Linkwitz Orions beaten by Behringer.... what!!?

The original test was comparing apples to oranges to strawberries.
None of those speakers would come on top on every aspect.
And I think they were focusing mainly on acoustic staging or sth like that, weren't they?
Many speakers seem impressive at some aspect at the very first listen.
IMO, what makes a best speaker vs a good speaker becomes obvious after longer listening; lack of listening fatigue.
That is why I like open baffles and electrostat/amt tweeters.
And the opposite of the spectrum is boxes, metal domes and compression drivers.
Mind you I have severe tinnutus, so a pinch of salt there.
The originator of this thread is Gainphile. After the mentioned test he himself experimented with CD designs and came out with observations vs open baffles.
I think his current beloved speaker is very similar to latest SL design.
 
I wouldn't call it it BS or Fluff, perhaps a little ornate a description but I think the message is simple.

A speaker should be able to (accurately re-create) trick you into thinking you are, e.g. sitting at a concert hall listening to a live Orchestra or listening to a Choir or what ever music you listen to.

A speaker shouldn’t impart any sound signature of it’s own, it should accurately re-create the sound of a violin or piano. It annoys me when people describe speakers as warm or clinical, the fact that anyone can even observe this shows that the speaker has failed at being faithful.

I don’t have a problem with SL charging for speaker build plans, I sure don’t go to work for free, I need to eat and put a roof over my head.





More subjective BS:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SL
"The brain's working suggests how to design a loudspeaker so that it can withdraw attention from the loudspeaker as the source of sound and the listening room as the venue, thus leaving an aural scene, an illusion floating in front of the listener."

...pure fluff.
 
Ex-Moderator R.I.P.
Joined 2005
distribution and copying etc may be forbidden by the agreement, but noone can forbid you to give the original plans away, its rubbish, sorry

one could argue about 'good conduct' etc, but since no speaker have been built from these plans, they are still ok to use, right ? I mean, a set of plans allows to build one set of speakers, and have been payed for, or what ?
 
ABX listening test, my friend. The gold standard.

I've no problem with an ABX condition for testing (..makes a lot of sense). At the end of the day though it's still just one measure in an attempt to add objectivity to what is still a subjective test (or groups of testing actually).

Again, it's yet another area where you are placing a substantial bit of *faith*. The rest of the conditions for the test (..though to a large degree on the overall design as "spec'ed" by SL), need to also be very carefully reviewed for effect.

IMO, most of these sorts of "tests" simply do not have the controls necessary for any real scientific validity, and the ABX condition is a half-@ss'd measure to try and get there. (..a spread of Spackle on wall that's falling apart.) That it's published in the AES really doesn't mean much - a poor test is still a poor test (peer reviewed and published or not).

That of course doesn't mean that it doesn't have validity - I like seeing the comparison and results, but the key point is that it's not something that should be relied upon significantly.



I like the skepticism, but what you have really done (as you've referenced), is switched "flavors of Kool-Aid".
 
Last edited:
AX tech editor
Joined 2002
Paid Member
I think it's being referred to that that's because they are open baffle.

Well I though by his term "fighting themselves" he was onto something, not apparently.

BTW The illusion idea is very valid - stereo is the biggest illusion of all.
Deluding yourself into thinking that there's a singer in front of you, while it's really only two boxes left and right, hilarious! ;)

jan
 
The simple solution is to ask . . . he's not an ogre, after all. The "agreement" (and it's explicitly stated on the plans) is "may not be passed on" . . . but that's pretty clearly for "use". If someone bought the plans "by mistake" and has no intention of building anything based on them something might possibly be worked out . . . there is nothing lost by asking.

People who have built ORION have sold them . . . the "policy" seems to be that the plans transfer with the speakers . . .

2 options: I ask SL for his opinion on this, or Mason sends his plans back and gets a refund. He clearly has not made a copy for himself and is not keen on going any further with the build, he should be able to get his money back.
I was planning on buying the plans later in the spring anyway..

