Please provide concrete objective analysis to back this claim. Have you even read the full AES Report?
Are you joking? I find it interesting that although there is no mention of the AES Report, SL magically comes to the exact opposite conclusion the end of his "blog:"
SL said:
And if you carefully read the entire (which is 90% subjective bias) review, particularly the comparison table, if primarily balances negatives opinions of the Behringer vs positive bias of the Orion. SL started with the assumption that the Behringer was inferior, and looked for ways to validate this position.
My primary point: it's all subjective hogwash in support of a commercial product. Is this the best we can ask for in regard to the DIY Audio community? We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard of accountability and openness.
Listen, the closest we can get to reconstructing an audio event is with high order ambisonics.
When speaking of recreating a soundfield through 2 channel audio, it will always be about perception. Certin factors weigh more heavily with some people than others....also with different types of music.
The results of this test could have turned out differently with different people at a different time.
You know that Europeans have differently constructed rooms than say, Americans. This will bias opinions because of the sound that they are used to. Another example is that rooms used to be separate back in the day, now they are constructed with an open floor plan. That means our listening room went from 200 ft2 to 600 ft2, That effects perception of sound as well, Meaning that people from different eras will have a certain bias.
We can't blame SL for his perception, we can just chose to agree with his theories or not.
Same goes for geddies, Duvall, mirage, Martin Logan, magnepan, kef and any other company that have there own notions of how to achieve realism.
When speaking of recreating a soundfield through 2 channel audio, it will always be about perception. Certin factors weigh more heavily with some people than others....also with different types of music.
The results of this test could have turned out differently with different people at a different time.
You know that Europeans have differently constructed rooms than say, Americans. This will bias opinions because of the sound that they are used to. Another example is that rooms used to be separate back in the day, now they are constructed with an open floor plan. That means our listening room went from 200 ft2 to 600 ft2, That effects perception of sound as well, Meaning that people from different eras will have a certain bias.
We can't blame SL for his perception, we can just chose to agree with his theories or not.
Same goes for geddies, Duvall, mirage, Martin Logan, magnepan, kef and any other company that have there own notions of how to achieve realism.
Very well said.
Different tastes determine what you like in different speakers.
I like OB and Geddes designs because they try and address one of the main areas of concern in audio...the room.
However, the faults of most other speakers can be and are corrected with room treatments. It just depends on the approach that someone can/wants to take.
Different tastes determine what you like in different speakers.
I like OB and Geddes designs because they try and address one of the main areas of concern in audio...the room.
However, the faults of most other speakers can be and are corrected with room treatments. It just depends on the approach that someone can/wants to take.
Right, like dropping $5k+ on the LX521 vs $358 for a pair of Behringers that provides an equally, if not better, Audio Scene.
In this regard, we may as well quite DIY Audio and start basing all our audio preferences and lifetyle on the Robb Report.
Perhaps the ones that don't come with (incorrectly) factory installed 4-ohm woofers are, but I seriously doubt it.
How would you know that? I'm betting that you've heard neither, and that nobody else has heard both in the same room, either. I have heard both (though not in the same room) . . . and that's (part of) why I'm "converting" my ORION to LX521 clones. I've heard the Behringers and ORION in the same room and ORION are better speakers. The difference is not "night and day", but it's not exactly subtle either.
Now, ten times better? Maybe not . . . that's a "value" choice that different people will make differently. What I find particularly odd is that you would be so adamant about a speaker choice based only on what you read in an AES journal article. There is something to be said for actually listening . . .
[/quote]
First, let me state that I don't personally like the sound of any dipole I've heard (including the Orion, as set up by Linkwitz at AXPONA last year, the Audio Artistries a friend in Vienna owns that I helped build a second set of "subwoofers" for, Martin Logans, etc.), except the Quad ESL-63. (I'd still love to hear the NaO Note I or II, because of the thoroughness of that design.)
I know that because I've listened to them.
When it comes to things such as forming one's own preferences as to spaciousness vs. focus, etc., an AES report isn't going to help. Only listening will. We're not talking about wires, amps, etc. We're talking about things that actually sound dramatically different, and place dramatically different placement/treatment burdens on the room to optimize them.
FWIW, Dr. Geddes wrote somewhere that Clark asked him to contribute speakers for the test, but he declined because he didn't like the methodology, or something like that.
What is, however, interesting, is that the bigger (by speaker-builder standards) companies that actually do science (e.g. the Harmans, KEFs, Pioneer/TADs, etc. of the world) and sell speakers designed to be used mostly in multipurpose rooms, all seem to be converging on a remarkably similar solution: 120º-150º midrange/treble coverage monopole. The specifics differ (largely based on corporate IP) but the overall pattern is one of remarkable convergence.
case close. Its impossible that the test is real and not flawed somehow. Im sure the orion are better speakers then behringer. hell, I could compare my speaker to my minimus realistic and im sure the realistic wont be 10 times less good then my speakers.
but seriously, even if the behringer was better, why is this discussion keep going on. Im really happy to know about the behringer and will recommend them to friends who couldnt gave a **** about hifi
Sure, but I would propose that if they are trying to take the room out of the equation, they could learn something from Clayton shaw formally of Emerald physics......using an open baffle dipole for lower frequencies, in order to achieve CD over the entire spectrum.
