Hi JohnK,
I have learned a great deal from your website and appreciate the engineering you have invested to help diyaudio. I like your latest NaO Note, but I recall the Amadeus movie line "too many notes" when I think about crossovers for the 4 top speakers. I am not the Mozart of crossover design.
I have a 3-way dipole consisting of an H-baffle with two Lambda TD15_dipoles, crossed 100Hz LR4 to a no-baffle 8" Tang Band W8-1808 without the whizzer cone, crossed 1,400Hz LR4 to a DIY dipole ribbon on top. I bent and welded some 3/8" square steel into a skeleton to bare mount the mid+ribbon, so there is no baffle.
I decided to use the 8" midrange above its dipole frequency limit [ 0.66 * (13500 in/sec/7.5" diameter) = 1192Hz ] in order to save the extra speaker required for optimal dipole polar response as in your NaO Note.
From what you have learned, would you expect a "noticeably better" polar response if I added a 4" below the ribbon tweeter and moved the LR4 xovers to 100, 800, 3000Hz?
From your listening experience, when do the extra speakers+crossovers required for optimal dipole polar response degrade the sound more than a poor midrange polar pattern?
I have learned a great deal from your website and appreciate the engineering you have invested to help diyaudio. I like your latest NaO Note, but I recall the Amadeus movie line "too many notes" when I think about crossovers for the 4 top speakers. I am not the Mozart of crossover design.
I have a 3-way dipole consisting of an H-baffle with two Lambda TD15_dipoles, crossed 100Hz LR4 to a no-baffle 8" Tang Band W8-1808 without the whizzer cone, crossed 1,400Hz LR4 to a DIY dipole ribbon on top. I bent and welded some 3/8" square steel into a skeleton to bare mount the mid+ribbon, so there is no baffle.
I decided to use the 8" midrange above its dipole frequency limit [ 0.66 * (13500 in/sec/7.5" diameter) = 1192Hz ] in order to save the extra speaker required for optimal dipole polar response as in your NaO Note.
From what you have learned, would you expect a "noticeably better" polar response if I added a 4" below the ribbon tweeter and moved the LR4 xovers to 100, 800, 3000Hz?
From your listening experience, when do the extra speakers+crossovers required for optimal dipole polar response degrade the sound more than a poor midrange polar pattern?
Sorry you are disappointed.However, it is more important to do it right than to do it differently. Certainly the basic baffle format is dictated by the physics of the dipole problem, but it is attention to details that make or break a design.
"Dissapointed" is too strong of a word! In a way I like it that the understanding is validated and endorsed by an expert!
I am also "comforted" by the fact that you use the Neo3. I must get one myself. Is that the PDR version?
Thanks for your great work and sharing!
I am glad to see that SL is not sitting on his laurels. When I build the Orion it was disturbingly obvious (to me) that the NaO II was significantly more natural sounding through the midrange, and I stated so at the time. (Of course who ever listened to me regarding the Orion?)
Well I do
Having tried stuff I can relate why the NaO for example:
- has no wings
- have rear tweeters
- Narrow (and mine are even narrower he..he..)
But yes, the massive SPL requirements of Orion is why it is. Hopefully I can hear them one day (at full pelt!)
I'm sure he'd be glad to know that.
As I recall, you "reverse engineered" the transfer functions and used a digital crossover. If this is the case I'd surmise you never really did hear a set of Orions. Anyway, that was old news... until you brought it up... again.
Btw, There is a report from John Stone, who just updated his Orions to V3 status here:
"I've just finished my Revison 3 install, and want to report my first impressions. Wow! I mean WOW!! This is everything SL says it is and then some. It really is like listening to a completely new speaker and one which is magnitudes better than the one it replaces. The midrange and treble are now just so much more open, detailed, and most importantly, coherent and seamless. And that's just a small part of it. You simply have to hear it for yourself. IMO...".
Last edited:
It is not just a matter of adding another driver. It is important to look at the polar response of each driver and make sure that it will blend withthe others. For example, over at the PE board there was discussion of a symmetrice dipole using identical drivers firing front and rear. The upper mids were handled by a 2" or 3" dome mounted back to back. While this yields front to back symmetry I warned that, due to the required separation and the directional characterists of the drivers used, there was a possibility of poor polar response due to what I refer to as blooming of the dipole patern as the first dipole peak is approached. I build and measure a similar configuration to show this effect using 1 1/2" domes. The results are in the figure below:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The on axis response (unequalized) is shown at the top, the lower plots show a surface map and polar plots of the response, all normalized by the on axis response. In this case the dipole moment was about 5 or 6 inches. This placed the dipole peak at 1.3K and you can see that the polar response deteriorates above 1k. So what seems like a good idea has problems. What has to be done is to look for a diver/baffle combination where the combination of the baffle size and driver directional characteristics combine to maintain good polar response over the intended pass band.
With regard to you last comment, I haven't noticed any degradation in sound with the additional complexity of the Note crossover compared to the NaO II.
Yes. It is the PDR without the rear cup.
