Cuibono, you are right I wasn't very curious about how you think your speaker sounds. The concept is good and it seems well executed: it has to sound good! I guess we all have systems with very well controlled dispersion. I have the exact same experience as you guys: good recordings sound even better, bad recordings are listenable. Mission accomplished, case closed? Or could the concept still be improved upon?
"And now for something completely different" - Waveguides and high directivity anyone? I'd love to be able to compare it (a system like the Summa) to a good dipole. Most of the reviews on the Gedlee site are from (former) dipole aficionado's who either once heard or used to own Orions. Having heard the Orion myself a couple of times, I think it's a tough act to better a good dipole to an extent as said reviews are trying to make me believe the Summa does. Perhaps the Orion is no longer the non plus ultra on dipoles, but it sure sound very good. What do you think, cuibono?
"And now for something completely different" - Waveguides and high directivity anyone? I'd love to be able to compare it (a system like the Summa) to a good dipole. Most of the reviews on the Gedlee site are from (former) dipole aficionado's who either once heard or used to own Orions. Having heard the Orion myself a couple of times, I think it's a tough act to better a good dipole to an extent as said reviews are trying to make me believe the Summa does. Perhaps the Orion is no longer the non plus ultra on dipoles, but it sure sound very good. What do you think, cuibono?
Sounds like a classic case of "burn in" to me
p.s. remember, a normal person owns a stereo to listen to the music, whereas an audiophile owns music to listen to a stereo
Last edited:
Thanks for your encouragement everyone.
I censure my listening desires too, more often than not - that song "the sweetest taboo" comes to mind...
Do you mean SL's Thor monopole subs? The GWx4 is a different beast, and is no way capable of competing with the Thor. If you're interested in the BAMTMs, drop me a line. I'll probably arrange auditions of the Violet at sometime too - I've been wanting to start an LA area DIY club...
It seems there may be an end in sight, possibly. With more people finding the same results with dipoles as you, stigerik and others here, I'm not surprised. I'm not too sure what I will tackle next. I'm interested in the ASP version of the DSP, but the cost and complexity are daunting, in the face of the possibility of not much gain, or none at all. I'm looking into linearizing the group delay with DSP currently, and I'll begin experimenting with in room EQ to see what there is to gain there. The back-end electronics could definitely use some attention - they're not very solid at this point. Subs would be nice sometime. I'll build nicer cabinets and take some nicer pics. Plenty to do, but nothing that is really going to change the sound tons, I expect.
You know, I really consider this a win for basic physics and audio - I didn't have to find the most exotic XYZ, or get things down to the last 0.01%, no miles of expensive gear - just a basic principle - flat on and off axis response.
I'm really interested in comparing dipoles to a well done horn like the Summa - if I had the cash, I would just build them. There are so many differences between them, both claimed and physical, and it seems a lot could be learned - but there is also a lot of potential for confusion. I assume the Summas sound very smooth - their FR graphs say that pretty clearly. But they should also have a classic 'box' sound - they are omni in the low midrange and below, while the become monopole higher up. It seems a simple (and likely) conclusion that there is a sonic emphasis on the lower midrange (like any boxed speaker not against a wall). Similarly, the Summas will probably present a more detailed/direct/less ambient sound. But I'd love to find out in person!
The Orions are highly exceptional speakers - I don't feel like my speakers have 1/10 the quality of the Orions. Linkwitz also knows way more about them than I probably ever will. The Orions are engineered and built better, have nicer drivers, deeper bass, and greater output. They look better too. I'm sure more could be added to that list. In terms of commercially available dipoles, I can't think of any higher quality than the Orions. But I'm guessing my speakers do have a more regular dipole response above 700Hz or so. They cost a lot less too. Either way, I'm happy with what I've got, and building/designing/measuring/discovering has been tons of fun. I learned lots, especially from Linkwitz's very generous website, as well as from people like JohnK and MJK, to start.
...Such conflict makes it a 'forbidden' pleasure
I censure my listening desires too, more often than not - that song "the sweetest taboo" comes to mind...
...
i built myself a set of LR's Thor dipole woofers but they weren't loud enough for my taste. Looks like I'll be trying out the woofers you're using soon.
Do you mean SL's Thor monopole subs? The GWx4 is a different beast, and is no way capable of competing with the Thor. If you're interested in the BAMTMs, drop me a line. I'll probably arrange auditions of the Violet at sometime too - I've been wanting to start an LA area DIY club...
It seems there may be an end in sight, possibly. With more people finding the same results with dipoles as you, stigerik and others here, I'm not surprised. I'm not too sure what I will tackle next. I'm interested in the ASP version of the DSP, but the cost and complexity are daunting, in the face of the possibility of not much gain, or none at all. I'm looking into linearizing the group delay with DSP currently, and I'll begin experimenting with in room EQ to see what there is to gain there. The back-end electronics could definitely use some attention - they're not very solid at this point. Subs would be nice sometime. I'll build nicer cabinets and take some nicer pics. Plenty to do, but nothing that is really going to change the sound tons, I expect.