Yes, and they all sound good on studio mixed rock-and-whatever and HT soundtracks. That's "the market". And to my ear they generically fall a little short at recreating the sound that I want when reproducing orchestral music in my somewhat-favorable-to-dipoles listening room. But I could live with either . . . I lived happily with Thiel 3.6 for quite a few years (between my Maggies and ORION).
The whole point of DIY is to roll what works for you . . .
Please go back and read the the table's title.
Was that part of the AES article? (..not from what I remember. )And while SL is most certainly biased (..as we all are), how can you possible tell that his bias wasn't part of his own natural response?
Just looking at the table AND ACTUALLY READING IT, you should note that most of the responses that would be deemed negative with respect to the Behringer were in fact *initial* responses. After adjusting to the loudspeakers my impression of his responses are that the Behringer's were overall *better* than the Orions.
i.e. mono signal is "stronger in mono" on the Behringer; "High frequency sparkle" or better treble extension on the Behringer; better timbre reproduction in both stereo and mono on the Behringer; improved silence via "blacker background" noise on the Behringer; L & R difference improved on the Behringer (Orion lacks definition with LCR)..
Does that sound like a bias toward the Orion?
IMO he started with what he was familiar with and then adapted to the presentation of each with final responses that favored the Behringer (in the pink-noise sample). Yes, that is in fact "bias" initially - but it's not at all the sort of bias that you are suggesting.
Your primary point "that it's all subjective hogwash in support of a commercial product" COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT.
Yes, it's subjective.
Yes, controls are missing.
Yes, a truly objective base-line is missing.
DUH.
The very same is true for the AES paper. THAT's THE POINT!
That doesn't mean it isn't *useful* though, (and by that same token it doesn't mean that the AES paper isn't useful either).
SL's "report" has a very particular use - and it's precisely as you have stated: BIAS (though not at all in the fashion you intended). It also works well with the AES paper.
SL clearly has a bias - or PREFERENCE, for a particular type of presentation that his designs offer. The important part here is that he goes into pretty good detail on why he prefers the Orion, and why he doesn't prefer the Behringer. Likewise, you'll get some idea of why the group in the AES paper overall preferred the Behringer, and also why some "outliers" similar in preference to SL preferred the Orion. (..and it also has context with program material.) The bias isn't about commercial advantage - instead it's all about preference in sound reproduction.
From there it doesn't take a genius to get a MUCH better idea if they would prefer one design over another. THAT is useful if considering either the Orion or the Behringer (..and even other SL designs), regardless of how unscientific it might be.
As far as your plea for the "best we can do" - when it comes to subjective "testing" with scientific validity:
There is no "best", because from what I've read FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY (in this area of research) - it's pretty poor, and there is no reason to expect better testing from hobbyists.
I'm not saying it can't be achieved, it's just any expectation of it actually happening is laughable.
But hey, if that's the way you want to spend your time then stop complaining about it and actually DO IT.
Last edited:
I really don't understand the results of this test because if the berries had won than there could be an argument for this type of speaker over the dipole but it didn't....the IMP won!
A speaker that most here wouldn't even give a passing glance to, and haven't so far on this thread.
So the panel of audiophiles chose a speaker that probably has serious lobing and phase issues along with a myriad of other "problems" if read on paper. Then the runner up is a studio monitor. In last place a dipole. The one that should sound different than the others in theory should be the monitor, so you would think it would either be in first or last place. If anything, the winner of the challenge, only proves SL's theory of even power response, through rear radiation. Why is nobody discussing this fact?
A speaker that most here wouldn't even give a passing glance to, and haven't so far on this thread.
So the panel of audiophiles chose a speaker that probably has serious lobing and phase issues along with a myriad of other "problems" if read on paper. Then the runner up is a studio monitor. In last place a dipole. The one that should sound different than the others in theory should be the monitor, so you would think it would either be in first or last place. If anything, the winner of the challenge, only proves SL's theory of even power response, through rear radiation. Why is nobody discussing this fact?
I have a hard time not laughing when I see complaints about the commercial aspect of SL's offerings.
Let's keep some perspective here.....this is a silly industry (high-end audio speakers) where someone like Dave Wilson can sell a pair of speakers for north of $100,000.00! In between that and Behringer Truth's there are loads of offerings at any price point imaginable.
If you build a set of Orion's, or NaO Notes, or whatever, most of your $$$ outlay is going to Meniscus/Madisound/Digikey/Mouser/Home-Depot/etc/etc and not SL or John K.
You can argue/discuss the technical merits of any design endlessly, but regardless, folks like SL, John K, Geddes, Zaph, (add whatever DIY name you want) should be applauded for making their knowledge/efforts available to a market that doesn't need insanely priced products. And oh my goodness, there making a couple of bucks doing it.
Cheers,
Dave.
Let's keep some perspective here.....this is a silly industry (high-end audio speakers) where someone like Dave Wilson can sell a pair of speakers for north of $100,000.00! In between that and Behringer Truth's there are loads of offerings at any price point imaginable.
If you build a set of Orion's, or NaO Notes, or whatever, most of your $$$ outlay is going to Meniscus/Madisound/Digikey/Mouser/Home-Depot/etc/etc and not SL or John K.
You can argue/discuss the technical merits of any design endlessly, but regardless, folks like SL, John K, Geddes, Zaph, (add whatever DIY name you want) should be applauded for making their knowledge/efforts available to a market that doesn't need insanely priced products. And oh my goodness, there making a couple of bucks doing it.
Cheers,
Dave.
Last edited: