Linkwitz Orions beaten by Behringer.... what!!? - Page 20 - 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 8th February 2011, 01:09 PM   #191
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterTwister View Post
I've done listening tests before, and no 8in, even 6in woofer can be used above 1khz, it just gets unpleasantly loud.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have used 15" Drivers up to 1200 Hz and 10" drivers up to 15KHz.

Maybe it is a question of what drivers you used?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterTwister View Post
For example, I don't even need to listen to these speakers http://aetheraudio.com/specifications.html
I know they sound great with 700hz crossover. It's just my opinion, don't get upset
They likely do sound very good. But I doubt that the 700Hz crossover frequency as such is the direct cause. I would probably point to the waveguide as the main reason and note that the low crossover point is merely making best use of that waveguide loaded dome.

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 01:18 PM   #192
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radugazon View Post
MisterTwister's opinion is not a fantasy, it could be explained by the well known directivity changes strictly related to the cone diameter.
This is only valid for pistonic operation. Most drivers are not. At best I'll grant that Thiel/Accuton come CLOSE to being pistonic through their intended range, with resulting implementation difficulties out of band.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Radugazon View Post
If you don't like ka, a fast rule of thumbs is "never use a driver over 345/diameter (in meters)"
Most drivers are already no longer behaving as pistons at such frequencies, so the rule is wrong (except for Thiel/Accuton). BTW, based on that I can use a 15" (frame) driver up to 1000Hz just fine.

The problem (which may indicate where MisterTwister's problems came from) may very well be the attempt to use drivers with very stiff cones that attempt to operate pistonic across the whole intended range.

Such drivers MUST have severe breakup resonances somewhere above the intended band. In this case only extremely steep filters stand any chance to avoid this ringing to cause major issues.

For example, with only a 4th order LR filter, I suspect the low crossover of the Speakers he referenced is the highest the driver is usable, as the filter is not steep enough to attenuate the breakup peak at a few KHz enough to be inaudible, or at least not to be objectionable as extreme shoutiness...

But that is just the result of making a driver with a very stiff cone.

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 01:19 PM   #193
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by boconnor View Post
The same issue occurred to me. Some thoughts:
[LIST=1][*]The Omnisats measure fairly flat (after equalisation) from 100 Hz to 20 KHz (+/- 2db) on axis in an anechoic chamber.
Meaningless. We do not listen in an anechoic chamber.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boconnor View Post
Their speaker topology implies a good power response, with a reasonable off axis frequency response compared with the on axis response over a wide angle.
This may be so, HOWEVER they have basically zip DI (Directivity Index). ANd that is where the problem is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boconnor View Post
Given Toole's research on speakers that are judged to be accurate and preferred, such performance would be in line with speakers that produce a high quality sound field. And they sounded pretty good to me as well.
I am not Toole would agree. I certainly do not, I would say that design is one that is the polar opposite from that which is needed to give any kind of accuracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boconnor View Post
[*]I listened to some recordings with high-quality headphones and then listened to the Behringer's. They share a perception of accuracy based on the timbre that you hear when listening to close miked vocals and close miked instruments. It's the sense of things being unmasked and hearing the detail. This is of course just a straight subjective perception. But when you can listen to different recordings and close your eyes and “see" the width of the track by its placement in the front sound field (and hear it vary from recording to recording) that seems to me to be a good indicator of accuracy.
I would say that the Behringers are decent "minimum quality" designs with design features that can at least offer a reasonable level of accuracy. Their extremely low budget for drivers, electronics and enclosures mean that drastic compromises are unavoidable.

So, if the Behringers are so much better than what you had before it would seem to me more like a scathing indictment of what you where using previously (and of the theories they are based on). But that's just me.

I actually have designed Speakers that are in many ways a high-end take on the kind of basic approach also shown by the Behringers, just without the budget driven compromises and as passive speaker (not that this stopped me from using 10th order filters anyway, or from running a 10" Woofer up to 1330Hz).