You know, I really consider this a win for basic physics and audio - I didn't have to find the most exotic XYZ, or get things down to the last 0.01%, no miles of expensive gear - just a basic principle - flat on and off axis response.
I'm really interested in comparing dipoles to a well done horn like the Summa - if I had the cash, I would just build them. There are so many differences between them, both claimed and physical, and it seems a lot could be learned - but there is also a lot of potential for confusion. I assume the Summas sound very smooth - their FR graphs say that pretty clearly. But they should also have a classic 'box' sound - they are omni in the low midrange and below, while the become monopole higher up. It seems a simple (and likely) conclusion that there is a sonic emphasis on the lower midrange (like any boxed speaker not against a wall). Similarly, the Summas will probably present a more detailed/direct/less ambient sound. But I'd love to find out in person!
The Orions are highly exceptional speakers - I don't feel like my speakers have 1/10 the quality of the Orions. Linkwitz also knows way more about them than I probably ever will. The Orions are engineered and built better, have nicer drivers, deeper bass, and greater output. They look better too. I'm sure more could be added to that list. In terms of commercially available dipoles, I can't think of any higher quality than the Orions. But I'm guessing my speakers do have a more regular dipole response above 700Hz or so. They cost a lot less too. Either way, I'm happy with what I've got, and building/designing/measuring/discovering has been tons of fun. I learned lots, especially from Linkwitz's very generous website, as well as from people like JohnK and MJK, to start.
Last edited:
I think you are being too harsh on yourself. I haven't heard your speaker but I'd be surprised if you haven't reached 90+% of Orion's quality (and even more in some areas). There is not much left to aspire to after you get flat on and off axis (and if anything your speaker will have in some areas even better polars than Orion).
This makes me very curious. What could there be more than frequency response? Okay, some dynamic range is necessary, but in my book nice drivers and even a particularly solid construction don't matter half as much as getting the frequency response and dispersion right.
Also, in my experience the Pluto surpasses the Orion in terms of timbre. But of course with those you miss that low end you can chew on and they're not as loud as the Orion. The dipole built by a friend surpassed the Orion in a direct comparison.
Re-reading what I just typed, it looks as if I don't like the Orion all that much. I do! When I first heard it, it was the best speaker I had heard until then. It's just that I think it could be better still.
Congratulations on a nicely done project! I look forward to foaming my Neo3s once my power amp build is done.
Personally I've settled on Allocator+PLParEQX3+Bidule. Cost effective and provides a good mix of crossovers, equalization, and phase control options. The DACs in Saffire Pro 40 I'm using sound better than my CD player, too (somewhat surprising as the Azur 640C uses a WM8740).
Getting flat phase and time alignment in the analog domain is far harder than dealing with PC hassles. DAC to the power amp for the forseeable future for me; I can't see any way I'd ever go back to warped phase crossovers. But then I seem to be fussier about phase than most.
Personally I've settled on Allocator+PLParEQX3+Bidule. Cost effective and provides a good mix of crossovers, equalization, and phase control options. The DACs in Saffire Pro 40 I'm using sound better than my CD player, too (somewhat surprising as the Azur 640C uses a WM8740).
Well, ideally you'd want to have flat phase, ultra low distortion, reach sub 20Hz and have huge headroom as well. But those are more like icing on the cake, if you wish ... Not too terribly important in my book.
What was the dipole that your friend built ? Can you tell us a little more about it ?
Interesting. I use the PLParEQ myself (the full version). What do you think of its sound? But why not skip Allocator and do it all with PLParEQ?
Latency, CPU utilization, and cost. Allocator beats PLParEQ[X][3] on all three. PLParEQ is out of my budget. Testing showed my old laptop doesn't have enough CPU power to comfortably run a five way crossover with PLParEQ3 or PLParEQX3. Only problem is Allocator's equalization is not linear phase, but running Allocator+PLParEQX3+Bidule provides that option for less than it'd cost to use PLParEQ3 and uses something like half the CPU. I considered PLParEQX but wanted the ability to do warped phase equalization if I needed it. Plus I like the conveniences Allocator provides, such as showing up to a four way crossover all at once, importing measurement data, and easier implementation of high order crossovers.
PLParEQX3's a CPU hog even at its lowest quality setting, so that's all I've tried. I'm slowly pulling together the power amps and speaker parts for the dipole build but haven't run dipole yet. In the meantime my box speakers don't need much in the way of EQ so I've not made routine use of PLParEQX3, but in auditioning the demo version I found the sound to be transparent and clear. With Allocator running the crossover and port correction the boxes are linear phase within 20 degrees (probably better; I need to haul the system outside and remeasure on a day when there's not old snow). I found applying equalization in Allocator that caused 30 to 60 degree phase shifts noticeably degraded the sound relative to doing the same equalization in PLParEQX3.