It was a design choice based on a number of things. I may revisit it before finalizing the design but the thing is the SS Discovery 10F performs so well that the speaker could be designed without the Neo 3 in there at all if some jaggedness above 10 K Hz was acceptable. Above 1k Hz the 10F performs better than most full range "drivers".
I don't think you really want to go there mac. First of all, I never used a digital x-o in my Orion. The history is this: I build the Orion based on SL's Orion Challenge. He had, by his own admission, posted sufficient data on his web site so that anyone could build the Orion. There were sufficient dimensions and a block diagram of the active crossover to replicate what was in the plans. The only pieces missing were the delays for the all pass circuits. Those were easy enough to figure out by measuring the response and adjusting the delay circuits to correct the phase response in the crossover region. What I did do in my original build was to simplify the circuits to eliminate unnecessary opamps. Of course, you and others who supported the Orion were up in arms that I should claim this was a Orion. Thus, I threw you all a bone and purchased the Orion plans and build the crossover as per the specs. It was in every way an Orion, top to bottom.
Now if you want to revise history that is fine with me but I will state this once for the record and move on. When I build the NaO prototype I commented on the old MAD board that it sounded dull and lifeless on some material until I added a rear tweeter. The response from those defending the Orion was that I was wrong. Dipole speakers, in particualr the Orion, didn't need a rear tweeter, and that was SL's position at the time. At one time, as I recall, he had a section on his web site or a discussion at the old MAD board about rear tweeters and why they weren't necessary (as we see, that changed). After I build the Orion (before the addition of the rear tweeter) I was reluctant to comment on it but I did state that the woofers ran out of steam which was greeted by more jeers, and that I felt the midrange sounded thin and lacked warmth. Then came the addition of the rear tweeter and subwoofer to the the Orion ++, and now this mod to the midrange (which as I recall is at least the second time SL modified the eq circuits as there was a mod on the support page years ago).
No one (but me?) ever questioned the polar response of the Orion. No one (but me?) ever looked at the response form the rear. No one (but me?) ever noted that the use of allpass delays to align the response form the front makes it worse from the rear. In fact, no one ever looked at, or apparently could hear the flaws which to me were so apparent in the Orion. Now, years after its introduction the Orion, claimed to be a static, finalized design at its introduction, has undergone numerous modification. John Stone's review really sums it up, doesn't it? The review is either a vast over statement, or an indication of just how flawed the original Orion design was. It should be a lesson learned when one of the most highly regarded and well respected individuals (by me as well) in audio designs a speaker, that while highly regarded, still falls short of the mark.
The fact is that the Orion is and always was a decent speaker, but it had (and still has) flaws. And while many of those who build the Orions lined up behind the design and defended it to the hilt (and will continue to do so I suspect), I was the only one who had the balls to stand up and say it wasn't right. So now going on how many years later (?) it's finally getting where it should have been from the start and my comments ring true. As I said, I am glad that SL is not sitting on his laurels and continued to work to make the speaker better, but there are some things that can not be corrected by adding a tweeter or tweaking the crossover.
It's interesting that the "herd" can defend the sheperd "ferociously" while SL himself wrote "I don't have to be the first nor to be right" . But such is audiophile world although we do expect better from technical diyers.
What is comforting though to see people like John and SL who freely share their findings and that something that's good doesn't have to be expensive! Note that this is the second time the unasumming Pluto is used as reference for Orion changes
btw. I haven't got around my head why "a veil has been lifted" now is written in linkwitzlab pages... they are for stereophile !
. But such is audiophile world although we do expect better from technical diyers.What is comforting though to see people like John and SL who freely share their findings and that something that's good doesn't have to be expensive! Note that this is the second time the unasumming Pluto is used as reference for Orion changes
btw. I haven't got around my head why "a veil has been lifted" now is written in linkwitzlab pages... they are for stereophile !
Last edited:
Well John, that was mighty nice of you... considering you built them to off-sell against your own speakers. I had thought you bought the plans for other, more noble reasons.
This is all fine and well, John. However, before SL built the Orion you were content building box speakers. Perhaps there was something about the SL's Orion that caused you to rethink your speaker building goals? Seems so, since you named your first dipole speaker Not an Orion.
Who ever claimed the Orion to be static? It has changed in subtle and not so subtle ways over its' 8-year life cycle.
Do I need to remind you that there isn't a perfect speaker? The Orion isn't, the NaO isn't and your new Note likely isn't.
I'm curious if you have any plans to revise your NaO design, given your new found knowledge of "proper dispersion characteristics"? Seems that you won't be able to achieve those goals by tweaking the crossover...
I purchase the plans solely to appease the "out rage" that I cloned the Orion (for my own sinister reasons, or so I was accused of
), from info on SL' s web site without "paying admission" even though the Orion Challenge was clearly part of SL's site.SL indicated the design was fixed. I don't recall the exact wording he used.
There are no plans to revise the NaO II. It is what it is. Last required update was in 2006 which was to address system efficiency, not to correct difficiencies in the way the speaker sounds.
The NaO Note is the speaker designed to address polar response. Different design objective, different tradeoffs, clean sheet of paper.
