Most energy a dipole radiates into the room does only one thing, it masks low level details. Dipoles are a sledgehammer approach not too far from a Bose 901. Why do you think Linkwitz found the Pluto to sound similar to a dipole?
Reflections for added spaciousness and realism should come from only a few distinct locations in order to maintain clarity. In this regard I'd think a toed out cardioid is more desirable than a dipole or omni.
Yep. Our festival orchestra performs in multiple venues, ranging from a highly reverberant church to outdoors. I shouldn't need to tell you that the sound is . . . different . . . regardless where you sit (as are the performances, which themselves "adapt" to the acoustics of the different venues).
And I'm 100% with John K's post above . . .
That is not my experience. Not even close . .
Nor is that. Of course my dipoles are placed so that the primary front wall reflection comes from the corners behind (and outside) the speakers . . . the front wall between them is diffusive (in the line of first reflection).
I also typically listen perhaps a little further back than most here apparently do, since (like John K) I prefer the 1st row balcony perspective for most orchestral recordings. My dipoles, as installed, do that very well (and have done so ever since my first dipoles, a pair of MGII).
What is your frame of reference? Just because you don't miss anything while listening to a recording doesn't mean there's more detail to be heard.
Well then you're in disagreement with current psychoacoustic literature. Why don't you try the little experiment I've suggested here?
I prefer Tchaikovsky to Beethoven,
The Stones to the Beatles,
Ferrairs to Lamborghinis,
BMWs to Mercedes,
New England to the midwest,
Class A transistors to tubes.
Life is about choices.
Reproduction in my home is my choice. I don't need someone else telling me what is right or wrong or trying to define what reproduction is or should or should not be.
The Stones to the Beatles,
Ferrairs to Lamborghinis,
BMWs to Mercedes,
New England to the midwest,
Class A transistors to tubes.
Life is about choices.
Reproduction in my home is my choice. I don't need someone else telling me what is right or wrong or trying to define what reproduction is or should or should not be.
Detail and reflections have to do with just a few things: the delay between direct and reflected sound, and listening distance ( or rationof D to R). You want more deatil, move closer to the speakers and move the speakers further from reflecting surfances. True regardless of source type. Period!
You want max detail? Use head phones, but they never sound very natural because all you hear is what's on the recording.
You want max detail? Use head phones, but they never sound very natural because all you hear is what's on the recording.
'Gurus' are a universal problem. How many have done due diligence and corroborated the measurements and designs they defend? Not that long ago some on the Parts Express forum did just that and found designs highly praised by hard core 'Objectivists' that didn't come close to meeting performance claims, and I believe in one instance a design that was presented as measured but when examined revealed published curves created from manufacturer data sheets.
Your guru waves a graph you take on trust, theirs a magic brick. Behaviourally the primary difference I see is that in most cases the latter aren't as stressed out.
I agree. The Precendence Effect states that early reflections are not heard as distinct auditory events but rather as coming from the source location. But, all reflections do contribute to the timbre, so a constant directivity source is desirable. Nevertheless it has also been verified that a front wall reflection (just like the floor and ceiling bounce) is much more likely to cause comb filter colouration than a side wall reflection.
Compared to a (hyper)cardioid source has minimal front wall reflections, constant directivity and the option to decrease or increase the level of the side wall reflections by rotating it, without dramatically changing the level of the front wall reflection.
Last edited:
I'm curious why it took you three plan purchases from SL to arrive at this conclusion. I'm also curious (for the record) if you built any of them according to design spec.
In any case, it's obvious that you have some sort of irrational agenda that's driving your misguided campaign.
And this test is the be all and end all? I don't think so, and I don't think you think so. You seem to be seeking rationalization for a pre-conception.
Nice 'try'? I wasn't trying anything. I just wanted to point out that these kinds of things should be considered. I'm not trying to defend a side or something, I just think it's always good to try and look for possible limitations of a study.
While I've had dipoles for some time, I really don't see any advantage in the rear wave unless you have massive amounts of space behind the speaker. The one thing a dipole does right is the constant directivity, but unfortunately that alone does not guarantee accurate imaging and correct timbre.
