Orions sound great because dipole?

[D OB G]

My impression of the Orions was "we are there".

My impression is that OBs in general (always?) produce the "we are there", with stereo (or mono) acoustic recordings (orchestral, chamber, folk, jazz e.t.c.), irrespective of the presence of room reflections.

"Mixed" music (sic) can do anything.

There is a long line of OBs that do "we are there", including Goodmans set-ups, QuadESL57s (maybe the best ever), modern planars, e.t.c. e.t.c.

Multi channel won't help me with my current collection of CDs and LPs. (or will it?).

And I don't see how we can get Miles Davis back to do the necessary work.

David

 

[gainphile]

Simply because it's not accurate reproduction. Every recording is mixed for loudspeaker playback (excluding dummy head recordings).

Best, Markus

How could that be? With headphones there is no room effect, box effect, dipole effect etc. Amplified signals directly go through ear canals which has minimum path, reflection etc. What one hears is what's in the recording.

 

[Bratislav]

Simply because it's not accurate reproduction. Every recording is mixed for loudspeaker playback (excluding dummy head recordings).

Why don't you guys step up to multichannel audio? It can deliver a much better illusions of "being there". And you get all the good attributes that stereophony can deliver on top of it.

Best, Markus

There is a surprising number of dummy head recordings in classical catalogs (especially historical recordings).

And I told you already - there aren't many (if any) of the performances I'm interested in that are done multichannel, and even when they are, they sound worse than in humble stereo. I ended up buying two channel only SACD machine in the end.

Best,
Bratislav

PS and if "every recording is mixed for loudspeaker playback", what loudspeakers did producer/master engineer had really in mind ? I can clearly see preferences between individual engineers, and they are quite often diametrically opposed. Some prefer very dry, direct, almost close miked (listen to some recent Jerusalem Quartet on Harmonia Mundi, for example), while some revel in heavy, almost echo-ey ambience (pretty much anything from ECM label). Do you really think they had the same set of speakers in mind ?

 

[gedlee]

Ideally - but there is no consensus as to how to 'objectively' reproduce sound. Peer review and a consensus of experts is necessary for anything to be considered "objectively true" - this is the basis for all legitimate sciences. This doesn't exist in our field.

Actually it does, if the "field" that you are talking about is audio professionals. There is an enormous concensus of opinions about sound reproduction among the "experts" - I (almost) completely agree with Dr. Toole, the concensus is nearly 100%.

It just doesn't exist here to nearly as large an extent as it does in the professional domain.

 

[scott wurcer]

Actually it does, if the "field" that you are talking about is audio professionals. There is an enormous concensus of opinions about sound reproduction among the "experts" - I (almost) completely agree with Dr. Toole, the concensus is nearly 100%.

It just doesn't exist here to nearly as large an extent as it does in the professional domain.

Really, I find the academic faction of the AES to be very closed minded at times. The mere mention of something like a SET amp or Nelson Pass' First Watt will drive them out of the room.

 

[gedlee]

Most professionals would agree that electronics is virtually perfect if made right, so "first watt" or SET, really doesn't matter to me and I know that Floyd would agree - amps are amps. Again pretty much a consensus. You may not like it and view "them" (us) as "closed minded" because we don't agree with you, but that kind of depends on your point of view doesn't it?

 

[markus76]

Originally posted by gedlee There is an enormous concensus of opinions about sound reproduction among the "experts" - I (almost) completely agree with Dr. Toole, the concensus is nearly 100%.[/B]

That's exactly my observation too. But having a believe is much easier for the average audiophile then to deal with all the findings from objective perspectives.

 

[serenechaos]

Or your hearing.
If you can't hear the difference, it doesn't matter, it's good enough.
Amps are amps, speakers are speakers, cable is cable, recordings are recordings, acoustics are acoustics...
If I don't know what "it" is and how to describe it quantitivly then it must not exist.

"Musicality" like "love" is a difficult concept to quantitize...
Then there seems to be the problem of putting numbers on known problems even measurable things, as we call them different things, and attribute them to different things...
I still call "box colorations" lack of "OB colorations" that extra reflected sound you can get from Bose of a Reverb unit...
(I prefer Lexicon Reverb and a controlled RT-60 in a room treated with just enough diffusers, absorbers, and traps to have "that" sound.
"That" undefinable sound, that took so much measurement, AND experimentation to get to.

 

[john k...]

A quick comment on accuracy. What is it? There is a big difference between an accurate transducer and accurate reproduction of sound in a room. Let's not fool ourselves. If you want accurate reproduction of a recording you do what I said earlier, and more. Build a speaker with TP crossover and perfectly flat on axis response and listen to it on axis in an anechoic chamber. What reaches you ear will be an accurate reproduction of the recording. That is, accurate reproduction which removes the room transfer function from the equation. Earl already responded to my statements on this;

Dead rooms aren't very satisfying, while lively rooms can be.

so at least we agree that some degree of artificially induced ambiance, which certainly isn't accurate reproduction, is required for a satisfying listening experience. Thus it follows that "accurate reproduction" of what is recorded is not the answer. In fact, stereo in and of itself is not accurate reproduction of anything. It is a crude attempt to form an illusion of a past event, very crudely captured on a recording medium. What is a more reasonable statement is that an accurate transducer which couples in a favorable manor to the room transfer function is what is desired if a satisfying listening experience is to be obtained. One that yields a reverberant sound field with spectrum closely related to the direct sound, and which approximates the reverberant sound field we would anticipate being submerged in if we attended a live concert. This has very little to do with the ambiance captured on the recording. Both dipole and controlled directivity box speakers are attempts to form the basis of a transducer from which that illusion can be built, but from differing points of view. But there is nothing accurate about it.

 

[gedlee]

Sorry John, it all sounds like semantics to me.