PLParEQX3's a CPU hog even at its lowest quality setting, so that's all I've tried. I'm slowly pulling together the power amps and speaker parts for the dipole build but haven't run dipole yet. In the meantime my box speakers don't need much in the way of EQ so I've not made routine use of PLParEQX3, but in auditioning the demo version I found the sound to be transparent and clear. With Allocator running the crossover and port correction the boxes are linear phase within 20 degrees (probably better; I need to haul the system outside and remeasure on a day when there's not old snow). I found applying equalization in Allocator that caused 30 to 60 degree phase shifts noticeably degraded the sound relative to doing the same equalization in PLParEQX3.
Your right - PLParEQ is very CPU heavy, and the latency is loooooong. Price.. well, it depends. The full version is 1000$, not cheap, but I think its worth the money. More value than expensive cables at least..... 
I have a 1.8 GHz CoreDuo machine, and running 4-way XO with EQ on this is difficult, I'm balancing on the edge so to speak, with 97% or so CPU util.....
I have a 1.8 GHz CoreDuo machine, and running 4-way XO with EQ on this is difficult, I'm balancing on the edge so to speak, with 97% or so CPU util.....
I dont know, but I have plenty to do keeping my PC up to date, but it wears out none the less
A good friend renews bits and pieces when needed, just to keep my PC running, until I need the next generation (in about 2years I suppose)
But using a PC seems to me like it could be a more costly approach in the long run, all considered
And a PC is pretty noisy, in more than one way
Or maybe I have no idea how it works
A good friend renews bits and pieces when needed, just to keep my PC running, until I need the next generation (in about 2years I suppose)
But using a PC seems to me like it could be a more costly approach in the long run, all considered
And a PC is pretty noisy, in more than one way
Or maybe I have no idea how it works
My experience with my 1.7GHz CoreSolo is in good agreement. As for value, Allocator+PLParEQX3 arguably outperforms at 20% of the cost.
In my case it's cheaper and hugely easier to run a digital crossover on a laptop than an analog crossover. Laptops are quiet, too.
I didn't mean to initiate a thread hijack; we should probably move this aspect of the discussion over to the digital line level forum. Feel free to start a crossover TCO thread over there.
Ah, yes, I've seen it! I think he's now going "naked" too (mids+high) if I'm not mistaken ?
That design has all the potential to be truly formidable contender. If you felt it was better than Orion that is high praise indeed !!!
Thanks for the heads up about PLParEQ - it looks interesting, but I'm not into long latencies.
I've been busy with things the last few days, but thought I'd share this pretty little graph. This is 0deg, 30deg, 45deg and 60deg. I measured it outdoors, 3.5m in the air, at 1.85m, and it is effectively ungated. 30deg is the listening axis.
Read it and weep! -6dB at 30Hz!
I've been busy with things the last few days, but thought I'd share this pretty little graph. This is 0deg, 30deg, 45deg and 60deg. I measured it outdoors, 3.5m in the air, at 1.85m, and it is effectively ungated. 30deg is the listening axis.
Read it and weep! -6dB at 30Hz!
Attachments
Dude, that is one sweet polar. 
How flat's the phase?
How flat's the phase?Allocator+PLParEQX isn't much worse than Allocator alone. Worth a look if, like StigErik, you find linear phase works best.
A far less ambitious project:
Big Bertha!
I have yet to take measurements - but the reason I'm posting this here is that I use the E-mu1212m's inbuilt DSP to run the EQs for this pair of speakers. Up to 5 effects are allowed, I use only the Parametric EQ/shelf EQ effects. You do not need fancy software, the card's drivers have DSP abilities up to 48KHz. For the more upmarket 1616m, it can also perform duty of active crossover. CPU load is zero. Obviously it's not perfect, but a reasonable way to start a similar project.
Big Bertha!
I have yet to take measurements - but the reason I'm posting this here is that I use the E-mu1212m's inbuilt DSP to run the EQs for this pair of speakers. Up to 5 effects are allowed, I use only the Parametric EQ/shelf EQ effects. You do not need fancy software, the card's drivers have DSP abilities up to 48KHz. For the more upmarket 1616m, it can also perform duty of active crossover. CPU load is zero. Obviously it's not perfect, but a reasonable way to start a similar project.
Another option is the Focusrite Saffire 24 DSP. Haven't checked all the details see how it compares to the 1616. I believe Motu and Steinberg have higher end offerings as well. So far as I know no embedded DSP audio interface supports linear phase crossovers or equalization, though I won't claim to have looked terribly hard.
Terrific! I am still wiping my tears off.
I have seen such a response only in simulations before. Considering that you could achieve this with such a modest system (cost wise) makes it even more remarkable.
Rudolf
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.