Because the AES Report was buried, and I didn't discover this thread until WELL AFTER I had ALREADY purchased the plans. Also note that gainphile did not link to the actual report itself, but rather a summary PowerPoint presentation hosted somewhere on the web. I had to go digging for the AES Report (and pay for that too).
If Mr. Linkwitz had been completely open and honest, and provided a reference to the report on his website, then it would not be an issue. If I had purchased the plans with full disclosure then that would have been my educated prerogative.
Why should I be on the defensive now? Maybe we should be taking a close look and analyzing (and providing criticism) Siegfried Linkwitz's audiophile hyperbole instead. It's nothing personal, but when it comes to down to money in exchange for pseudoscientific Intellectual Property it tends to spoil the DIY fun and ethos.
Notice that the AES report was issued in November 2010. TWO YEARS later Linkwitz Lab is still making exaggerated claims in regard to the importance of radiation patters, the superiority of the open baffle dipole design, etc.... and selling expensive commercial kits and construction plans to naive, uneducated buyers.
Last edited:
Perhaps I came into the discussion a little late, but I do want an instrument to sound like an instrument but am not so short sited as to think that the speaker is the only important part. We obviously have to rely on the expertise of the recording engineer.
A 2-way speaker with 5inch woofer is never going to be perfect, but as with most things you have to compromise. Some people have to make do with a 2-way due to cost, the wife, neighbours.
I to find uncorroborated assertions really annoying and like to see facts and research, at work we call this "chuvvin onions up chickens ***** (bums)". "Supposedly my mates mums aunty says that chuvving an onion up a chickens bum helps to cleanse it when it's cooking" That sort of thing.
not sure if it is worth responding, the thread has continued on it's very different merry way, BUT as you had the courtesy to respond to me I feel obliged to at least acknowledge you.
Am not sure if we agree or not. Of course we all want an instrument to sound like the instrument, and it would have to be a very poor recording indeed if a cello sounded like a violin...
Maybe I had too an explicit example in mind when I quoted the 'cello sounds like a cello', why would you (anyone) understand where I was coming from without the background data.
'These guys', well let's just say a two way is NOT a compromise, it is the best speaker ever invented. They are the ones who spend years auditioning the type of wire inside the uber dac they build as a one inch piece of wire makes all the sonic difference. They can pick the burned in cable from it's out of the box counterpart. As I said, very explicit examples in my head.
Their test is 'does a cello sound like a cello'. Well duh. I can pretty well guarantee you any cello recording will at least not sound like a guitar.
So I ask what seems to me a reasonable question, if the gold standard and the basis on which you audition these different bits of wire (fair dinkum, we once got the speil that the reason THIS bit of wire being used was so good was that it came off a spool of wire made in 1936) is *this* cello recording, what steps have you taken (if truthfulness is the goal) to at least ascertain that it is free of any processing from the mic to the disk?
I mean, forget the rest of the chain, that at least has to be the first thing surely.
When you start digging into the recording process (and I most certainly am not claiming I am an expert) then the odds of any commercial recording being free of any processing whatsoever become very short indeed.
If it is not a true exact recording of the cello, then all of the chain and stance built upon 'the cello sounds like a cello' starts to crumble.
I don't subscribe to the AES so I don't have access to the report and I'm not going to drop $20 to download it.
In any case, it seems that David Clark has some affiliation with Earl Geddes. This goes a long way (in my mind) to rationalize your misguided smear campaign towards SL.
[105] Title: Computer Simulation of Horn-Loaded Compression Drivers
Publication: AES-J, Vol. 35, No. 7, pp. 556 (1987)
Author: Earl Geddes
Author: David Clark
Abstract: Numerous investigators have performed analyses of horns and compression drivers. Driver models have typically used a plane-wave tube or infinite horn as a termination to avoid the complexities of finite horns.
Publication: AES-J, Vol. 35, No. 7, pp. 556 (1987)
Author: Earl Geddes
Author: David Clark
Abstract: Numerous investigators have performed analyses of horns and compression drivers. Driver models have typically used a plane-wave tube or infinite horn as a termination to avoid the complexities of finite horns.
Transparency is a two-way street, my friend.