goskers said:
I can't find and reviews where any of these speakers are compared to mass produced products. Also, I don't know whether the Summas/Nathans are prefered because they a better value for money. I want to build something that is awesome rather than something that is the best at that price range.
Why did you prefer the Summa's? Are they more forgiving to room placement?
I want something with excellent dynamic range and transparency.
I just relised that the Orion's do go lower though. Where the Summa's need to be carefully integrate with subs (extra cost). Ahhhh!
Rudolf said:
Goskers has only heard the Summas with subwoofers per my stated approach - not sure why you refered to them as "asymmetric" or non-"traditional".
As to the Summas requiring subs, this was by design because its the right thing to do for any loudspeaker. No loudspeaker can inteface with a small room in the bass without subs, so the Summas are just designed with this in mind. This offers a degree of freedom that allows for some system benefits. But even with subs the costs still come in well below the competition.
Joel (Goskers) can speak for himself on this, but I'm sure that he'd claim that the Summas are simply the best speakers that he's heard regardless of price. The fact that they are a great value is secondary. And he is hardly the only person to say this. John VanOmmen for example - read his reviews here.
SimontY said:
Hi Simon,
I agree with your opinion.
I'd like to know more about the crossover and transformer that you have used to passively amp your OB speakers.
I like OB sound and I have listened to the Orion, the Bastanis Atlas and another custom project. More or less, I have liked ALL of them.
Cheers
mac said:
John, Why not design one and sell it? I'm sure there would be a market for such an alternative, given the large Orion user community. Who knows, it might even convince some feeble-minded audiophiles to build their third set of Orions.
I have no interested in modifying the Orion. If people want the option of all active or active/passive hybrid they have the NaO.
Telstar said:
They're just 3-way, 2nd order slopes tweeter>mid (~3.5khz) and 1st order mid>bass (80hz but no zobel so lots of overlap). The transformer is just a 100VA toroid per side, in tandem with some caps and coils! Search for "T-bass" to find out more about that part. They sound wonderful for cheap speakers.
Simon
There isn't any point to a hybrid Orion configuration. SL has done that years ago with the Beethoven system.
The Orion is a further evolved version of that.....the switch to fully active being one of the evolutions/improvements.
Since the Orion ASP design already exists as fully active solution and the availability of two more amplifier channels is usually very easy and cheap, the idea of a hybrid system is a step backwards in performance, an increase in complexity, and probably an increase in cost.
The answer to the OP's question is that the Orion's great sound is primarily the result of the system configuration/engineering and not the quality of the particular drivers selected.
Cheers,
Dave.
The Orion is a further evolved version of that.....the switch to fully active being one of the evolutions/improvements.
Since the Orion ASP design already exists as fully active solution and the availability of two more amplifier channels is usually very easy and cheap, the idea of a hybrid system is a step backwards in performance, an increase in complexity, and probably an increase in cost.
The answer to the OP's question is that the Orion's great sound is primarily the result of the system configuration/engineering and not the quality of the particular drivers selected.
Cheers,
Dave.
john k... said:
Hi John
I am somewhat considering your NaoMini. They seem to be easy to construct and potentially be easier to integrate with my current 2 channel amp. The hybrid XO as I understand it has a passive XO for the mini panels, therefore I can use my current two channel amp to drive these via your active XO. Then I can temporarily use my existing sub whilst I build your matching subs. Problem is it sounds a little to easy. The Orions and the Summa don't allow for any variations to the design, where it seems your Nao's are a little more versatile. It seems I am missing something here?
Also the mid-woofers you use on the mini are not a current product (in Australia anyway). I think you mention 7inch on your website, which driver specifically?
Thanks
Chris
Hi Chris,
The Mini is that simple; a couple of flat panels and one, or optimally two, powered subs. As you note, the system requires only a single stereo amp to drive the panels which employ a passive mid to tweeter crossover. You can use any powered subwoofers you like. The only requirement is that they have a 2nd order LP filter on the sub. A slight mod to my active circuit is required but I am happy to assist. My active crossover will then integrate with that to give the required 4th order LP roll off of the subs. If you are happy the performance of your subs there is no reason to take it to the next step and build mine.
