I think the "hot topic" aspect of this build is a *potential* shift from the wider-baffle Orion format to this new narrow baffle format. Perceptually it might leave those who have invested heavily in the Orion design saying: "what?" (..I don't think it will happen with this design, but alterations to it down the road may well be declared "better" than the Orion.)
On top of that there is the oddity of the top baffle shape (..hmm, wonder if Canadians will go all the way with it and just cut-out a Maple Leaf?)
Well for me the hot topic is that the "Last loudspeakers" has been dethroned (?) by its own maker. Acoustically perhaps but personally I still think the Orion is a better all-round design when aesthetics and performance both are weighted equally.
I wonder whether the "maple baffle" can be integrated behind a grill on the old Orion baffle just like the new Nao Note. Maybe call it 'Orion 521' he..he..
Last edited:
Elias, why would you want the directivity to broaden with increasing frequency? Tricky to impossible to do even if it was desirable as drive units generally (always?) get more directional at higher frequencies.
On aesthetics, I like both the LX521 and the Nao Note more than rectilinear boxes or panels, but maybe that's just me! Different, and even quirky, can be interesting and refreshing. The speakers I've had at home that I liked the looks of most were the Trans-fi Bastanis, which are also rather unusual.
On aesthetics, I like both the LX521 and the Nao Note more than rectilinear boxes or panels, but maybe that's just me! Different, and even quirky, can be interesting and refreshing. The speakers I've had at home that I liked the looks of most were the Trans-fi Bastanis, which are also rather unusual.
Last edited:
Hi Lynn,
I think that you would find my NaO II sounding very similar to SL's Orions, but with a little more body and warmth in the lower midrange. Years ago I built a pair of Orions so I could make the comparison. I would agree that they sounded a little drier, or thinner than suits my taste. Can't comment on the latest Orion 4.
I have to admit to being a solid state guy, but I have heard my NaO II driven by Audio Research tubes and they sure didn't hurt.
My latest system is all active digital. I realize that digital has a ways to go, but I like the idea of at least being able to go digital all the way from the source to the power amps, if you want to. Let's just say I'm positioning the system for the future. Once the configuration for the crossover is defined it can be implemented with any suitable digital hardware. And, if I get ambitious I can always go back to playing around with caps and coils and make the new Note a hybrid, like the original Note.
Well, "de gustibus non disputandum est", but I agree. I prefer the "look" of LX521, for reasons including that it is, in appearance at least, a lot smaller and less imposing in the room. I also like the "line" of the bridge-and-bass-bin lower portion . . . the square box poking out behind the curved ORION side panels has always bothered my eye.
End of the day, though, I don't care what a speaker looks like if it sounds good.
There is scientific evidence that stereo speakers become localisable at high freqs especially if direct to reflection ratio is too high. See e.g.:
Bennet, Parker, Edeko: "a new approach to the assessment of stereophonic sound system performance"
To avoid this and to hide the invalidies of stereo more room reflections are needed at the top end of freq band. Also to compensate for dramatically increasing room absorption at the top end. The solution is very wide directivity at the top end.
However, at the midrange freqs the modulation transfer function MTF should be maximised to avoid loss of data and thus midrange directivity should be high.
These requirements combined leads to the decreasing directivity towards high freqs.
The current 'consensus', if it were to exist, is set by available technology. It does not serve what is really needed in a small room sound reproduction.
- Elias
In the concert hall there is a natural rolloff of the highs as you move back in the hall, and a rolloff of the reverberant field throughout. The combination of close miking and flat-on-axis speakers generally sounds too "bright" to me, at least compared to "hall sound" (I think that should be corrected "in the mix", but it rarely is . . . especially in "straight through" purist recordings). "Flat on axis" works best, I think, for electronic and "amplified" music, where it more closely replicates what one hears from the loudspeakers at a "live" performance in those genres. In the latter direct sound generally dominates over reverberant (opposite the concert hall experience) and is usually deliberately "bright".
As an aside . . . I've always been amused at using the most linear and accurate speakers possible to reproduce the distortions and response irregularities of guitar cabs and PA horns . . .
I didn't used to believe this, but my ear tells me it's correct (and the reasons given also seem correct). Broader and more difuse reflected sound from behind the speakers actually seems to enhance phantom image formation and, more surprisingly, "localization" of specific sources within that image. I often hear it said that there is a "tradeoff" between "spaciousness" and "localization" . . . with dipoles that's not true, both can be simultaneously enhanced (and it's the reflections that do it).
I think there are two issues here; Localization of a point source at high frequency, and radiated power. But I do agree that point source tweeter do tend to attract attention to themselves. On the other hand, large panel radiators, like my Martin-Logan Monoliths don't. They may beam, but the panels disappear and I have always attributed that to the fact that the high frequency radiation eminated from a very large, distributed source. But these panels are at the same time highly directional at high frequency. Best of both worlds?
it was meant to happen! What is funny is to go back to the LX521 description page, and to see that not only almost every question and design issue have been adressed, but that SL has been quietly working on this new design since.. 2009. I really doubt SL is after complexity for the sake of complexity only.. Bravo l'artiste!
For the "right" recording, this is very true. SL's welding shop recording for example is just crazy in that respect.
