Linkwitz Orions beaten by Behringer.... what!!? - Page 103 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 1st March 2013, 05:37 PM   #1021
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by john k... View Post
Somo body please define ACCURATE.

When designing a speaker any number of design objectives can be specified and when the speaker is completed it can be measured against those objectives and a level of accuracy in meeting those objectives can be defined by looking at the deviation from the reference the objectives define. But with a souind field produced in your room, how do you define accuracy? There is no reference. You most likely don't even have any idea of what the recordign engineer though it should sound like, let alone what the actualy perfromance sounded like. In your room it either sound the way you like it or it doesn't. There is no measure of accuracy because there is no reference to compare it to.

Though not truly "accurate", the best way that I've found was to make my own binaural, and non binaural recording as a point of comparison.

Binaural on headphones represents *more* accurate, then sample the non-binaural on loudspeakers.

It's still utterly subjective however, but I live in the real world and don't require absolute precision.
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 06:15 PM   #1022
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
The bottom line to me is that loose listening tests and expert opinions have more variance in them than what we don't know about the relationship between objective measures and subjective judgments. Add to that the book that I was talking about and its claim of an almost completely disconnected relationship between reality and personal judgment (i.e. statistically it has been shown that the more convinced someone is that they are right more likely they are to be wrong) and I simply have to throw out the subjective.
Earl I'm not sure why you dwell on "expert opinion" in this. I shun experts myself (much to my wife's annoyance) but that's beside the point. In the matter of audio I can't remember ever buying anything significant based solely on anyone's opinion and certainly never set out to convince myself that it was an objective quest to have the "best". I guess it just isn't that important to me to make it an almost moral issue out of it.

I remember Ayn Rand feeling it important enough to spend one of her speaking engagements proving objectively that all folk and primitive art was "trash" (probably evil too).

You have to admit you certainly sound very convinced you are right
__________________
"The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important."
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 06:18 PM   #1023
dewardh is offline dewardh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
A flat DI will just sound very bright. This seems natural to me since air absorption does this naturally in the real world - there is more HF loss than LF so flat reverberation will sound bright in a small room.
Yes . . . a flat DI does (tend to) sound very bright, and air absorption may be part of the reason (I've noted elsewhere that the absorption curves in McCarthy's "Sound Systems: Design and Optimization" look a lot like the "high frequency shelf" that Linkwitz found necessary with the dual-tweeter ORION). But there's got to be more to it than just that, because it doesn't seem to apply (as much, anyway) to flat-on-axis in the near field. And it does seem to depend (a lot) on the recording . . .

And then there's below 1000 Hz . . . where the transition from a "controlled beam" to essentially omni can be quite abrupt, right in the range of most instrument and vocal fundamentals.

But there we are at it again . . . if a "flat" DI sounds wrong how do we jigger the "objective" standard to reflect the "subjective" reality?
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 07:08 PM   #1024
diyAudio Member
 
Melo theory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Gulfport fl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
Power response does not have a location - it is the sum total of all the radiation in all directions. For almost all loudspeaker systems the power response does rise at LFs. down to resonance and then they would fall unless EQ'd.
Yes, this is what I was getting at. I said behind the speaker to make the point of total bandwidth power response. SL's theory is to raise the high frequency power response as much as possible. this was the reason for the rear tweeter on the Orion and the concept behind the Pluto.

He has stated several times that box speakers are omni at low frequencies and front firing at high frequencies.
I was wondering if you beleived as he does if this is detrimental to reproduce a convincing AS.
__________________
I LIKE YOU
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 07:35 PM   #1025
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by dewardh View Post
But there we are at it again . . . if a "flat" DI sounds wrong how do we jigger the "objective" standard to reflect the "subjective" reality?
By using the old B&K falling response. It's been posted a few times and is easy to find around the web. I use it, I think Geddes uses something close. It does seem to work well in most domestic rooms.

