Hi,
I wouldn´t expect the Orions to play anything less than very well
Good hardware and excellent engineering......That´s what pays off
Dipoles are critical to their positioning towards the backside and how You deal with that sonic energy (using reflecting and damping measures). If one recognizes smeared fuzzy sound it indicates seriously wrong positioning. Nothing else! Someone who doesn´t want to put some effort in this issue, will probabely never become happy with a dipole speaker.
But if done properly the ´detail-resolution´ is higher, i.e details are easier to distinguish, because of the higher proportion of direct sound and the great delay of the reflected sound.
The very early reflections from inside the box that every (!!, because the membrane just optically shields the inside of the box from the outside, while acoustically it is nearly completely transparent!!) box exhibits are those that smear the sound and give the typical boxy character. Too, the negative influence of the early reflections from sidewalls that add in smearing the sound and widen up the focus are greatly reduced. The late reflections from the backwall just add to the spacious impression of sound -if their delay is long enough and their pattern is diffused- that the ear recognizes them as a reverb and not as part of the original impulse.
jauu
Calvin
ps
If 110dB@4m from 1 panel, with less than 0.3% of mainly K2 distortion isn´t enough......what is?
I wouldn´t expect the Orions to play anything less than very well
Good hardware and excellent engineering......That´s what pays off
Dipoles are critical to their positioning towards the backside and how You deal with that sonic energy (using reflecting and damping measures). If one recognizes smeared fuzzy sound it indicates seriously wrong positioning. Nothing else! Someone who doesn´t want to put some effort in this issue, will probabely never become happy with a dipole speaker.
But if done properly the ´detail-resolution´ is higher, i.e details are easier to distinguish, because of the higher proportion of direct sound and the great delay of the reflected sound.
The very early reflections from inside the box that every (!!, because the membrane just optically shields the inside of the box from the outside, while acoustically it is nearly completely transparent!!) box exhibits are those that smear the sound and give the typical boxy character. Too, the negative influence of the early reflections from sidewalls that add in smearing the sound and widen up the focus are greatly reduced. The late reflections from the backwall just add to the spacious impression of sound -if their delay is long enough and their pattern is diffused- that the ear recognizes them as a reverb and not as part of the original impulse.
jauu
Calvin
ps
That´s right...ESLs distort much less, have higher bandwidth and allow for at least sufficient SPL levels for any kind of music material (admittedly above 200Hz though)
If 110dB@4m from 1 panel, with less than 0.3% of mainly K2 distortion isn´t enough......what is?
I think Linkwitz has zero acoustic treatment in his room for the rear energy or anything else. I believe his philosophy is that a well designed speaker should work well in a "normal" untreated room, but he thinks that all speakers (dipole, conventional, omni) should be placed well into the room away from walls. As far as dipoles being better because of higher direct to reflected ratio, well you can get the same ratio with any speaker and a dead room. Taken to an extreme you are now listening in an anechoic chamber and nobody likes that. I would guess there are a range of direct to reflected ratios that sounds good to people and outside of this is unatural, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was also the same range as a normal room because that's the type of ratio we're used to hearing. Your friend sounds normal when he speaks to you in your room right? He is not a dipole. I think he's more of an omni
gainphile: Linkwitz himself says the plutos (omnis) do that. Maybe not quite your ratio of $ to performance but same idea. That would seem to answer the question "orion sounds good because of dipole?". He reckons the two very different speakers sound so similar because of uniform off axis response. All this info and a lot more is available on his website, it's well worth the read. If you don't like reading here's the first part of a general talk he gave. You have to keep finding the next part on the list to the right http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC-sxvNzC8I
gainphile: Linkwitz himself says the plutos (omnis) do that. Maybe not quite your ratio of $ to performance but same idea. That would seem to answer the question "orion sounds good because of dipole?". He reckons the two very different speakers sound so similar because of uniform off axis response. All this info and a lot more is available on his website, it's well worth the read. If you don't like reading here's the first part of a general talk he gave. You have to keep finding the next part on the list to the right http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC-sxvNzC8I
gainphile: Monte Kay's RS-based design can probably come close.
http://www.mfk-projects.com/rs_dipole.htm
http://www.mfk-projects.com/rs_dipole.htm
serenechaos said:
I think you're jumping to conclusions a bit regarding this detail issue. I have actually heard the same 3 drivers in a ported box speaker and on an open baffle. They sound much more detailed on the latter. So the detail is being lost elsewhere, possibly all those cheap op-amps
Mine are passive so far.
David Gatti said:
Actually I listen to pop, rock and jazz mainly. Hardly any classical.
Have you heard open baffles? The main thing people seem to notice is the absence of colouration in the bass and how realistic drums sound, and the dynamics. This benefits electronic music and rock more than classical, maybe much more!
My current speakers are dipoles, a transformer circuit is used to increase bass by 6dB at driver resonance and there are no op-amps or active EQ in the system. It sounds good.
Simon
The "soft focus" loss of detail comment was a general statement about open baffles.
After listening to a dozen or more in the same day, they all exhibited it, as did all dipoles.
There are few ported boxes I like either, very few.
The orions were the closest to "listenable," I'm guessing due to good drivers and crossover/notch filters, but the lack of detail, and the "bouncy" sound, the extra delayed sound coming off the back wall mixing with the sound from the front, I found annoying, and drove my wife out of the room in seconds...