Member
Joined 2009
To my ears the sound of wide dispersion speakers is mostly compromised in small rooms below 1kHz or so. Not unlike constant directivity speakers with a widening dispersion towards lower frequencies. The idea of a speaker with a narrowing dispersion towards lower frequencies appeals to me as well but the physical realization of it will be difficult. I am very interested in auditioning such a design.
Although omni, dipole and CD(waveguide) designs might sound a bit different I think they can all sound "accurate". That suggests that our ears can adjust very easily to different dispersion patterns in the higher frequencies as long as the directivity doesn't vary abruptly.
Wide dispersion in the higher frequencies however will reach audible room reverberation at lower levels than narrow dispersion. It may not suitable for loud levels in small live rooms.
I've designed for both..
Optimally Elias is correct (for basic 2 channel stereo): increasing directivity as freq.s lower, decreasing as freq.s are higher, or exactly that which is *most* difficult to achieve (unfortunately).
This is all in relation to stereo separation vs. the effects of head shading.
Stereo becomes monophonic as freq.s decrease due to head shading (no longer "working"). From around 3 kHz down to 500 hz is that "transition" zone where as freq.s decrease they become less directional perceptually (by the listener).
Basically the horizontal polar nature of the speaker should be designed so that it compensates for our hearing. (..an inversion.)
Of course this is almost never done.
You could try it out though - radial tweeter "upward firing", radial mid "upward firing", dipole mid, hypercardioid bass. "Shallow" filter transition between radial mid and dipole mid around 1.5 kHz.
Last edited:
Fully symmetric front-rear dipole radiation
If a Fully symmetric front-rear dipole radiation, is the ultimate goal for any dipole speaker, why not just use another midrange unit from the same drivers and use it in the same way as the 2 opposite firing tweeters already being used.
Squeezing 2 midrange drivers (or 4 drivers if it is a 2-way midrange unit) into the narrowest possible sealed and heavily stuffed box of its own individual box separately for the front and rear drivers , placing them back to back, and wiring them out of phase, would provide the same same spectral balance to the front and rear, for the entire audio spectrum.
Heavy stuffing in a small sealed box will suppress every resonance to closely sound boxless as free OB mounted drivers.
If a Fully symmetric front-rear dipole radiation, is the ultimate goal for any dipole speaker, why not just use another midrange unit from the same drivers and use it in the same way as the 2 opposite firing tweeters already being used.
Squeezing 2 midrange drivers (or 4 drivers if it is a 2-way midrange unit) into the narrowest possible sealed and heavily stuffed box of its own individual box separately for the front and rear drivers , placing them back to back, and wiring them out of phase, would provide the same same spectral balance to the front and rear, for the entire audio spectrum.
Heavy stuffing in a small sealed box will suppress every resonance to closely sound boxless as free OB mounted drivers.
Would be nice if it worked that way, wouldn't it. But it doesn't. Dipole cancellation doesn't happen, the polar varies from two opposite-facing hemispheres to whatever the driver beaming produces, power response varies all over the place. You've invented Bose . . .Squeezing 2 midrange drivers (or 4 drivers if it is a 2-way midrange unit) into the narrowest possible sealed and heavily stuffed box of its own individual box separately for the front and rear drivers , placing them back to back, and wiring them out of phase, would provide the same same spectral balance to the front and rear, for the entire audio spectrum.
Maybe with a little development . . . and some marketing . . .
Did you find them look better in real life compared to available photos?
I might have to cut one and see myself
Would be nice if it worked that way, wouldn't it. But it doesn't. Dipole cancellation doesn't happen, the polar varies from two opposite-facing hemispheres to whatever the driver beaming produces, power response varies all over the place. You've invented Bose . . .
Maybe with a little development . . . and some marketing . . .
Please note in my post that the 2 opposite placed drivers are wired "out" of phase, resulting in a dipole giving all the dispersion characters of a driver mounted on a flat baffle, with the added advantage of symmetric front and rearward radiation. This model is described in detail both on John's and SL site.
Electro-acoustic models
DIY-dipole-1
AFAIK, drivers in Bose operate in phase and can be called at most multipolar and not dipoles.
Last edited:
I was surprised at how much smaller they seem "in person" (compared to ORION), since the difference in overall dimension is not that great. The narrow baffle really makes a difference at eye level. But heh, I live in a restored Craftsman that's largely obscured by clutter, and drive a "classic" Scion xB. Don't expect me to be the arbiter of anyone else's taste . . .Did you find them look better in real life compared to available photos?
I've already begun conversion of my ORION to the "bass bin and bridge" form, and expect that there will be something "LX521 like" sitting on it (in place of the ORION upper baffle) sometime next year . . .
Hi Rudolf,
I have seen your thread and excellent sims on Boxsim with dipole tweeters placed really close. Have you tried a similar simulation with 6-8" midrange drivers squeezed into slimmest and shallowest sealed boxes, facing opposite way, wired out of phase. Perhaps the excellent constant directivity that you achieved with the tweeters could be achieved with midrangers also as high as 3-4K or more, after which the dipole tweeters can kick in. Using 2 midrange drivers in a dipole fashion would likely have a much more symmetric front and rear radiation pattern and also the CD benefit of a slim OB dipole with a single mid range driver.
Such a scheme would at least allow for a 3-way dipole (if not one way) with the benefits as good as a 4-way slim dipole by John and SL.
Last edited: