goskers said:
While I respect you option, clarity has a lot to do with the specific setup and it is difficult to make generalized statements without auditioning in the same room at the same levels, etc. However, I would agree that a direct radiator type speaker, such as the Suma, may provide the listener with a greater sense of what is on the recording while speakers with dipole midranges tends to yield a less analytical sound which is more opened and spacious. But place a dipole in a room where the wall behind the speaker is heavily damped and you may find just the opposite. Clarity has to do with the ratio of direct to reflected sound, reverberation time, and, depending of the delay, the time interval between the direct sound and first reflections. Place any speaker in the wrong environment and clarity will suffer. And this is as much personal preference as it is otherwise. For example, I believe that SL suggests a room with RT60 on the order of 600 msec. I find that entirely too reverberant and prefer something on the order of 300 msec.
Of course this is noting new. There has always been a divergence in home audio between those who prefer dipoles and those who prefer direct radiators. I still spend a good deal of time listing to my LS3/5a setup which is the antithesis of my NaO dipole system.
Who is better- Rubens or Caravaggio? What is truth?
Hi all,
Whilst we are talking about science, I would like to add something about comparisons and statistics.
Some DIY audio nuts here that lug their systems around to different rooms or homes can probably testify that their EXACT same system, of which they are intimiately familiar with, can sound very different at different spaces.
When comparing different acoustic systems in different spaces, I feel that the external validity just gets thrown out the window. there are just too many variables to confound the situation.
To be sure, yes, we can make comments about what we thought was good, better, best, at the time, or even in retrospect. But certainly we should not believe that our findings are particularly reliable, or generalisable.
Even when 2 different speakers are in the same environment and test conditions, whether we choose one over the other may be seated in personal preferences. John K has alluded to some of these practical differences.
However, it is hard to know exactly what other factors are at work when we are listening. Our preferences may be in fact be based on some idealised preference that we are unaware of. For example, we may prefer subterranean bass, or accentuated highs, or there may be even more subconscious or covert factors at work eg. reminds us of the very first stereo system we ever owned.
Let us remember that when we look 3 beautiful women, not everyone will agree with who is the most beautiful. Or who we would most like to take out to dinner or go dancing with, talk to about music, art or poetry. We may categorically state that one is clearly better than the others, but not everyone will agree with us.
Hi Joel,
I am confident that your Summa is a great sounding speaker.
Your description of the speaker confirms for me the great off axis response (as published on Earl's website) and relatively higher sensitivity of a solid design.
However, I think it would be unwise for other people to conclude that the Summa is clearly better than the other two speakers, in light of your background of building the Orions twice, listening to the NaO at some space/time, and being impressed with the Summas on various occasions.
Tather than a reflection about the merits of the Summa over the other 2 speakers, I found that your journey a reflection of your personal circumstances (ie. graduating/moving and unable to take speakers with your), audio fun/play, and audio merry-go-round that we sometimes get ourselves into.
Thank you for your insights.
regards,
Thanh.
Hi Earl,
Have you approached one of the big pro audio companies about your Summa?
It seems to me that a relatively large 2-way speaker with high sensitivity would find a good market and benefit in the pro audio field.
Like Hi-fi, I see so many poor performing and overpriced systems in the pro-audio field.
regards,
Thanh.
Hi Chris,
All drivers for the NaO family of systems is available in Australia.
I suspect that the problem is that most people who are fence sitters for the NaO family of systems is that they have some hesitancy over not having heard the system before building it.
But I think this is the beauty of DIY.
Do you know what your hall table looks like before you build it?
Do you know what the pergola looks like before it's complete?
I think that for other people reading this thread, I think that one
should just Suck It and See.
Dive in, you won't regret it.
regards,
Thanh.
Hi all,
Whilst we are talking about science, I would like to add something about comparisons and statistics.
Some DIY audio nuts here that lug their systems around to different rooms or homes can probably testify that their EXACT same system, of which they are intimiately familiar with, can sound very different at different spaces.
When comparing different acoustic systems in different spaces, I feel that the external validity just gets thrown out the window. there are just too many variables to confound the situation.
To be sure, yes, we can make comments about what we thought was good, better, best, at the time, or even in retrospect. But certainly we should not believe that our findings are particularly reliable, or generalisable.