On the other hand, at home I am listening to a speaker Mr. Toole could have designed (on 2nd thought, maybe not), with a 10" Woofer, 5" Midrange, 1.2" circular ribbon and first order series filters, as I have found that the only crossovers I tolerate are 0th Order, 1st Order and very high (> 8th) Order and I did not want to optimise a 10th order filter for a one off lark.

There are many ways to make speakers work okay, Behringers is one, others exist. It seems however we have found one way that does work.

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 02:28 PM   #194
diyAudio Member
 
Radugazon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sulawesi
Well said Thorsten , the ka criterion is for perfect piston...
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 07:26 PM   #195
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
..actually the DI of the omnistat isn't a problem, unless you move them close to a wall.

They just don't sound that good, but neither do they sound bad either.

Their biggest sin is compression. Turn up the volume to any reasonable level and they have that "hi fi" compressed sound +++, AND a load of harmonic distortion to "boot".

The second obvious problem is from the mid-bass reflector.

The basic idea behind the omnistat is good, but the implementation is poor - largely in an effort to keep the form factor small.
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 07:52 PM   #196
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorstenL View Post
Hi, Meaningless. We do not listen in an anechoic chamber.
Its standard practice to measure freq. response in an anechoic chamber (as you must be aware). Its part of the suite of information we use to judge loudspeakers. Of course performance in the listening space is critical and forms part of an overall judgement of the speaker. BTW, you should try it (listen to a speaker in a anechoic chamber) – it would give you an interesting experience hearing a transducer without the coloration of room reflections.

Quote:
This may be so, HOWEVER they have basically zip DI (Directivity Index). ANd that is where the problem is.
I find that surprising given their topology. Do you have a link to a source with the DI measurements?

Quote:
I am not Toole would agree. I certainly do not, I would say that design is one that is the polar opposite from that which is needed to give any kind of accuracy.
Well my reading of Toole is that on axis flat freq response is very important, as is a smooth DI. Both seem to be covered by the wave guide design of the Omnisats.

Quote:
I would say that the Behringers are decent "minimum quality" designs with design features that can at least offer a reasonable level of accuracy. Their extremely low budget for drivers, electronics and enclosures mean that drastic compromises are unavoidable.
Have you measured them? Have you heard them properly setup? Active crossovers with amps is known good engineering. I suspect you are falling into the trap of judging a product by its name, or its price.

Quote:
So, if the Behringers are so much better than what you had before it would seem to me more like a scathing indictment of what you where using previously (and of the theories they are based on). But that's just me.
Indeed, but making a judgement without listening to speakers in situ is just arrogance born of ignorance.

Quote:
I actually have designed Speakers that are in many ways a high-end take on the kind of basic approach also shown by the Behringers, just without the budget driven compromises and as passive speaker (not that this stopped me from using 10th order filters anyway, or from running a 10" Woofer up to 1330Hz).
Its sounds like you are confusing good engineering (active designs, wave guides on tweeters) with budget driven compromises (but that’s a mistake a lot of people make – its called ideology).
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 08:54 PM   #197
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by boconnor View Post



I find that surprising given their topology. Do you have a link to a source with the DI measurements?

The higher the number the more directive.

Mirage Omnistats are a radial design, and are basically non-directive (horizontally) - thus having a nearly non-existent DI number (again, horizontally).
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 02:04 AM   #198
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by boconnor View Post
Its standard practice to measure freq. response in an anechoic chamber (as you must be aware). Its part of the suite of information we use to judge loudspeakers. Of course performance in the listening space is critical and forms part of an overall judgement of the speaker. BTW, you should try it (listen to a speaker in a anechoic chamber) – it would give you an interesting experience hearing a transducer without the coloration of room reflections.
I had access to a large anechoic chamber in the 80's when I worked with a company making studio equipment. I have listened to quite a number of speaker designs under anechoic conditions. Some later also sounded good in real acoustic spaces, other did not, though they all measured quite well. So the measurement is meaningless, because it does not allow us to judge the quality of a speaker in an actual acoustic space with any accuracy.

