Whatever/whoever answers the DSP challenge, I'm sure John will immediately identify the problems and fix them.
Dave.
Yes. It hasn't proven to be very hard in the past.
It's happened so often that I'm shocked that it doesn't happen preemptively.Whatever/whoever answers the DSP challenge, I'm sure John will immediately identify the problems and fix them.
Dave.
Not so, amigo. One doesn't have to dig too deep to see a trend of issues that you've raised that "remain un-addressed". The one that immediately comes to mind is the "infrasonic problem" with the upper midrange driver in the LX521.
I could be wrong, but I don't think SL really pays too much attention to you.
Not so, amigo. One doesn't have to dig too deep to see a trend of issues that you've raised that "remain un-addressed". The one that immediately comes to mind is the "infrasonic problem" with the upper midrange driver in the LX521.
I could be wrong, but I don't think SL really pays too much attention to you.
But in his challenge point #5 is "Option to drive lower and upper midranges separately" wich at least suggest he's thinking about it.
Not so, amigo. One doesn't have to dig too deep to see a trend of issues that you've raised that "remain un-addressed". The one that immediately comes to mind is the "infrasonic problem" with the upper midrange driver in the LX521.
I could be wrong, but I don't think SL really pays too much attention to you.
I was talking about the history of the Orion, do I really have to list the items I found lacking in the original version which have been addressed over time?
1) Lack of a rear tweeter in the original Orion. --Later added.
2) Lack of maintaining dipole response to higher frequencies.- enter the LX521 (Yes, my initial attempt to address this with the NaO and NaO II by using a narrower baffle and high crossover point was of limited success which is what lead to the original Note, well before SL's 521.
3) limit woofer SPL - a sub was added.
4) After I actually built an Orion I noted the rather thin sounding midrange. - There have been several updates to the Orion which addressed this, including the redesign of the ASP for the Orion IV. The original Orion sounded and measured weak in the lower midrange.
5) Over complexity of the Orion ASP, carried over to the LX521, now to be replace by a dsp crossover.
It seem to me that what you and a number of other Orion supporters missed is that my criticisms, unlike your implications, were not attacks on SL, but rather clear, unbiased, objective evaluations of the technical design, having nothing to do with the designer at all. I was not then, and am not now influenced by name or stature. It was people like yourself who choose to make it appear personal. Why or who influenced SL (if anyone) to address these issues in the Orion through the various II, III, III+, III++ and IV versions, and on to the LX521, is of little importance. It is simply that he did, which is all the evidence needed to validate my criticisms.
Now, as Jonas pointed out, at this time we don't know what (or even if) there will be a digital crossover for the LX521, but SL is considering it and is considering taking a look at the upper/lower mid crossover. If a DSP crossover comes to fruition who knows if it will remain 1st order. The argument for 1st order given by SL was minimizing GD through the x-o between the mid drivers. I showed with the Note II that the identical GD can be achieve with a 2nd order, again a technical issue. So as far as the GD issue is concerned, there is certainly no reason not to look at 2nd order.
So Mac, if you really want to light this fire again that's fine with me. But don't bother to invoke SL's name in the process. Don't pretend to be the great defender. It is you who makes this an issue, not me, and not SL. It is you who jumped in, in response to me simply pointing to SL's challenge with a simply comment that SL has too recognized that DSP is the future. It is you who is the instigator of malice.
If what you say is really true you might have chosen a name other than NotanOrion for your commercial line of speakers.
It's all about you, JohnK.
Nao is a portuguese word
Transliterate letters in name at will, make specious arguments and spread bad feelings about someone who has been incredibly generous with his work? Sorry, I don't like it.
IMO both John and SL deserve great respect. And technically, John has clearly been addressing some issues before SL seemed to.
So, OK you admire SL. You could also extend a little more respect to John and we would all be better off for it.
Thanks for your two minutes.
Oh come on! This is taking it too far. Just for reference, Nao is portuguese for No, as in "Nao e uma caixa" which means, literally "It is not a box"If what you say is really true you might have chosen a name other than NotanOrion for your commercial line of speakers.
It's all about you, JohnK.
Transliterate letters in name at will, make specious arguments and spread bad feelings about someone who has been incredibly generous with his work? Sorry, I don't like it.
IMO both John and SL deserve great respect. And technically, John has clearly been addressing some issues before SL seemed to.
So, OK you admire SL. You could also extend a little more respect to John and we would all be better off for it.
Thanks for your two minutes.
Last edited:
(just proof i am starting a nao build)Pictures of wood and drivers ,getting together parts before work begins ,just waiting for a weather change,been the coldest march in 50 years in the united kingdom,far to cold to be in an unheated garage.
Nao Note 2 Rs Parts Photo by gazza42 | Photobucket
Nao Note 2 Rs Parts Photo by gazza42 | Photobucket
Last edited:
Hi Jack,
Hey, Mac's got me there.
Back when I first designed the original NaO I did tease that it stood for Not another Orion. It was a joke, perhaps in poor taste. However, as you point out, NaO, as in Não em uma caixa, "Not in a box" is the intended reference as evidenced by my old front page: Music and Design. At that time it was first designed as simple DIY project which I never expected to become anything more. The plans were free, and it had a simple one opamp Eq circuit what was to inserted between a preamp and an off the shelf active woofer/panel crossover (Marchand XM9 was recommended). A number of people who build or heard the system encouraged me to take it further. At one time I considered making it a production speaker but I just never had the aspiration to go there.
Last edited:
Careful with that humour stuff John- some people'll beat you over the head with anything you give them. Disappointing to see that sort of pointless rudeness and lack of perspective shown on the forum though. I suppose it's a cautionary tale of sorts- that initially subtle shift from enthusiast to fanboy, leading to a suspension of both critical thinking and a sense of humour, followed by snarkiness and sniping. It's a slippery slope!
Let's steer this way from personal remarks and back to the subject, please.I have been fooling around with the Class D Audio amplifiers and with the tweeters wired in series (rear tweeter connected with inverted polarity) this and indeed works fine. The tweeter gain can be increase either in the PEQ or Xover screes by setting B0 =2 for one of the unused Biquad slots.
I've just become aware of a new dsp platform that might provide another alternative for the Note II (and NaO II) crossover. I'm looking at the software at the moment, to see if the crossovers are easily implemented.
WAF - Wroclaw Audio Force
WAF - Wroclaw Audio Force
I have been following their thread here and was thinking of asking you about it!
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/215379-dsp-xover-project-part-2-a.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/215379-dsp-xover-project-part-2-a.html
I played around with the control/setup software and it has potential. However, the limitations on gain of 12dB for EQ sections makes it impossible to get the exact transfer function for the woofer. Additionally, the PEQ Q values can only be set to 1 decimal point while 2 are required for accuracy. Lastly, since the PEQ Q definition is different that the analog version (like miniDSP) it's a trial and error setup. For miniDSP I have software that generates the biquad coefficients based on the analog Q which is how I design.
I can not say anything about performance since I don't have the hardware and do not intend on purchasing it.
I can not say anything about performance since I don't have the hardware and do not intend on purchasing it.