Even when 2 different speakers are in the same environment and test conditions, whether we choose one over the other may be seated in personal preferences. John K has alluded to some of these practical differences.
However, it is hard to know exactly what other factors are at work when we are listening. Our preferences may be in fact be based on some idealised preference that we are unaware of. For example, we may prefer subterranean bass, or accentuated highs, or there may be even more subconscious or covert factors at work eg. reminds us of the very first stereo system we ever owned.
Let us remember that when we look 3 beautiful women, not everyone will agree with who is the most beautiful. Or who we would most like to take out to dinner or go dancing with, talk to about music, art or poetry. We may categorically state that one is clearly better than the others, but not everyone will agree with us.
Hi Joel,
I am confident that your Summa is a great sounding speaker.
Your description of the speaker confirms for me the great off axis response (as published on Earl's website) and relatively higher sensitivity of a solid design.
However, I think it would be unwise for other people to conclude that the Summa is clearly better than the other two speakers, in light of your background of building the Orions twice, listening to the NaO at some space/time, and being impressed with the Summas on various occasions.
Tather than a reflection about the merits of the Summa over the other 2 speakers, I found that your journey a reflection of your personal circumstances (ie. graduating/moving and unable to take speakers with your), audio fun/play, and audio merry-go-round that we sometimes get ourselves into.
Thank you for your insights.
regards,
Thanh.
Hi Earl,
Have you approached one of the big pro audio companies about your Summa?
It seems to me that a relatively large 2-way speaker with high sensitivity would find a good market and benefit in the pro audio field.
Like Hi-fi, I see so many poor performing and overpriced systems in the pro-audio field.
regards,
Thanh.
Hi Chris,
All drivers for the NaO family of systems is available in Australia.
I suspect that the problem is that most people who are fence sitters for the NaO family of systems is that they have some hesitancy over not having heard the system before building it.
But I think this is the beauty of DIY.
Do you know what your hall table looks like before you build it?
Do you know what the pergola looks like before it's complete?
I think that for other people reading this thread, I think that one
should just Suck It and See.
Dive in, you won't regret it.
regards,
Thanh.
Thahn
Rooms and setups do make a huge difference, but its all about which loudspeaker has the greatest capability to take advantage of the correct setup. The impressions of my speakers and room have been virtually unanimous. How much is the room and how much is the speakers? Well that's a tough question. But the fact is that it doesn't matter because its all one system and both have to be right for the result to be right.
Your analogy about beautiful woman is an old one but its still inappropriate. More accurate would be to take a picture of each one with different film and then to ask which film looks THE MOST LIKE each of these beauties. There likely won;t be much difference of opinion.
Don't mix up the art of music with the science of reproduction. That is the single biggest mistake that people make. And do read Tooles book as he is very good at explaining this conundrum.
Rooms and setups do make a huge difference, but its all about which loudspeaker has the greatest capability to take advantage of the correct setup. The impressions of my speakers and room have been virtually unanimous. How much is the room and how much is the speakers? Well that's a tough question. But the fact is that it doesn't matter because its all one system and both have to be right for the result to be right.
Your analogy about beautiful woman is an old one but its still inappropriate. More accurate would be to take a picture of each one with different film and then to ask which film looks THE MOST LIKE each of these beauties. There likely won;t be much difference of opinion.
Don't mix up the art of music with the science of reproduction. That is the single biggest mistake that people make. And do read Tooles book as he is very good at explaining this conundrum.
According to Linkwitz the major characteristic of dipoles that results in improved sound is the null orthogonal to the principal axis. With Magnepans, you can stand directly in front then take a wide step to the outside and walk straight ahead. As you walk past the speakers the sound almost completely disappears. This is where the front and rear radiation cancels. It is very noticeable even in an ordinary room and more than a little startling the first time you experience it. I once tried it in highly treated dealer listening room and it is really weird.
Per Linkwitz the benefit is that the null eliminates most of the room reflect modes. Some years ago I looked at the display on an RTA with the mic at various positions in a very ordinary room. The response was much smoother than I had seen with conventional speakers. I'm guessing Linkwitz is pretty much correct on the explanation.
Per Linkwitz the benefit is that the null eliminates most of the room reflect modes. Some years ago I looked at the display on an RTA with the mic at various positions in a very ordinary room. The response was much smoother than I had seen with conventional speakers. I'm guessing Linkwitz is pretty much correct on the explanation.
See The Grey
Hi Earl,
It is interesting that you use the analogy of using different film to take pictures of an object. I think that is a better analogy to mine, if we are discussion the science of audio reproduction.
I agree that matching of playback systems to the acoustic space is important. If you get a group of participants together to listen to your Summa blinded vs speaker X, behind a curtain, suppose that 90% have a clear preference for your speakers, in your acoustic space.
But have you ever had your speakers in a 3x5m room? Unblinded?
I know a handful of people who live in townhouses or apartments who just don't have space for a system like your Summas or even the smaller Nathans. To them, it is ridiculously oversized and ugly. When it something looks bad, it sounds bad.
I also know a handful of other audiohiles in Australia who prefer the magic of a single driver full range drivers sans crossover to anything the Summa could hope to achieve. Your Summa has 2 drivers, a crossover, and therefore flawed from the get go. No amount of listening can convince someone otherwise. Full stop.
What are they listening to anyway? With 60-70's rock, what is real and what is not, that's a deep hole in itself.
This is what I am alluding to about preferences, known or unknown, conscious or subconscious and what I call the psychology of hearing. Psychologists or psychiatrists are probably shaking their for my lax use of this term, but I think they may understand what I am getting at.
Back to photography, if you get a group of lay people together to spot the odd one out, is is possible there will be no difference in opinion.
If you get a group of photography enthusiasts together, amateur and professional, I strongly suspect they would clash heads over which is the most accurate film.
No film is 100% the same as the real thing, and people will still have to decide between several films that are close, but not really the real thing. Their biases, will lead them to make judgment to which is the most real. Those biases may be for preferences in order of importance such as colour saturation, clarity, depth etc, or even other factors that are unknown to them.
regards,
Thanh.
Hi Earl,
It is interesting that you use the analogy of using different film to take pictures of an object. I think that is a better analogy to mine, if we are discussion the science of audio reproduction.
I agree that matching of playback systems to the acoustic space is important. If you get a group of participants together to listen to your Summa blinded vs speaker X, behind a curtain, suppose that 90% have a clear preference for your speakers, in your acoustic space.
But have you ever had your speakers in a 3x5m room? Unblinded?
I know a handful of people who live in townhouses or apartments who just don't have space for a system like your Summas or even the smaller Nathans. To them, it is ridiculously oversized and ugly. When it something looks bad, it sounds bad.
I also know a handful of other audiohiles in Australia who prefer the magic of a single driver full range drivers sans crossover to anything the Summa could hope to achieve. Your Summa has 2 drivers, a crossover, and therefore flawed from the get go. No amount of listening can convince someone otherwise. Full stop.
What are they listening to anyway? With 60-70's rock, what is real and what is not, that's a deep hole in itself.
This is what I am alluding to about preferences, known or unknown, conscious or subconscious and what I call the psychology of hearing. Psychologists or psychiatrists are probably shaking their for my lax use of this term, but I think they may understand what I am getting at.
Back to photography, if you get a group of lay people together to spot the odd one out, is is possible there will be no difference in opinion.
If you get a group of photography enthusiasts together, amateur and professional, I strongly suspect they would clash heads over which is the most accurate film.
No film is 100% the same as the real thing, and people will still have to decide between several films that are close, but not really the real thing. Their biases, will lead them to make judgment to which is the most real. Those biases may be for preferences in order of importance such as colour saturation, clarity, depth etc, or even other factors that are unknown to them.
regards,
Thanh.
The last thing I would like to get into is debating endlessly with no results and no help to other readers.
First, I confess that I learnt a great deal from John K, Linkwitz and Dr Gedlee. They all have made huge contributions to the DIY community and we should be thankful having them.
Also note that they are all selling their kits commercially.
Am I going to say one loudspeaker is better than the other? Even if I had an opinion I would keep my mouth shut.
But truly, I have not heard the other two and my opinion is that they are all first class loudspeakers that can compare well to the very best.
I suspect that the Summas is the most room friendly loudspeaker among all. The even off-axis response / even power response would make it sound tonally balanced and musical. The high sensitivity makes it amplifier friendly. The multi-sub approach would produce nice even bass. It is very well engineered (e.g. crossover falls mostly outside of the critical 1-4kHz area, directivity, etc) and I am sure it sounds fabulous.
