So you'll gladly open your wallet to Siegfried Linkwitz, but you won't pay for an annual membership to the Audio Engineering Society (AES)?
I encourage you to join the AES. You might actually learn something useful about Audio Engineering.
What's with the Guru worship? Reading the posts here, one would think Siegfried Linkwitz is the Second Coming of Christ.
Greenm01. Keep it polite or do not post. This is a warning.
You should take the time to read the link I posted. Directivity and power response are basically one in the same. If you want to talk about power, he missed that equally. The dipole mid is down 4.8dB relative to a 4Pi monopole. With a front tweeter only the tweeter in the crossover region isn't 4Pi but it is more than 2Pi so power response goes from -4.8dB to some where between 0 and -3dB for the tweeter. So there is some where between a 1.8 to 4.8 dB discontinuity in the power response in the crossover region. Probably around 3dB in reality, due to the tweeter bloom. . And again, if power response was the issue a dipole woofer was the wrong choice. The mids operate in a 4Pi where as the woofer in 2Pi. Thus there is a 3dB loss in power at the bottom. A monopole woofer would be a better power match to a dipole mid based on power response. That dipole bass sound better is a stretch as well. Good bass can be obtained with any type of woofer provided the woofers are set up and positioned correctly. It's more that dipoles act like multiple sources with different positions. A pair of speaker with dipole woofers basically acts a 4 low frequency sources. I pointed all this stuff out years ago Tweeter integration, Power matching, but as usual it was taken as SL bashing and no body paid attention.
No. Not really. See above.
I would agree that the rear tweeter can be detrimental to power response, but it is essential to having a reasonable balance in the reflected sound from the wall behind the speaker. I found the original Orion to sound dull. Now adding a rear tweeter helps that but SL never did that right ether. He just slapped it on. It needs to be attenuated to have to correct balance. Do you want to know why? Don't ask. I'm not telling.
Call it what you like, it was an obvious flaw from the get go and one I addressed with the original NaO, again only to be blown off because nobody bothered to listen, until SL decided it was necessary. Gees SL flip flops on this stuff more the the dummies in Washington. What a joke.
As I pointed out above, the original Orion never came close to having the power response correct. And adding the rear tweeter, which as I recall was not supposed to be attenuated, just made the power worse. Ultimately that brought in the HP shelf which is another joke. The correct fix with the rear tweeter is to keep the on axis response flat and provide the proper attenuation of the rear tweeter to get the spectral balance of the entire sound field balanced which is how I approached it in the original NaO. There were still power problems, but overall it was superior to the Orion.
Well we all know the 4-way design of NaO Note preceded SL's thinking with the LX521, and the reasoning for my taking that route was in the flaws of the Orion which I had pointed out, and my own failure to adequately correct them with the 3-way NaO II. That the Note demonstrated a 4-way design could accomplish the goal of more uniform power response/directivity probably gave SL the impetus to follow suite.
For the sake of completeness let be list the items I found lacking in the original Orion which have be addressed over the years.
1) Poor midrange/tweeter integration (power response), > in part due to the crossover being too low;
2) Lack of a rear tweeter, > spectral imbalance between front and rear radiation;
3) Lack of lower midrange impact, thin sounding,> incorrect midrange EQ;
4) Overly complex, brute force active crossover desig, > no circuit optimization.
It didn't take a lot of time to see these things. You just had to look at the design objectively, emphasis on design, not designer. You can spin them anyway you like. Make up what ever terminology you want. Over the last 10 years really only items 2 and 3 were addressed in the various updates to the Orion. That SL chose to use the same PCB for the LX521 rather than start with a truly clean sheet of paper demonstrates that it just another tweak. I just can not take SL seriously any more. Hell, I don't even take myself seriously anymore!
ABX Linkwitz Orion Behringer Slides
Ask and thou shalt receive! I posed the original PowerPoint presentation on my Google Drive, which includes polar plots for both Orion and Behringer.
I didn't attach the slides here, considering the presentation contains high resolution images that exceed the file size limit of this site.
Enjoy!
Ask and thou shalt receive! I posed the original PowerPoint presentation on my Google Drive, which includes polar plots for both Orion and Behringer.
I didn't attach the slides here, considering the presentation contains high resolution images that exceed the file size limit of this site.
