different, but the general principle is the same. GP PQS series are a bit different as their dispersion is not completely omni. Their cabinets guide the sound somehow in the back.

But in any case, I would always expect a horn to deliver better imaging in this specific room and placement. The round shape is a benefit in terms of diffusing reflections from those hard glas surfaces. But then the whole area behind the speakers is very asymmetrical as well. This does not help if the speaker concept relies on those back reflections as part of the overall soundscape. So my guess would be, that what you are looking for is pretty much impossible. For a better sound at the dining area, you need much dispersion from the back of the speakers. But this is exactly what will mess with the room acoustics and imaging at the critical listening position.

Have you thought about simply installing a second system for the dining area, instead? Maybe even in-ceiling speakers? This way you would not have to compromise for critical listening.

My MBL 102 E' s do not sound good to close to the front wall or to far from it. They need somewhere between 1 m an 1,5 m depending on room size. The mid- bass melon/ football needs the reinforcement to sound right. My Martin Logan Statements are recommended 5 to 7 feet from the front wall, they ended up around 6 feet into the room after extensive experimentations.

 

[caesar]

My MBL 102 E' s do not sound good to close to the front wall or to far from it. They need somewhere between 1 m an 1,5 m depending on room size. The mid- bass melon/ football needs the reinforcement to sound right. My Martin Logan Statements are recommended 5 to 7 feet from the front wall, they ended up around 6 feet into the room after extensive experimentations.

From my experience, I like to keep the 101's about 5 feet to 5.5 feet away from the front wall. The reason is that I still get enough bass reinforcement but also don't have the bass waves generated in my bi-amped system, that collect near walls , wash over the speakers and muddy up the midrange and kill the dynamics. (darn physics!!!)