 

[cuibono]

the concensus is nearly 100%.

Floyd Toole, from 2006: "Although the interactions of loudspeakers and listeners in small rooms are becoming clearer, there are still gaps in our understanding."

I admire Toole's work, but none the less, one person doesn't constitute a consensus. There would have to be multiple demonstrations, from different groups, showing strong correlation between physical quantities and subjective qualites, for me to believe that there is consensus among the AES, or even audio professionals.

What I see in the AES journal is a few people researching a few aspects of the sort of high quality reproduction we seek to achieve. Earl, even you disagree about the importance of harmonic distortion, correct? And you find most other waveguide designs poor, correct? With all due respect, that doesn't seem like consensus to me. I'm interested in any studies showing complete understanding of loudspeakers for home use and demonstration of the particular benefits of said design over others, so if anyone has them, please share.

 

[gedlee]

The situation is quite the opposite of what you are saying. Virtually everyone is now agreeing with my position on THD, there is complete consensus. And we DON'T see diffraction horns much anymore do we - there is virtually complete consensus on that issue too. No, I'm sorry, the only place that there isn't consensus is Audiophilia.

 

[scott wurcer]

Most professionals would agree that electronics is virtually perfect if made right, so "first watt" or SET, really doesn't matter to me and I know that Floyd would agree - amps are amps. Again pretty much a consensus. You may not like it and view "them" (us) as "closed minded" because we don't agree with you, but that kind of depends on your point of view doesn't it?

Sorry the point is they are far from "perfect" but there are many that still find them acceptible or more than acceptible. Electronics are not is perfect BTW.

Stilll a 5% distortion SET 5 Watt amp that a group of people loves gets those compulsive types really aggitated. It doesn't bother me at all.

 

[cuibono]

Virtually everyone is now agreeing with my position on THD, there is complete consensus.

I'd love a few AES citations showing that. Without evidence, its just a claim, right? I'm sorry, I'm not meaning to be ornery, I'm just trying to be thorough.

 

[Bratislav]

There is an enormous concensus of opinions about sound reproduction among the "experts" - I (almost) completely agree with Dr. Toole, the concensus is nearly 100%.

Somehow I find it hard to believe that say Peter Walker, Sigfried Linkwitz or Jorma Salmi wouldn't be worthy of AES membership. And they seem to be definitely be on the other side of the subscribed view.

 

[tnargs]

...Every recording is mixed for loudspeaker playback (excluding dummy head recordings).

How could that be? With headphones there is no room effect, box effect, dipole effect etc. Amplified signals directly go through ear canals which has minimum path, reflection etc. What one hears is what's in the recording.

There is a surprising number of dummy head recordings in classical catalogs (especially historical recordings)....PS and if "every recording is mixed for loudspeaker playback", what loudspeakers did producer/master engineer had really in mind ? I can clearly see preferences between individual engineers, and they are quite often diametrically opposed. Some prefer very dry, direct, almost close miked (listen to some recent Jerusalem Quartet on Harmonia Mundi, for example), while some revel in heavy, almost echo-ey ambience (pretty much anything from ECM label). Do you really think they had the same set of speakers in mind ?

The point markus76 is making is that headphones do not create the sound that the engineer listened to when mastering with speakers in a studio.

And although Bratislav's "PS" says no-one can do that unless we go back to the engineer's studio and play through his speakers, we will get closer than with headphones or dipoles if we use well-designed, flat-response (frequency and power), non-dipole, low-distortion speakers in a well-thought-out home environment with appropriate room treatment . That will be a pretty decent facsimile of the engineer's environment, on average.

 

[Bratislav]

And although Bratislav's "PS" says no-one can do that unless we go back to the engineer's studio and play through his speakers, we will get closer than with headphones or dipoles if we use well-designed, flat-response (frequency and power), non-dipole, low-distortion speakers in a well-thought-out home environment with appropriate room treatment . That will be a pretty decent facsimile of the engineer's environment, on average.

Wait a minute - are you saying that engineer mastered the CD/LP to be best sounding on HIS speakers in HIS studio ? I thought that was almost never the case. Studio environment is as far as possible from ideal - massive reflective console right in front of you, cramped space dictating almost always flush mounted speakers (no room at the back), unnatural soundstage tilted downwards (as speakers are typically higher), huge reflective glass window as front wall (a big no no), list goes on. I wouldn't want to replicate "engineers environment" at my home at all. I doubt anyone does.

 

[tnargs]

The Orions .... I often wonder if the reason they are so good is because they are dipoles, or could it be that active cross sounds much better with no components between the amps and the drivers and better caps and resistors doing the work. ....Or is it ...triamping. ...Or is it the great tweeter crossed really low. Or is it the great mid. Or is the great bass from using 4 top of the line 12s. ....

It's all the equalisation...

 

[gainphile]

The point markus76 is making is that headphones do not create the sound that the engineer listened to when mastering with speakers in a studio.

And although Bratislav's "PS" says no-one can do that unless we go back to the engineer's studio and play through his speakers, we will get closer than with headphones or dipoles if we use well-designed, flat-response (frequency and power), non-dipole, low-distortion speakers in a well-thought-out home environment with appropriate room treatment . That will be a pretty decent facsimile of the engineer's environment, on average.

Well the engineeer only listen what is projected by his system through his speakers and room (that's why they are called monitors). An exception maybe is live recording.

If he uses headphones it will always be more accurate reproduction of signals on the master tapes/tracks compared to any speakers.

 

[planet10]

Virtually everyone is now agreeing with my position on THD, there is complete consensus

I'm an AES and i've held your position on THD for 30 years.. on the other hand, i do think there are large amplifier difference (especially when considered properly as a loudspeaker/amplifier system.

dave