Narrow speakers are better for dispersion. The wider they are the more trouble we will have getting them to image properly. But, all of it is a compromise because there’s no one way that’s best. It’s a combination of things that make it all work. I am not a big fan of side firing woofers either but then I am also a big fan of great imaging. In the end we’ll have to make a decision which way to go. For now we’re playing with both ideas.
I expect buyers of these speakers will never downgrade to an old DS firmware again, as they can compensate for tonality issues then and are able to recognize the advantages of the newer firmwares better. Same for cabling etc.
This, the AMT and the DSP‘able and servo bass will be a new level of quality and tweakability for most. I’m sure as I have more or less most of it in variants already today.
Paul, what exactly are the negatives about side firing woofers in your experience…? Is it a less “tactile” experience as opposed to front firing…? You made many Genesis with side woofers…please elaborate…? Also, Arnies IRS-killer seemed to impress you, despite side woofs…
It’s a great question and one that I do not have a solid answer for. It was me that convinced The Arnold to go with side firing woofers in the first place and he begrudgingly went along with it to placate me. In later years he found it acceptable and, indeed, the IRS Killers have side firing woofers and great bass.
Perhaps it’s more emotional than scientific. It just seems wrong. But it sure works. The trick with speakers is which compromises make sense and which are just emotional bias.
Paul, do narrow speakers image better when dealing with side walls in the vicinity?
Can’t say that I have had much personal experience with side-firing woofers in tower speakers. But with subs, physically orienting them 90 degrees one way or another has much the same effect as turning the phase knob an equal amount. Ask Jim Smith. One of his stereo sub setup Tips is physically turning each sub a few degrees at a time during the tweaking/setup, and that they may end up facing backward and/or in different directions.
Since you’re stuck with the basic physical location in a tower, one would think it might provide more options with regard to how they load different rooms, assuming the rest of the speaker is L/R agnostic - so you could have them inward-firing or outward-firing to suit the space.
Off topic - badbeef can you elaborate more on Jim Smith? Did you read his book or actually have him come in and tune your room?
Just read his book and talked with him on the phone (paid time). He’s more prone to phone consults than actual site visits these days, I think. I sent him photos and measurements of the space at that time, and he provided suggestions. I don’t agree with everything he has to say, but I tend to trust people with experience of hundreds - or thousands - of system setups.
I find it very impressive how open-minded you are about making changes to your design, Paul. Thanks a lot!
You said, that it wouldn’t be a good idea to just copy the design of a speaker of another company. And I’m 100% with you. But it also never a bad thing to use them as a source of inspiration 
I already mentioned the B&O Beolab 50 to be a great design with a big woofer at the front. You just can’t beat Danish design when it comes to loudspeakers.
But there’s also one speaker manufacturer here in Germany you might want to look at. “Gauder Akustik” has a relatively new speaker called the “Arcona 200”. The similarities to the AN3 are quite astonishing I think - at least on paper. Both around 4 feet tall, both a four way design with an AMT tweeter and a big AMT for the midrange.
Looking at this speaker teaches two things.
One: At 6k the AN3 will be nothing short of a bargain. The Arcona 200 costs nearly 14000 Euro and is an all-passive design.
Two: It is possible to build quite narrow speakers that look even narrower than they are, with very similar specs as the AN3. Gauder Akustiks Acrona 200 ist just 10.5 inches wide and looks even thinner I think. Made possible by using two smaller front firing woofers instead of one big one. The organic but still modern shape and the very sleek little aluminium feets help to get the impression of a slim living room friendly speaker.
Really excited about what you come up with at the end 
I wish you a lot of fun and great success designing these speakers!
Those Diapason’s are a modern incarnation of Stewart Hegeman’s Model 1’s. I am fortunate to have a fully restored set of the Hegeman omni directional Model 1’s. They are magical. I have not heard the Shahinian’s but I have to believe they too sound amazing.
I am not sure how nearby sidewalls affect narrow speakers in general. I can tell you that narrow speakers, properly designed, image better than wider speakers in every application I have tried. I can also tell you that our new speakers will be dipoles. This means they are not affected by sidewall interactions. This is because where the two out of phase signals meet they cancel, thus sidewalls become less relevant.
1 Like
This is correct and if we go with side firing woofers we will, of course, provide the appropriate phase adjustments to compensate.
I had wondered about this before when seeing the renderings - so the top half or so of the rear of the speaker is open or grillcloth? There’s what looks like a port at the top, or is that a rear tweeter? And the rear wave of the mid is then passing between the sidewalls before exiting the back?
EDIT: Looked at the renderings again and zoomed in. So a box on top with tweets front and rear, and a box on the bottom for the woofer, — then open in between in the back?
Will it be fixed at that adjustment, or will the woofers have some sort of phase adjustment control?
Yes, with Omnidirectional Model’s 1’s as with Shahinian Diapasons speakers one can enjoy the recreation of a three-dimensional, natural effect of listening to music instead of the synthetic activity of listening to two sources.
The phantom image in-between the loudspeakers, which everybody gets thrilled about, can easily be achieved by the worst speaker in the world - simply switch to mono.
Shahinian went in a direction with the likes of A Stewart Hegeman, Otto Enckel, Murray Crosby, Buckminster Fuller… In Harry F. Olson’s treatise from 1939, following simple ideas such as the geometry published in Van Nostrand’s Elements of Acoustic Engineering. This said that the worst possible shape for a loudspeaker is a square cube with the driver mounted in the centre of one face, and that the second worst is a rectangular box - and for the vast majority things haven’t changed a lot in 79 years !!
1 Like
It continues to fascinate me how important imaging and soundstage are to audiophiles when both are unrealistic artifacts of recording and sound reproduction. Even a single acoustic instrument does not image in the real world as it does on playback.
1 Like
Elk,I couldn’t agree more…but its part of that magical illusion that makes stereo so much fun to listen to…
1 Like
Right - and why it’s dumb to get into arguments about it. They are two completely different things. It just seems like some stereo listeners insist that it is like reality, which pisses a lot of other folks off.
And the different ways different sorts of speakers image and interact with a room is part of the interest and fun of it - as long as you have the space to work with the speakers you have. They are all some sort of compromise, and have different strengths and weaknesses.
Absolutely. It can be a great deal fun and an absolute hoot.
It is particularly amusing with muti-tracked pop recordings where one can manipulate exactly where each instrument sits, how wide it is (odd concept, yes?), how far forward or back, etc.
If the AN3 was really possible around 6k, i’d love to see a 10k or little more line source not over its size!
I’d really be after the smallest, best speaker of that kind.