The NaO and the Orion probably sound similar. Note that they use drivers with very low distortions and are equally well engineered. The dipole nature in the lower midrange and bass would give it advantage. If moderate level of room treatment is used (e.g. high frequency dampping at first reflection points) then they should work very well. If adequate distance from the back wall can be obtained, the extra backwaves may enhance the perceiption of "air" that gives a life-like presentation, which is unique to open baffle speakers, if that is your cup of tea.
goskers,
I believe you. That is a credible experience of yours and what you are telling is definitely true (from your respective and from your experience). I would love to have an opportunity to listen to the Summas one day.
At the same time, I believe other readers have sound judgement and understand that any comparison results may subject to personal preference, the room (especially) and the equipment used to drive the loudspeakers, and probably, the implementation of the loudspeakers (for diy loudspeakers).
My personal experience with the NaO (my implementation) is that it equals the best in terms of clarity, imaging, dynamics and (almost) ease. Off-axis seating - I don't think the NaO is the best, the LS3/5a possibly fairs better. But I can't imagine any speakers are perfect, and how a wave guided speakers can excel in off-axis listening. On the other hand, I have not heard of any speakers that are as fast as the NaO in terms of bass "hang-over". For any other speakers, I could hear the bass, even if "good" bass. The NaO has "clean" bass which simply disappears into the music.
All in all, these are wonderful speakers with each having its own strong points. Which one is better would probably depend on personal preference, the way the room is treated, the equipment driving them and the implementation of the loudspeakers.
Regards,
Bill
First, I confess that I learnt a great deal from John K, Linkwitz and Dr Gedlee. They all have made huge contributions to the DIY community and we should be thankful having them.
Also note that they are all selling their kits commercially.
Am I going to say one loudspeaker is better than the other? Even if I had an opinion I would keep my mouth shut.
But truly, I have not heard the other two and my opinion is that they are all first class loudspeakers that can compare well to the very best.
I suspect that the Summas is the most room friendly loudspeaker among all. The even off-axis response / even power response would make it sound tonally balanced and musical. The high sensitivity makes it amplifier friendly. The multi-sub approach would produce nice even bass. It is very well engineered (e.g. crossover falls mostly outside of the critical 1-4kHz area, directivity, etc) and I am sure it sounds fabulous.
The NaO and the Orion probably sound similar. Note that they use drivers with very low distortions and are equally well engineered. The dipole nature in the lower midrange and bass would give it advantage. If moderate level of room treatment is used (e.g. high frequency dampping at first reflection points) then they should work very well. If adequate distance from the back wall can be obtained, the extra backwaves may enhance the perceiption of "air" that gives a life-like presentation, which is unique to open baffle speakers, if that is your cup of tea.
goskers,
I believe you. That is a credible experience of yours and what you are telling is definitely true (from your respective and from your experience). I would love to have an opportunity to listen to the Summas one day.
At the same time, I believe other readers have sound judgement and understand that any comparison results may subject to personal preference, the room (especially) and the equipment used to drive the loudspeakers, and probably, the implementation of the loudspeakers (for diy loudspeakers).
My personal experience with the NaO (my implementation) is that it equals the best in terms of clarity, imaging, dynamics and (almost) ease. Off-axis seating - I don't think the NaO is the best, the LS3/5a possibly fairs better. But I can't imagine any speakers are perfect, and how a wave guided speakers can excel in off-axis listening. On the other hand, I have not heard of any speakers that are as fast as the NaO in terms of bass "hang-over". For any other speakers, I could hear the bass, even if "good" bass. The NaO has "clean" bass which simply disappears into the music.
All in all, these are wonderful speakers with each having its own strong points. Which one is better would probably depend on personal preference, the way the room is treated, the equipment driving them and the implementation of the loudspeakers.
Regards,
Bill
tinitus,
I am not sure if you were talking about me. Note that I have not used the word "absolute best". I said I believe that they are all first class loudspeakers that can compare well to the very best. That would not be a blind assumption, as we have fairly detailed information about the designs of those speakers.