I feel this thread is getting a little bit ridiculous to be honest, no offense! The fact being.. has anybody replaced an Orion, or Nao, or any decently designed dipole with a Behringer in the long term, or even a Genelec? I know a few have done it for a Summa, and at least one person with a Danley Synergy, but hey, that's a different beast!
 
Last edited:
No irony , no godlike situation , i still have to get up and push the on button , wait a minute, well except when i call one of the kids to do it ...:rofl:


glad you responded the way you did. Most would have gotten all huffy. well done.

What i thought i had conveyed was what works for me, i hope it did not come across as what should work for you or that you have to do it my way.

No, it did not come across that way, else I would not have said a thing.

Now that you have cleared it up, all is good.

I have heard what you have suggested (deQx) , i have friends who swear by it and its been my experience , such a setup improves a bad situation , but in reality does not match a good situation ... :)

"all is good'...so much so that I feel no need to 'defend' the deqx. If you have not been convinced then so be it. That's fine. All is fine when it stays within truthful reporting of someones own personal reactions.

Extrapolating beyond that is when it gets murky.

IMO Adding more stages of electronics to anything is going backwards, enuff was added in the recording production stage , as minimum as possibly in the playback is what sounds best to me , others may disagree , so be it , thus the subjective nature of audio reproduction ..


Yeah, this is an interesting one. I kinda chuckle to myself when you get the die hard audiophile saying that he has to have his 'cellos sound like real cellos', has the test discs he uses...but at the same time he has NO idea of just how much processing has gone into making the recording.

"we don't want the lower registers of the cello to clash with the (insert here) so we eq in the mixing process the bottom of the cellos, raise the mids a little and then add a bit of top end sparkle to them. All so it sounds good in the mix.

Yet to HIM, he thinks he is listening to this pure unadulterated cello sound.

They frankly have little idea. And they do not want to learn.

I once organised a session with a recording engineer, fifty bucks a head (limited attendees) and the idea was to watch a live act in the studio, watch the recording process, then go into the suite and see the steps from there to a disc.

WHO put their hands up to learn about it??? All of us objectivists, that's who. Not a single one of the moaning audiophiles came along, the ones with the constant refrain of 'oh the recordings are so bad nowadays'.

They wanted to stay at home and whinge behind a keyboard.

You forgot to expand on the 'orions are poorly designed from the get go'. I meant it when I said I was curious.

Can you explain?
 
Yeah, this is an interesting one. I kinda chuckle to myself when you get the die hard audiophile saying that he has to have his 'cellos sound like real cellos', has the test discs he uses...but at the same time he has NO idea of just how much processing has gone into making the recording.

Since you mentioned Cello's and audiophiles, I am going to assume that you are talking about a classical recording. You would really be surprised to find that many classical recording have extremely small, or no processing at all except tweaking the balance. If it is a large work like Mahler or Bruckner, there MAYBE some very light compression on the overall balance to make it listenable in our homes which have a very high ambient level.

"we don't want the lower registers of the cello to clash with the (insert here) so we eq in the mixing process the bottom of the cellos, raise the mids a little and then add a bit of top end sparkle to them. All so it sounds good in the mix.

I have never found an occasion where I had this conversation in my head. I have recorded over 250 live performances in my career, and I never use EQ in my mixes. I carefully pick my microphones, carefully place them, and time align them if there is more than three or four on the stage. If you pick the right microphone for the radiation characteristics of each acoustical instrument, EQ is not really needed.

Yet to HIM, he thinks he is listening to this pure unadulterated cello sound.

They frankly have little idea. And they do not want to learn.

Then you have the other side of the coin. There are some that believe that using no compression or processing will make a better recording. Well it doesn't, it makes them rough and unrefined. The more instruments you put on the stage, the more dynamic range that will be on the recording. No processing or compression works great with just a few musicians on the stage, but a 80-100 piece orchestra is a different animal. Ever try to get the full volume of an orchestra in your living room when you pipeline is only two speakers big?
 
hi soundtrackmixer (john posted while I typed this but I did not quote you)

I 'deliberately' left out a usual qualifier I use..'for sure, there are those small audiophile labels that have straight mic to disc stuff'...I'll take your word on how most classical recordings are made.