The benefit of the Mini format is that the subs can be placed to integrate optimally with the panels, or positioned to optimize the in room bass response. In this regard it is a very flexible system.
The midrange drivers are Peerless Exclusive 7” 830883. I can not imagine why these would not be available in AU.
If you have additional questions please email me directly at the email address on my web site.
The Mini is that simple; a couple of flat panels and one, or optimally two, powered subs. As you note, the system requires only a single stereo amp to drive the panels which employ a passive mid to tweeter crossover. You can use any powered subwoofers you like. The only requirement is that they have a 2nd order LP filter on the sub. A slight mod to my active circuit is required but I am happy to assist. My active crossover will then integrate with that to give the required 4th order LP roll off of the subs. If you are happy the performance of your subs there is no reason to take it to the next step and build mine.
The benefit of the Mini format is that the subs can be placed to integrate optimally with the panels, or positioned to optimize the in room bass response. In this regard it is a very flexible system.
The midrange drivers are Peerless Exclusive 7” 830883. I can not imagine why these would not be available in AU.
If you have additional questions please email me directly at the email address on my web site.
Rudolf said:
Anyone interested in playing around with theoretical affects of multiple woofer placement in a rectangular room can download my room response simulator.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The top section allows you to simulate a single monopole, dipole or cardioid woofer. For the dipole and cardioid you can specify both position and orientation of the axis. The lower section allows you to simulate up to 4 monopole subs positioned independently.
Mac,
If the crack about a third time orion build was a remark directed towards me I will explain.
I built the orion's the first time around because they were the most scientifically documented design at the time. Once college had ended I did not feel like lugging them around the country where ever I may land. So, I sold them.
Once these had sold I then went the DEQX route, just like you, as the science behind it seemed to make sense. I was definitely in a merry go round at this point in regards to audio.
After listening to a bunch of different designs I again decided to rely on the science behind the orion's. This pushed me into building a pair thinking maybe the shortcomings I felt they had before would somehow not be there. They did get better with a room that essentially replicates SL's.
I actually made a list of designs that I wanted to hear that have intrigued me for some time. I took three trips around different parts of the nation to listen and meet certain people. One of these people had been on my short list since the first time I built the orion's; Geddes. I did not make the trip to Detroit back in college because I could not afford the Summa's. The orion's I could afford because I could build them myself.
The science behind the Geddes designs is world class. It is intriguing to have someone state that he has the best loudspeakers in the world. Dr. Geddes has documentation and studies to back everything that he states. A great deal of it is contradictory to what has become common thinking around here and other places. This does not make common trends correct.
There is no reason why the loudspeaker playback system and environment should not be a science. There are a few people who seem to be on the right path; Toole and Geddes. Take a listen.
If the crack about a third time orion build was a remark directed towards me I will explain.
I built the orion's the first time around because they were the most scientifically documented design at the time. Once college had ended I did not feel like lugging them around the country where ever I may land. So, I sold them.
Once these had sold I then went the DEQX route, just like you, as the science behind it seemed to make sense. I was definitely in a merry go round at this point in regards to audio.
After listening to a bunch of different designs I again decided to rely on the science behind the orion's. This pushed me into building a pair thinking maybe the shortcomings I felt they had before would somehow not be there. They did get better with a room that essentially replicates SL's.
I actually made a list of designs that I wanted to hear that have intrigued me for some time. I took three trips around different parts of the nation to listen and meet certain people. One of these people had been on my short list since the first time I built the orion's; Geddes. I did not make the trip to Detroit back in college because I could not afford the Summa's. The orion's I could afford because I could build them myself.
The science behind the Geddes designs is world class. It is intriguing to have someone state that he has the best loudspeakers in the world. Dr. Geddes has documentation and studies to back everything that he states. A great deal of it is contradictory to what has become common thinking around here and other places. This does not make common trends correct.