I agree that no speaker is perfect, and never will be.
What I was content with as design exercises and what I listen to are different issues. As you may recall the speakers I owned in the past include DQ 10a, Ohm F, Dayton Wright ELS, Maggies, Acoustic III, Quad 63, and Martin Logan Monoliths. Not exactly a box speaker guy.
But I think you have made my point. If you want to correct design deficiencies the way to do it is with a clean sheet of paper. Updating any speaker to make it sound different (for better or worse) doesn't address those deficiencies. Then again, if you want to make something old seem new again......a fresh coat of paint.
But you know, it's the same old story. I can't imagine all those individuals listen to a speaker which was supposed to be the end all to be all only to find out 8 years later that the latest mod makes it like listening to a completely new speaker and one which is magnitudes better .
The bottom line is that I'm just another DIY speaker guy having a little fun.
The baffle is shaped so as to provide the desired path length for each driver. CLould the be further optimized? I presume so, but I'm only willing to cut so many baffles. No baffle can certainly work right if it is done right. My only comment is that it may be throwing away some efficiency.
I appreciate all the positive feed back. I'm just trying to have a little fun and share what I come up with with the rest of the DIY community.
I purchase the plans solely to appease the "out rage" that I cloned the Orion (for my own sinister reasons, or so I was accused of
I don't think you can dispute that you went well beyond "the challenge" by using them to try to sell your own wares.
As I recall you went through many iterations of the NaO that used different drivers (Scan, Peerless, etc.).
I do seriously applaud you to for breaking the mold and doing something different. Maybe you should rename them NaNaO (Not a NaO)? Hopefully someone local to me will build a set so that I can hear them.
I would add that it appears that it's sometimes at the expense of others', which is what I take issue with. Finally, if your intent was truly DIY you'd publish the component values for your crossovers on your site instead of omitting them and selling plans. That seems more like the definition of a commercial venture - small scale or otherwise.
I do not see anything sinister with that, especially the way John "reviews" the Orion. At best it's cryptic and no mentioning of such in his website. I wish he could be more frank but I know that's not possible ethically perhaps. Even SL openly mentioning that he took ESL63 concept initially.
As one of the best loudspeakers out there, the Orion deserve some expert scrutiny not cheerleading!
Now... there is a new filter called the "DSS" in Orion-3. I'm overseas and unable to "test" this but as DIYers.... let's TRY IT. If one of most distinguised electroacoustic expert says it can change a loudspeaker then it deserves some attention
My last response to you on history, mac. Your concern about selling the NaO II against the Orion is somewhat unfounded as it is certainly common practice to allow people to audition speakers along side other speakers they are considering. I guess you concern is or was that the NaO II truly does out perform the Orion. The fact is that after hearing the Orion beside the NaO II not everyone walked aways with a NaO II plan set in hand. The coin has two sides, mac. It never concerned me that someone might choose the Orion over the NaO II. In fact, I know of at least one individual who made the effort to travel to an NaO owners home th hear them, then traveled to an Orion owners home to listen to them and finally ended up with a pair of Geddes speakers after auditioning them. Yuck!
The NaO never used any driver but the SS 8545 and the T25 front tweeter. Other drivers were used in early experiments in the determination of the baffle size and driver positions. I never presented a speaker based on those experiments. There was a short time when the original NaO used a Vifa rear tweeter. The original NaO also used a single 12" woofer (the plans included active EQ for several choices, including the Peerless 12" XLS). When the NaO II was introduced the rear tweeter was changed to the SEAS 27TDFC and the woofers were changed to the 10" XLS to allow the width of the woofer enclosure to match that of the main panel. Anyone who cares to can still use a 12" woofer and I provide full support for that option.
The expense of others? Seriously? Who would those "others" be? Do you object to me making actuate technical comments and taking legitimate opposing positions? Again, the coin has two sides. What my be viewed as "at the expense of one individual" may well be to the benefit of a multitude of others. This is a DIY community and in particular this is a discussion board. I don't think political correctness should carry over to technical issues and if someone wants to present 1/2 the story so as to paint their position in a favorable light I don't feel any guilt in point out the rest of the story and the implications there of.
My efforts have never been directed at a commercial product. At one time I was approach and temporarily swayed to consider that option, but I quickly realized that I have better things to do. But it does cost me time and money to design these speakers and produce circuit boards and such. That I attempt to fund my hobby through my efforts is about as far as it goes. You can peg that as you like.
Look mac, I really have no bone to pick with you. All this is history and it is really time to move on. I am happy to discuss any issues you may have with the design of the Note. I am well aware that it is not perfect. But it does represent an improvement in maintaining constant directivity in a dipole format, and consequently more uniform power response, to higher frequencies than has been presented in other designs. That was a primary design objective. The target for reproduction will be to have similar tonal balance as the NaO II.
By the way, it is interesting that after years of talking about the figure 8 dipole pattern SL has presented a figure showing the behavior of a dipole source as a function of frequency at the top of Dipoles and Open Baffles of his web site.
Just what I have been pointing out for years regarding dipole bloom:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
It's all good!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.