Enjoy!
not sure if anyones interested, but here: Behringer B2031P (Stránka 1) - Reprosoustavy - Audioweb.cz you have some measurements of the passive version of behringers and also measurements after some cossover mods..
The performing artist (the "real" one) doesn't have a preference. He just wants the listeners to feel happy.
The product manager has an agenda: He wants the "selling" sound.
The man at the mixing desk does, what he is comfortable with, or what is his "hallmark".
So where should the "good" sound come from???
A combination of all their input and end goals. Simple as that.
I did, thanks! Coincidentally, I started reading the AES paper yesterday and this simplification cleared up a few points for me. Nice to see real research.
No need for my sake . . . my rear tweeter had it's own amp (and level control) from day one, and its own equalization soon after.
And how often had the "original artist" the final say? Always? Depends? Rarely?
I'm asking because I still wonder to whom "high fidelity" is really true. Does it really represent the intent of the artist?
Linkwitz Orions (and Behringer) beaten by IMP.... what!!?
Hi there !
Agreed ! So lets discuss it ! This 'IMP' is a fruitful ground to learn something new
Here's some of Gary's comments on it:
On testing speakers - High-End-Audio - Audio
Remarkable notion is this:
"the radiation pattern alone could make it sound pretty good"
How is the IMP radiation pattern then ? Based on limited online information it appears to provide almost chaotic multi-lobed directional pattern at least in the midrange and treble freqs. It is certainly NOT a point source !
But that is very good actually !
An unarguable fact is generally people like sound which is more spacious than dry. IMP seems to generate highly favourable field with low correlation between direct and reflected sound. Naturalness of the sound field can be high in this case. This can lead to high listener preference.
I'm not surprised IMP won in a blind test. In a sighted test it would have lost. Power of suggestion.
But John, your logic does not explain why IMP won ? Can we safely assume IMP is a school example of a conventional box speaker ? And people are very familiar with the sound of it ?
Sure IMP has serious lobing and phasing issues ! (see above) I think that's why it won
That's good, it's allways nice to see someone arguing with Floyd Toole and Sean Olive
Who is this Mr Eickmeier ?!? Based on his views, there are high chances I might like this gentleman.
- Elias
Hi there !
Agreed ! So lets discuss it !
This 'IMP' is a fruitful ground to learn something new Here's some of Gary's comments on it:
On testing speakers - High-End-Audio - Audio
Remarkable notion is this:
"the radiation pattern alone could make it sound pretty good"
How is the IMP radiation pattern then ? Based on limited online information it appears to provide almost chaotic multi-lobed directional pattern at least in the midrange and treble freqs. It is certainly NOT a point source !
But that is very good actually !
An unarguable fact is generally people like sound which is more spacious than dry. IMP seems to generate highly favourable field with low correlation between direct and reflected sound. Naturalness of the sound field can be high in this case. This can lead to high listener preference.
I'm not surprised IMP won in a blind test. In a sighted test it would have lost. Power of suggestion.
But John, your logic does not explain why IMP won ? Can we safely assume IMP is a school example of a conventional box speaker ?
And people are very familiar with the sound of it ? Sure IMP has serious lobing and phasing issues ! (see above) I think that's why it won
That's good, it's allways nice to see someone arguing with Floyd Toole and Sean Olive
Who is this Mr Eickmeier ?!? Based on his views, there are high chances I might like this gentleman.
- Elias
Forget it Elias, most people don't want to consider something new. Most people just want validation of there own beliefs. That's why we are talking about 2nd place! Why challenge ourselves with the notion that we may have been wrong all along by discussing the loudspeaker that actually came out 1st?
That's no fun
That's no fun
The listening test was termed as "The Linkwitz Challenge"
The purpose being to challenge the old and receive the new information ? I hope. Who wants to hang out with the second (or the third) if there is the winner ?
Gary Eickmeier states:
On testing speakers - High-End-Audio - Audio
I find this parallels very closely to my experiments and findings of using listening room as a sound projector:
Elias Pekonen Home Page - Stereophonic Sound from a Single Speaker
- Elias
The purpose being to challenge the old and receive the new information ? I hope. Who wants to hang out with the second (or the third) if there is the winner ?
Gary Eickmeier states:
On testing speakers - High-End-Audio - Audio
I find this parallels very closely to my experiments and findings of using listening room as a sound projector:
Elias Pekonen Home Page - Stereophonic Sound from a Single Speaker
- Elias