Bratislav said:Imagine that you somehow take ALL of the forward radiating energy from the woofer. Now imagine the same amount pumped into a small box (as it does happen); which (the box) is not that well acoustically insulated at all - after all bass cone is almost 100% acoustically trasparent to LF. It has to go somewhere, doesn't it ? And it does. And it can be heard, if you want to listen for for it. Or in my case, even if you DON"T want to listen for it
First cones are not all that acoustically transparent, you've gotten the numbers wrong here. Second, in terms of structural vibrations, acoustical energy is very small - our ears are just incredibly sensitive, but the sound waves don't really couple very well to the structure at all. The more significant effect is the structural excitation of the box from the drivers mass reaction from the cone motion. "More" significant but still not very significant.
I've heard all these box claims before and I don't buy it because I've tested this myself and I don't get the same results. I even had a graduate student do work in this area years ago and he didn't measure anything significant either.
Perhaps others don't hear this because it isn't there. Just a suggestion!
Bratislav said:
I'm afraid you are wrong in this. Box coloration, just like rainbow effect on DLP projectors is painfully obvious once you learn to recognize it. And it is obvious (to me at least) on ANY box speaker, even megabuck creations like Dynaudio Evidence, Avalons, Wilsons etc. Again I have not heard Summas, but simple law of energy conservation should suffice. Imagine that you somehow take ALL of the forward radiating energy from the woofer. Now imagine the same amount pumped into a small box (as it does happen); which (the box) is not that well acoustically insulated at all - after all bass cone is almost 100% acoustically trasparent to LF. It has to go somewhere, doesn't it ? And it does. And it can be heard, if you want to listen for for it. Or in my case, even if you DON"T want to listen for it
Bratislav,
I agree that energy is stored in the cabinet and that it must dissipate. What I asked for was scientific studies showing it to be audible. Simply stating that you can hear it when you know how and what to listen for isn't a very compelling argument.
This seems like it would be audible but more recent distortion testing has proven that some of the very things most are obsessing about these days just doesn't matter in the long run.
OK, 100% was pushing it a bit
But imagine a small, very poweful speaker placed inside the Summa. Crank it up loud; do you really believe you won't hear it from the outside at all ? I don't believe that for a second.
In fact I'm sure you will hear it quite a bit. ESPECIALLY at LF.
Scientific studies - you won't see those until likes of Harman and JBL start making the boxless speakers
But imagine a small, very poweful speaker placed inside the Summa. Crank it up loud; do you really believe you won't hear it from the outside at all ? I don't believe that for a second.
In fact I'm sure you will hear it quite a bit. ESPECIALLY at LF.
Scientific studies - you won't see those until likes of Harman and JBL start making the boxless speakers
goskers said:
I agree, it might not be compelling. But I do hear it on each and every box speaker I've heard. Listen to a high quality box speaker next to an even mediocre planar (low end Magneplanar) and have a human voice played through both. There is certain quality that only boxless designs can bring out, that freedom from a nasal-like, almost droning type overtone that each and every box produces. No matter how inert, stiff, and expensive it is.
Or listen to any OB, any planer, e.g. a high-end Magnaplaner.
Put on a good piano recording; (not a real simple piece, but maybe, Rachmaninoff, Bartok, then maybe even something with percussion etc, background.
Close your eyes, and does it REALLY sound like there's a Stienway in the room; or does it sound like a recording or a piano?
...And that's a simple one.
Put on a good piano recording; (not a real simple piece, but maybe, Rachmaninoff, Bartok, then maybe even something with percussion etc, background.
Close your eyes, and does it REALLY sound like there's a Stienway in the room; or does it sound like a recording or a piano?
...And that's a simple one.
The first millisecond of an impulse is blurred in enclosure speakers. Its not that much a rigidity or directionality issue. Its a matter of free travel. A matter of small space dimensions. And that first one has implications with our brain processing. Its free, sounds real, it isn't, sounds enclosed. As it errr...is.
What type would create a large powerfull soundstage? Personally I am not interested in having a Steinway sound 100% like a Steinway in my living room. The recording would be the weak link anyway. What I am after is a large precise soundstage. And when I say powerfull I mean dynamic, big sound output when called upon without being fatigueing.
Salas, what I was getting at is that even a less than stellar planar will show that quality ('63 is as good as it gets in this regard, with maybe a slight nod to an older bro, 57) even against top of the range box.
ESL63(or 57) vs LS 3/5 is an excellent example, and would show it is a millisecond
ESL63(or 57) vs LS 3/5 is an excellent example, and would show it is a millisecond
Bratislav said:
Yes I have heard this before. Recently a friend who has lived with Maggies for years decided he needed new speakers. He set out to hear what the new modern speakers sounded like. He was not impressed as all speakers sounded 'box like' to him.
Having said that I think ascribing the superior sound of any speaker to one aspect of it's design is convenient but not the whole truth. I have enjoyed the sound of speakers using all types of technology.
But I must add that I am now enjoying OBs . Instead of 'box sound' I now struggle with 'room sound'
If I changed my room I might prefer a box speaker again. All speakers are compromised and at the end of the day it is the technology that works in your room not someone elses.
Cheers
I like Oblate Spheroids for their directivety, that it can be matched to a tractrix mid high horn.chrisb03 said:Maybe a conbination of a gedlee waveguide for the highs and a OB for the mids may do the trick.
Great thing, gets rid of the narrow sweet spot.
I hate OB mids; confused, loss of detail from the delayed wave off the back wall, mixing with the direct wave off the front of the speaker.
I know it worked for Bose, but I don't like their sound either...
Sounds like extra reverb mixed in after the piece was recorded.
But some like that "warm, rich, added ambient soundstage..."
To each his own.
Currently, I prefer a ribbon on top, waveguide for mid highs,
tractrix mid lows, tractrix mid bass, and TH bass.
TH bass is the only one in a "box," unless you consider compression drivers "boxes."
Voice check.
You mean a professional voice, singing complex material?
Or "girl with guitar?"
Not as much problem with the later, but try to pick out detail in a good voice, much less a good voice in a massed choral, in a symphony, or an operatic piece...
That's why OBs have no WAF @ my house, my wife's an alto, and likes to listen to her parts in recordings. Orions, etc, "drive her crazy they are so blurred."
Studio moniters aren't designed to "Sound Good."
They're designed to (yes, pick out details, and to) "translate well;" to be an average, make the mix sound good on the many other speakers the recording will be played on, Not necessarly for the recording to sound good on them e.g. Ns 10; great monitor, sounds, well, not very good at all.
Now I am confused...chrisb03 said:
What do you want a Steinway to sound like???
The recording you're used to?
Soundstage precision is what OBs lose...
Dynamic, big sound output is what multi-way Front Loaded Horns are all about...
And yes, they can play @ a whisper in the middle of the night without waking the rest of the house.
Efficiency is a wonderful thing.
Detail retrieval is a wonderful thing.
Accurate soundstage, with pinpoint imaging is a wonderful thing.
YMMV...
serenechaos said:
What I meant was that you will probably never be able to replicate the exact sound of a Steinway on any speakers. Some will get closer than others. Everything is a compromise, but if I had to choose, I would go with big sound, dynamic, sound stage and the sound of a Steinway being 90% replicated rather then it being 95% accurate.
Ad nauseam...
this is becoming quite a "circular" discussion/argument.
First things first:
As previously noted, Linkwitz has a wonderful site, and it is an excellent read. If you read the whole thing (and it contains a lot of information), a few things become glaringly clear: SL has a proven track record in audio both with commercially available products , and of course the L-R crossover work...
Having never heard (or seen) any Orions, I can only imagine how good they must be. I wrote up an article for Affordable$$Audio . It is called the "DIY Hell- the Spirit of Orion loudspeakers". These are loudspeakers that have the "Spirit " of the Orions and borrow many concepts from SL, but are not copies, nor do I pretend them to be. Cosmetically they are very similar, as I like the look of the Orions as well.
The differences are that the top end is amplified with a tube amplifier running Jordan JX92S drivers, in full range. They are supplemented with a 12" down-firing sub-woofer powered by a good quality plate amp and crossover combination (stereo subs). I have no means to do any measurements, but they seem to be very well behaved, and have no significant drawbacks.