Even then, taking your mahler example, I remember when I saw the resurrection live (I had no idea mahler called for this) they had the trumpets off stage, out in the hall actually. Maybe now I know I could identify that on recordings...but oh my god, what an amazing effect it was! Other worldly, surreal, haunting.

I did not notice them walk out or prepare, just this amazing sound appeared. It is possible they do not attempt that on recordings (?) but if they did, just shows how far we have to go with recording tech.

Anyway, knowing the guy I have in my head, TBH he was talking more about 2cellos.

I just happened to pick 'cellos' as it is a bit of a cliche (over here) with these dudes. The entire point being 'in most cases they have NO idea whether or not processing of some description has occurred'.

And by not knowing that, yet taking as gospel that it is an unadulterated reference sound can kinda skew things. These are the sort of blokes who use a two way with a five inch woofer..yet reckon they can reproduce the weight, gravity and authority of the cello in the room.

Not bloody likely in my book.

In any case, I was 'taking to task' the common perception (usually amongst audiophile snobs) that 'hah, most recording people are clueless and earless'. My personal opinion is that, by far, most recordings are better than most systems ability to reproduce them.

There are always exceptions of course, there are the truly horrendous recordings. But, I feel the usual audiophile whinge is (and they do not have the slightest clue that this could be the case) simply them hearing the limitations of their system.
 
Sound ,

Still would like to procure a copy of your large scale recordings , please advise were to purchase.

Ohh,

I know someone with a system that comes close to the scale of a live orchestra , his custom room and system does come close , of course it's still a Memorex moment..

:)

Since you mentioned Cello's and audiophiles, I am going to assume that you are talking about a classical recording. You would really be surprised to find that many classical recording have extremely small, or no processing at all except tweaking the balance. If it is a large work like Mahler or Bruckner, there MAYBE some very light compression on the overall balance to make it listenable in our homes which have a very high ambient level.



I have never found an occasion where I had this conversation in my head. I have recorded over 250 live performances in my career, and I never use EQ in my mixes. I carefully pick my microphones, carefully place them, and time align them if there is more than three or four on the stage. If you pick the right microphone for the radiation characteristics of each acoustical instrument, EQ is not really needed.



Then you have the other side of the coin. There are some that believe that using no compression or processing will make a better recording. Well it doesn't, it makes them rough and unrefined. The more instruments you put on the stage, the more dynamic range that will be on the recording. No processing or compression works great with just a few musicians on the stage, but a 80-100 piece orchestra is a different animal. Ever try to get the full volume of an orchestra in your living room when you pipeline is only two speakers big?
 
Obviously you have to rely on more than just the speakers, the talent of recording engineer and how well the tracks are mastered, but if your speakers aren't up to the job then why worry about that?

What do you find amusing, that people don't know how much processing is involved or that they want "a cello to sound like a cello", surely that makes someone a Musicphile?
And by the way you are a member of a diyAudio forum so that probably makes you an audiophile?




Yeah, this is an interesting one. I kinda chuckle to myself when you get the die hard audiophile saying that he has to have his 'cellos sound like real cellos', has the test discs he uses...but at the same time he has NO idea of just how much processing has gone into making the recording.
 
Last edited:
What I don't understand is why certain people are threatened by an objective science and engineering based perspective. There's not even an interest to have a rational discussion in regard to the AES Report.

But I certainly empathize with people who make emotional investments in their entrenched beliefs, irrespective of logic. It's the Human condition. In the end I guess certain held DIY Audio beliefs are akin to politics and religion.

Hopefully you realise that SL. himself proceeded to buy the Behringer and do his own comparison. :)

He mentioned positive things about the Behringer too (sighted test).

About making money I hardly think so, even his introduction of 521 surely kills some Orion sales from wood Artistry?