I'm not sure why it sounds right, unless the mastering engineers are using it, too.
__________________
Big Altec Moving Sale!
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 07:56 PM   #1026
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
A flat DI will just sound very bright.
I think this is simply the result of the average mixing/mastering studio acoustics and the speakers they use.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 08:06 PM   #1027
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hamilton, was Ottawa (Canada)
Falling high freq response has been talked about ...

From one of Thorsten's Ultracurve EQ setup articles (2005):
GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Site - Suggested target curves and setup techniques for Pro Audio Digital Equalisers....>

I would recommend the following EQ Applications for "pleasant" sound with most modern (post mid 1960's) recordings or re-masters of older recordings:

1) Boost the range below 125Hz uniformly by 2 - 4db (depending upon taste - I use 2db) and take the sliders above 125Hz so the form a falling slope back to 0db, with 0.5db (1 step) per slider or 1.5db per octave. I personally also have 20Hz at -1db compared to 125Hz and 31.5Hz at -0.5db. This is simply to slightly limit the LF Boost.

2) Apply a similar slope (0.5db per slider / 1.5db per Octave) from 2KHz upwards, meaning -0.5db @ 2.5KHz and then on to -5db @ 20KHz. You may experiment with increasing the point where the roll off begins somewhat.

3) Put a 4db notch into the response around 2.5 - 3KHz, returning to flat at 1Khz and 6.3KHz. This is the classic "BBC Dip".

The resulting curve is what I use on a daily basis and was arrived at based on the study of the various literature and a noting down of the most often applied EQ settings. It offers a good compromise between neutrality, sweetness and pleasant sound. But feel free to vary this basic recipe to taste and experiment.


(Not sure about the 'dip' ... but the bass and high roll off ...)

Actually he talked about various high freq rolloffs from 2001 when he got his Ultracurve EQ.
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...ringer8024.htm
I think he connected it to some JBL or pro documents that talked about appropriate high freq rolloff...
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 08:18 PM   #1028
dewardh is offline dewardh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
I think this is simply the result of the average mixing/mastering studio acoustics and the speakers they use.
I don't, because I've seen (heard) it with flat mics and direct (unmixed, unequalized) capture.

Which is not to say that a lot of bad stuff doesn't happen "in the mix" as well . . . where that applies. But a "straight wire with gain" doesn't get the sound you want in your listening room (with constant DI loudspeakers) . . .
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 08:35 PM   #1029
Elias is offline Elias  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Elias's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where you live
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
I have always thought that SL claim that CD was desirable - except that his speakers aren't CD.
Eh, your speakers are not CD either. Actually your speakers have more uneven directivity in the midrange than an average 'conventional' speaker has. All objective.
__________________
Liberate yourself from the illusion of two speaker stereo triangle
Dipole Bass vs Monopole Bass Stereophonic Sound from a Single Loudspeaker 3 Speaker Linear Stereo Matrix Wavelets
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2013, 08:35 PM   #1030
dewardh is offline dewardh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pano View Post
By using the old B&K falling response. . . . I'm not sure why it sounds right
If there's no theoretical justification then the B&K curve exists because someone, somewhere, decided it "sounds" right. And you agree. But there we go again . . . with "objective" measurements referenced to a "subjective" standard.

My own experience suggests that there are a number of cooperating factors, including (matching system response to) air loss, but also including other effects of microphone placement (relative to the orchestra layout) and some particular artifacts of the way sound is reflected in small rooms . . . all things which rather generally tend to boost the high frequencies as delivered to our ears. And of course recordings are often deliberately mixed to the bright side because it is assumed that's what the (average) customer wants.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB Linkwitz Orions jrling Swap Meet 0 13th March 2010 06:26 PM
Finally finished my orions srfranci Multi-Way 5 24th July 2009 12:29 PM
My week with the Orions, or 'why do we bother' cuibono Multi-Way 56 26th October 2008 01:51 AM
Can the Dynaudio C1 be beaten by a DIY design obiwan Multi-Way 16 22nd July 2007 11:19 AM
How hard to clone the Orions? Chaucer Multi-Way 46 8th July 2005 03:01 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:46 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2