Here's my 'take" on the Orion loudspeakers. They are designed by somebody that has the technical background and capability to do it. The design can be considered a "mature" one. That is, it draws upon SL's practical experiences. It is a complete design, requiring only that you ad some amplification (or purchase some from SL). But one must also look at SL's listening biases. If you have the same ones, then the Orions should proove to be a "good "match, if you also have similar taste in music. Or not. And it is intended as a "DIY statement" project.
My belief is that the higher end products are statements. And if the goals are all the same, and the biases are all the same, then the outcomes should be similar.
Now the Orion "sound". I can say this with some considerable experience using OB loudspeakers for the last 4 or 5 years: A boxless speaker simply sounds "boxless". They seem "fast" by comparison to boxed types. There seems to be no colouration. They image wonderfully, and they CAN play quite deep without bass augmentation. This is not considering the "transparency" of the drivers, either. These are comments on the enclosure (or lack there of).
Back to the original question: The Orions sound good because of dipole?
Nope. I think they sound good because SL knows what he is doing. The midrange on up is on an OB, the woofers are well integrated with the mids/tweets, and he has chosen excellent drivers. I am sure SL could easily design a box type that is competitive with essentially anything out there. But the lack of the "boxiness" and midrange "smear" that accompanies it is what I believe to be the strongest point. Remember that good small monitors can have the same lack of boxiness. Consider the NHT Zeros, the Totem Mites, the ProAc Tablets, etc. And that is as a result of the lack of energy storeage.
stew
this is becoming quite a "circular" discussion/argument.
First things first:
- I have no connection to Linkwitz or others here in this thread.
- I can't afford any of these designs (per say)
- I have no axe to grind with any here...
As previously noted, Linkwitz has a wonderful site, and it is an excellent read. If you read the whole thing (and it contains a lot of information), a few things become glaringly clear: SL has a proven track record in audio both with commercially available products , and of course the L-R crossover work...
Having never heard (or seen) any Orions, I can only imagine how good they must be. I wrote up an article for Affordable$$Audio . It is called the "DIY Hell- the Spirit of Orion loudspeakers". These are loudspeakers that have the "Spirit " of the Orions and borrow many concepts from SL, but are not copies, nor do I pretend them to be. Cosmetically they are very similar, as I like the look of the Orions as well.
The differences are that the top end is amplified with a tube amplifier running Jordan JX92S drivers, in full range. They are supplemented with a 12" down-firing sub-woofer powered by a good quality plate amp and crossover combination (stereo subs). I have no means to do any measurements, but they seem to be very well behaved, and have no significant drawbacks.
Here's my 'take" on the Orion loudspeakers. They are designed by somebody that has the technical background and capability to do it. The design can be considered a "mature" one. That is, it draws upon SL's practical experiences. It is a complete design, requiring only that you ad some amplification (or purchase some from SL). But one must also look at SL's listening biases. If you have the same ones, then the Orions should proove to be a "good "match, if you also have similar taste in music. Or not. And it is intended as a "DIY statement" project.
My belief is that the higher end products are statements. And if the goals are all the same, and the biases are all the same, then the outcomes should be similar.
Now the Orion "sound". I can say this with some considerable experience using OB loudspeakers for the last 4 or 5 years: A boxless speaker simply sounds "boxless". They seem "fast" by comparison to boxed types. There seems to be no colouration. They image wonderfully, and they CAN play quite deep without bass augmentation. This is not considering the "transparency" of the drivers, either. These are comments on the enclosure (or lack there of).
Back to the original question: The Orions sound good because of dipole?
Nope. I think they sound good because SL knows what he is doing. The midrange on up is on an OB, the woofers are well integrated with the mids/tweets, and he has chosen excellent drivers. I am sure SL could easily design a box type that is competitive with essentially anything out there. But the lack of the "boxiness" and midrange "smear" that accompanies it is what I believe to be the strongest point. Remember that good small monitors can have the same lack of boxiness. Consider the NHT Zeros, the Totem Mites, the ProAc Tablets, etc. And that is as a result of the lack of energy storeage.
stew
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.