I have auditioned many very expensive commercial loudspeakers in very expensive set ups (JM Lab Ground Utopia, MBL, Wilson Audio Grand Slam / Maxx, Martin Logan, etc) and most who have heard my system (including my implementation of the NaO) in my room agreed that my system does not sound inferior to those.
Regards,
Bill
I am not sure if you were talking about me. Note that I have not used the word "absolute best". I said I believe that they are all first class loudspeakers that can compare well to the very best. That would not be a blind assumption, as we have fairly detailed information about the designs of those speakers.
I have auditioned many very expensive commercial loudspeakers in very expensive set ups (JM Lab Ground Utopia, MBL, Wilson Audio Grand Slam / Maxx, Martin Logan, etc) and most who have heard my system (including my implementation of the NaO) in my room agreed that my system does not sound inferior to those.
Regards,
Bill
gedlee said:
No Earl, he's stating what you already know. That the room has a huge effect on the sound, audio memory can be unreliable, visual aspects can affect sound, etc. etc.
So direct comparison should only be made (by Goskers, you, etc.) of speakers in the same room, blind, etc.
Like this. Where, in your room designed specifically for your Summa, it did no better than the Gradient Revolution. Perhaps you could repeat this kind of test, in a neutral, more typical untreated living room (where 99.9% of speakers will reside), vs the Orion or NaO. Let's not confuse purely subjective opinions of guests here and there with scientifically acquired listening data. Right Earl?
cheers,
AJ
Wow, what a difference a day makes. Let me answers some questions and make some comments.
Before starting, please accept that I have listened to the NaO and Orion (in the same room) but not the Summa. I will freely accept the assumption that the Summa is of the same quality as either of these speakers, though with a different set of design criteria. Thus it is expected to perform differently.
First, to answer a question from a ways back, the Mini panel crossover point to the woofer system is nominally 100 Hz. The panels roll off at 100 Hz LR4. The subwoofers have adjustable crossovers on the plat amps which can be used to help fine tune the response in the crossover region.
Second; Earl, AJ already answered you question. I would assume that all the systems were set up well to the listeners taste, but in different rooms? As we all know the room dictates all, and a room optimum for one type of speaker may be far from optimum for other types. Take any of these speakers outside and they will likely all sound very similar with the differences being largely attributed to the differences in the frequency response of the direct sound. In a room clarity and detail can be significantly affected just by changing the listening distance. Moving away from the speaker so the listening position is beyond the critical distance (distance where the direct sound is at a lower level that the reflected sound) will result is less clarity and detail. Move closer and there is more detail.
SL's comments about the side null is a 1/2 truth. Sorry. A speaker like the NaO or Orion will radiate less midrange sound to the sided but this is countered by the rear radiation. Such a radiation pattern can be of benefit in narrow rooms with side walls are acoustically highly reflective (Look at SL's room on his web site. The side walls are basically glass.) In wider rooms, rooms with damped side walls, or when placed along a long wall, these side nulls are of less significance. More important is the uniformity of the system directivity from say 100 Hz up.
However, more important is the interaction of a dipole speaker with the rear wall. Regardless of room width, distance form the rear wall and rear wall treatment is much more critical with a dipole (or omni) than with direct radiator with dominantly forward radiation (like the Summa?).
The idea that the nulls at 90 degrees eliminate the excitation of the tangential modes orthogonal to the dipole axis is another 1/2 truth. This will only be the case if the dipole axis is parallel to the side walls of a rectangular room. Angle the speakers inwards, like most setups and these modes will be excited.
I found the link AJ provided interesting. However, one important piece of data was not reported. Sample size.
Before starting, please accept that I have listened to the NaO and Orion (in the same room) but not the Summa. I will freely accept the assumption that the Summa is of the same quality as either of these speakers, though with a different set of design criteria. Thus it is expected to perform differently.
First, to answer a question from a ways back, the Mini panel crossover point to the woofer system is nominally 100 Hz. The panels roll off at 100 Hz LR4. The subwoofers have adjustable crossovers on the plat amps which can be used to help fine tune the response in the crossover region.
Second; Earl, AJ already answered you question. I would assume that all the systems were set up well to the listeners taste, but in different rooms? As we all know the room dictates all, and a room optimum for one type of speaker may be far from optimum for other types. Take any of these speakers outside and they will likely all sound very similar with the differences being largely attributed to the differences in the frequency response of the direct sound. In a room clarity and detail can be significantly affected just by changing the listening distance. Moving away from the speaker so the listening position is beyond the critical distance (distance where the direct sound is at a lower level that the reflected sound) will result is less clarity and detail. Move closer and there is more detail.