After listening to a dozen or more in the same day, they all exhibited it, as did all dipoles.
There are few ported boxes I like either, very few.
The orions were the closest to "listenable," I'm guessing due to good drivers and crossover/notch filters, but the lack of detail, and the "bouncy" sound, the extra delayed sound coming off the back wall mixing with the sound from the front, I found annoying, and drove my wife out of the room in seconds...
On their way from the performing artist to the recording you listen to, the signal has passed quite a number of cheap op amps in mixers, equalizers, converters from balanced to unbalanced and vice-versa, signal enhancers, and so on. It is not exaggerated to assume a hundred or more of them in the path before a song reaches the factory, where a CD, LP or any other medium is produced. Why should detail be lost in the op amps of an active cross-over that haven't gone lost in any of the op amps before? Or the other way round, what detail should have passed all those op amps unharmed that would get lost in the Orion's very well constructed cross-over?SimontY said:So the detail is being lost elsewhere, possibly all those cheap op-amps
And if you look at passive cross-overs with their big core inductors that suffer from remanence effects, copper and core losses, inductively coupling into each other and all surrounding components. Then at their big capacitors with unwanted storage effects and parasitic impedances, ESR, ESL and tan delta, do you think detail would not rather get lost there than in an op amp?
As a recording engineer, I somewhat resent being painted with such a broad brush. I'm sure I am not alone in my awareness of this aspect of signal quality maintenance and keeping the number of amplification stages to a minimum is an integral part of this, as is ensuring that those analog stages through which the signal must pass are of the highest quality.
In actual reality, my mic signals go down carefully chosen wire to a high quality mic preamplifier for its only analog amplification and then through another quality interconnect to an A/D converter. From there it stays in the digital domain at high resolution right through to the final conversion to lower resolution for the CD master. the signal passes through no more analog stages right through to the finished CD.
The next analog stage the signal passes through belongs to you, after your D/A conversion.
In this attention to detail, I know I am far from alone in the recording profession.
In actual reality, my mic signals go down carefully chosen wire to a high quality mic preamplifier for its only analog amplification and then through another quality interconnect to an A/D converter. From there it stays in the digital domain at high resolution right through to the final conversion to lower resolution for the CD master. the signal passes through no more analog stages right through to the finished CD.
The next analog stage the signal passes through belongs to you, after your D/A conversion.
In this attention to detail, I know I am far from alone in the recording profession.
Hi Russell,
Thanks for your insights.
I fool around, using bog standard Canare wiring and Pro Tools | 24, nothing fancy. The mics, well that depends on the instrument being recorded.
Any ideas why some people may prefer the vinyl cut to the CD, when all your work is done, and listened to, in the digital domain?
I've noticed this, but its inexplicable to me...
regards,
Thanh.
Thanks for your insights.
I fool around, using bog standard Canare wiring and Pro Tools | 24, nothing fancy. The mics, well that depends on the instrument being recorded.
Any ideas why some people may prefer the vinyl cut to the CD, when all your work is done, and listened to, in the digital domain?
I've noticed this, but its inexplicable to me...
regards,
Thanh.
tktran303 said:
I think some people unwittingly choose coloration of some kind or another in their playback system, and then they get used to it.
If the system I use to monitor my recordings is as uncolored and undistorted as I am capable of making it and go for exactly the sound I want to hear, then when the result gets to the end user, their system's characteristic colorations add their usual effect and everybody's happy!
If, on the other hand you are talking about vinyl from an analog recording that has never been digitized and where the turntable/arm/cartridge are top flight or, even better, from a very good reel to reel low generation tape, then you are listening to a resolution that requires 24 bits and 192k sampling to approach.
I think that tape, needle in groove and tubes all can have a euphonic influence on the sound. I love the particular flattery that tubes can provide - I tend to like the sound of almost any tube amp. I don't really know why and have never found the time to find out!
454Casull said:
I am aware of these factors, but I suspect there may more to it. I also admit it might be fanciful thinking on my part and it does come down purely to damping factor and even order distortion!
I find it curious that digital sound and photography seem to be at the same stage of development where now the very best digital is very close to better analog, by general consensus.
I didn't mean any offense. Most recording engineers will certainly strife for the best sound quality they can achieve. And with digital equipment becoming ever better and cheaper, more and more recordings will go through similar paths as yours.Russell Dawkins said:
My post was in defense of op amps. Analog processed recordings do (or did) have many op amps in the signal path, and still people claim that detail is lost in the op amps of an active cross-over that had not been lost in the op amps in the recording studio. Actually very similar to the vinyl fans that claim to hear analog sound, while you and tktran303 are witnesses that most things before the vinyl cut were probably digitally processed.
The reasons might not only be technical reasons like 2nd order harmonics or damping factor. Psychology has to be factored in. One psychological reason might be the wish to be different.
Another reason is described by Siegfried Linkwitz here.
pacificblue said:
Firstly, I think that is a huge exaggeration. Secondly, my comment was tongue-in-cheek!
That said, I have gone from having op-amps in my cd player, preamp and power amps to discrete designs for each. Additional detail is not really a factor for why each of these stages sounds better, but wow, they do sound better! More fluid, MUCH more dynamic and less harsh etc etc.
Simon
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.