There is no reason why the loudspeaker playback system and environment should not be a science. There are a few people who seem to be on the right path; Toole and Geddes. Take a listen.
Davey said:Joel,
I hope you're not suggesting fellas like Siegfried and JohnK are not using science in their designs.
I would like to take a listen to the Summas. Anyone in the Pacific Northwest available for an audition? I'll be glad to buy dinner.
Cheers,
Dave.
There are two pair in that part of the country. One pair in Seattle and another in Portland. John VanOmmen is in Seattle and he posts here sometimes. I don't know if he is open to visitors. The other customer does not post at all and I don't know if he would be interested.
Let me know if you are serriuos and I'll ask.
As to the science behind SL and John K, they are both great engineers doing very good work, but I do differ from both of them on several key issues and I have been very clear where and why. All of us seem to say that Constant Directivity is very important, but yet, I seem to be the only one who actually designs to achieve this and certainly the only one who demonstrates the success of this effort. It is precisely in this area of our designs and the sound quality that they produce that you will find the most differences. Bass is bass and we all get just about the same results, albeit by different paths.
gedlee said:
Thanks for the insightful answer - do you think there is room for improvement in a design like the Orions, using conventional drivers, or is it just not possible to get CD with conventional drivers? I've been studying SL's design, and have been thinking that there may be some issues with the 1440Hz XO between an 8" mid and a 1" tweeter, particularly in terms of directivity.
Piston sources (which includes cones or domes since they all vibrate axially) can never yield constant directivity, it is physically impossible (except at very LFs where they are all omni or dipole, but directional CD can never be achieved with a piston.) Hence one has to resort to a waveguide. But waveguides present all kinds of new problems that need to be solved and can be difficult to fabricate, thus their low usage.
Some day I will try and make a dipole midrange over to a waveguide, but this always ends up being more expensive and complex to make because it is not feasible to do the EQ passively. To me the benifits of a dipole midrange are not sufficient to outweigh this extra cost and complexity (more amps, more woofers and or excursion, electronic EQ, etc.). Part of the reason for my reluctance may be my inexperience at building electronics. I don't have the capability to make PC boards etc. The design is not hard but the fabrication requires capabilities that I don't have.
Some day I will try and make a dipole midrange over to a waveguide, but this always ends up being more expensive and complex to make because it is not feasible to do the EQ passively. To me the benifits of a dipole midrange are not sufficient to outweigh this extra cost and complexity (more amps, more woofers and or excursion, electronic EQ, etc.). Part of the reason for my reluctance may be my inexperience at building electronics. I don't have the capability to make PC boards etc. The design is not hard but the fabrication requires capabilities that I don't have.
I have built the NaO. In my opinion, the NaO, Orion and Summas are all very well engineered speakers and they should all sound first class. Which one is better would probably come down to the interactions with the room and personal preference. I would love to have an opportunity to listen to the other two.
John K, would you reveal your active XO point for the NaO mini here? 100-120Hz? I strongly believe that the NaO mini would sound as competent as the NaO IIt, and if not, very close.
John K, would you reveal your active XO point for the NaO mini here? 100-120Hz? I strongly believe that the NaO mini would sound as competent as the NaO IIt, and if not, very close.
HiFiNutNut said:
I am also curious of the difference, especially the mid-woofer and tweater portion. The NaO II uses mid-drivers and tweater that are much more expensive.
Hi there HiFiNutNut, are there many NaO adopters in Sydney that you know of?
I can't seem to find any reviews of the mini's. I would be interested to also see example pics of miniNaO projects.
goskers said:
Hi goskers, isn't it contradictory to be better in off-axis seating and imaging at the same time? Especially considering the amount of engineering that went into both the Orion and NaO?
I'm currently considering the NaoMini due to it's easy implementation and somewhat unconventual look.
Having said that, what ever I go with, I wont be happy (putting it nicely) if it doesn't end up sounding alot better than my current setup (Sonus Faber Concerto's and sub).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.