SL's comments about the side null is a 1/2 truth. Sorry. A speaker like the NaO or Orion will radiate less midrange sound to the sided but this is countered by the rear radiation. Such a radiation pattern can be of benefit in narrow rooms with side walls are acoustically highly reflective (Look at SL's room on his web site. The side walls are basically glass.) In wider rooms, rooms with damped side walls, or when placed along a long wall, these side nulls are of less significance. More important is the uniformity of the system directivity from say 100 Hz up.
However, more important is the interaction of a dipole speaker with the rear wall. Regardless of room width, distance form the rear wall and rear wall treatment is much more critical with a dipole (or omni) than with direct radiator with dominantly forward radiation (like the Summa?).
The idea that the nulls at 90 degrees eliminate the excitation of the tangential modes orthogonal to the dipole axis is another 1/2 truth. This will only be the case if the dipole axis is parallel to the side walls of a rectangular room. Angle the speakers inwards, like most setups and these modes will be excited.
I found the link AJ provided interesting. However, one important piece of data was not reported. Sample size.
John
Seems to me that the sample size was reported, but if not, it was 16 people. Not huge, but not small either.
AJ
This test was NOT done in my listening room, but my "untreated" living room - just like 99% of other living rooms. And the fact that it ranked with the Gradients IS significant in that it was about 12 dB more sensitive and had at least 20 dB more high output capability. The Gradient would never have been suitable in a HT because of its output limitations. It also showed that the waveguide was indistinguishable from a good tweeter. The Summa price was much less than the Gradient and the kits prices don't even come close. One of the most interesting results was that the uber-expensive TAD drivers did not make any significant difference. This was a real eye-opener and NOT what I was expecting. That the older technology JBLs ranked so poorly was not a surprise. The older horn design on that system is not comparable to my newer designs. We have learned a couple of things in 20 some years.
My room is NOT designed for the Summas, the room existed as-is long before the Summas came along. The opposite is actually true. The Summas were design to be optimized for playback in a well designed small room - ala the kind of room that anyone would build if they were creating a serious listening room. If there is another reasonable target then I'd like to know? A badly designed room? What sense would that make? Large rooms are different animals, although it turns out that the same design approachs are required, but for different reasons. At any rate, this question turns out to be irrelavent because rooms can only degrade the sound. I do not agree that there is one type of speaker that works well in one room and another type that works well in another - sorry. To me the better speaker works better in any room. That's been my experince. I will agree that some people like a dead sound and other a more "acoustic" one. Acording to Toole however, MOST people prefer a room with much more reverberation than is typically found, a view that I completely agree with.
I'd love to do the test that you suggest - just bring over a pair of NaO's and Orion's and we'll do it!!
Seems to me that the sample size was reported, but if not, it was 16 people. Not huge, but not small either.
AJ
This test was NOT done in my listening room, but my "untreated" living room - just like 99% of other living rooms. And the fact that it ranked with the Gradients IS significant in that it was about 12 dB more sensitive and had at least 20 dB more high output capability. The Gradient would never have been suitable in a HT because of its output limitations. It also showed that the waveguide was indistinguishable from a good tweeter. The Summa price was much less than the Gradient and the kits prices don't even come close. One of the most interesting results was that the uber-expensive TAD drivers did not make any significant difference. This was a real eye-opener and NOT what I was expecting. That the older technology JBLs ranked so poorly was not a surprise. The older horn design on that system is not comparable to my newer designs. We have learned a couple of things in 20 some years.
My room is NOT designed for the Summas, the room existed as-is long before the Summas came along. The opposite is actually true. The Summas were design to be optimized for playback in a well designed small room - ala the kind of room that anyone would build if they were creating a serious listening room. If there is another reasonable target then I'd like to know? A badly designed room? What sense would that make? Large rooms are different animals, although it turns out that the same design approachs are required, but for different reasons. At any rate, this question turns out to be irrelavent because rooms can only degrade the sound. I do not agree that there is one type of speaker that works well in one room and another type that works well in another - sorry. To me the better speaker works better in any room. That's been my experince. I will agree that some people like a dead sound and other a more "acoustic" one. Acording to Toole however, MOST people prefer a room with much more reverberation than is typically found, a view that I completely agree with.
I'd love to do the test that you suggest - just bring over a pair of NaO's and Orion's and we'll do it!!
I mirror John's statement of holy crap, look what has grown over night.
In response to a lot of what was directed towards me. I have listened to the orion's in quite a few different environments. The last and most successful was that of a friends basement which was not being used. The room essentially replicated that of SL's. In this room I did a good deal of messing with speaker placement and room dampening of different varieties. Distance from the front wall was very interesting as well as the amount of dampening and of what types applied to the front wall. I do feel that the Nao/Orion approach is much, much better than most. I understand very well about the listening environment, equipment, listening prejudice......
The areas which John, AJ and others mention are places where the Summa's system has provided a solution. Dipoles, if anything, have a rear wave that needs to be controlled by distance. Like John has said, you take this rear wave and then dampen or break it using diffraction. If a dipole is best because of the reduced side reflections then why not produce a pattern that is highly controlled so you can do exactly what you want with it?
Either way, the science behind it is what intrigues me. I have read the Summa white paper many times. If I had not been able to listen them and learn more about it then I would have been skeptical all along.
In response to a lot of what was directed towards me. I have listened to the orion's in quite a few different environments. The last and most successful was that of a friends basement which was not being used. The room essentially replicated that of SL's. In this room I did a good deal of messing with speaker placement and room dampening of different varieties. Distance from the front wall was very interesting as well as the amount of dampening and of what types applied to the front wall. I do feel that the Nao/Orion approach is much, much better than most. I understand very well about the listening environment, equipment, listening prejudice......
The areas which John, AJ and others mention are places where the Summa's system has provided a solution. Dipoles, if anything, have a rear wave that needs to be controlled by distance. Like John has said, you take this rear wave and then dampen or break it using diffraction. If a dipole is best because of the reduced side reflections then why not produce a pattern that is highly controlled so you can do exactly what you want with it?
Either way, the science behind it is what intrigues me. I have read the Summa white paper many times. If I had not been able to listen them and learn more about it then I would have been skeptical all along.
Why bother with either dipole or waveguide + monopole design when you could build cardioid speakers? One example being the Gradient Helsinki:
http://www.gradient.fi/models/helsinki
The midrange uses acoustic resistance to delay the back wave which leaks from edges:
http://www.gradient.fi/models/helsinki
The midrange uses acoustic resistance to delay the back wave which leaks from edges:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
When they produce data to prove that this concept works as claimed then I will look at it. For now I remain skeptical.
P.S. Acoustic resistance cannot "delay" it can only attenuate. The sound still travels at the same speed - marginally slower perhaps, but not enough to be called a true delay.
P.S. Acoustic resistance cannot "delay" it can only attenuate. The sound still travels at the same speed - marginally slower perhaps, but not enough to be called a true delay.
gedlee said:
We have been here before. There is much more to it than just damping.
See, for example
Backman, J. Low-frequency polar pattern control for improved in room response, AES
paper 5867, 115th AES Convention, October, 2003.
Backman, J. Theory of acoustic resistance boxes. AES 1999.
Holmes, The Acoustic Resistance Box - A New Look at an Old Principle, J. AES, Vol.
34, No. 12, 1986.
Also you must consider the effect of damping on the 1/4 wave resopnance in the U-frame and its effect on phase.
gedlee said:
My thoughts exactly (and on most claims in audio really).
By the way, does anyone here have some useful measurements of the Orion and Nao speakers? I'm talking:
- decent frequency resolution (1/24 octave though possibly smoothed)
- 15 deg (or less) increments horizontally and vertically all the way around (since dipole)
- on a decent graph (40-50 dB scale, NOT 120 dB)
The reason I ask is that I can't find any at either linkwitzlab.com or musicanddesign.com that display conclusively how the speakers behave. I can't tell even horizontally if the systems really behave like dipoles up into the upper end of the midrange, through the crossover point, and up into the HF, and if not, how they deviate. I can't tell what things look like vertically- there is a lot that can go wrong, with the assymetric dipole baffle, crossover, and (Nao) two mids.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.