I tend to prefer these days speakers that (above the modal region) measure well in a wide range of real acoustic spaces. This implies usually a quite large DI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boconnor View Post
I find that surprising given their topology. Do you have a link to a source with the DI measurements?
I do not need to look at measurements to know they have no DI. These Speakers are near omni's. They therefore have a DI of 0dB (horizontal), meaning they radiate the same amount of energy into all directions, leading to a heavy preponderance of reflected and thus coloured sound over direct sound.

What is worse, their DI in the vertical direction is by far less constant of course and directing the sound upwards means we will have a load of further reflections from the ceiling with a fairly short duration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boconnor View Post
Well my reading of Toole is that on axis flat freq response is very important, as is a smooth DI. Both seem to be covered by the wave guide design of the Omnisats.
My reading of Toole is that flat on axis response is important and the any changes in the off axis response must not contain large narrow band deviations. Toole sidesteps much of the issues what level of DI is approariate in normal living/listening rooms, in part because his tests where not carried out under such conditions.

As to the omnisat's, I do not see any waveguide, only diffusors, aimed at achieving the polar opposite of what waveguides do...

Quote:
Originally Posted by boconnor View Post
Have you measured them? Have you heard them properly setup?
I have heard them. Also the Samson Rubicon 8. I nearly bought the Rubicon (but the shop had no stock, could not get any stock in reasonable time and where not offering a sensible discount for beaten up shop units).

The sound of both was okay (Rubicon a little up) and I figured I would be able to get over much of the problems with the sound by "tuning" the electronics, as the basics are "sound" (pun intentional).

Quote:
Originally Posted by boconnor View Post
Active crossovers with amps is known good engineering.
That surely depends on the crossover and amps?

Quote:
Originally Posted by boconnor View Post
I suspect you are falling into the trap of judging a product by its name, or its price.
Not at all. IF I was still reviewing gear I would have probably given both the Behringer Monitors and the Samson Rubicons a very high recommendation for exceptional quality at their price-point (compared to a HiFi Amp and passive speakers for the same budget).

Quote:
Originally Posted by boconnor View Post
Indeed, but making a judgement without listening to speakers in situ is just arrogance born of ignorance.
In the case of Omni's I do NOT need to listen.

What I know about acoustics suffices to tell how they will behave. Even with the best drivers, best electronics and so on their fundamental design is one that cannot produce a realistic reproduction in normal sized listening spaces that have not been acoustically treated to resemble anechoic chambers.

Now don't get me wrong, some people like the way Omni's sound and present the music (some people even like B*se 9o1's) and that is a personal choice, down to taste and preference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boconnor View Post
Its sounds like you are confusing good engineering (active designs, wave guides on tweeters) with budget driven compromises (but that’s a mistake a lot of people make – its called ideology).
Not at all. You may wish to take out the drivers and analyse them regarding distortion, thermal compression etc. and then compare them to the industry leaders in their group. You may wish to apply accelerometers to the enclosures and see how much "panel talk" there is. You may wish to measure the electronics and also perhaps use drive the actual drivers and cabs from a set of higher quality amplifiers.

All these things will illustrate where compromises in performance have been made to keep costs low and how the may impact the subjective perceived quality.

That said, if you gave me the money it costs to buy a pair of Behringer's to build a pair of active speakers, DIY myself, I doubt I could do better. But if you gave me a much larger budget...

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 02:14 AM   #199
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottG View Post
..actually the DI of the omnistat isn't a problem, unless you move them close to a wall.
Define "close".

I would say "close" is any distance that causes reflections that fall within the haas window (around 10m distance or less for the reflection to cover from speaker to wall to listner), as these will not be heard as "reverb", but integrated with the main axis sound and will show up as colorations to the direct sound, more so while listening in the far- and mid-field, less so in the near-field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottG View Post
The basic idea behind the omnistat is good, but the implementation is poor - largely in an effort to keep the form factor small.
I am really not sure the basic is good or bad. It depends on what you wish to achieve. They are very good at maximising the negative impact of room reflections over the direct sound. If that is what you wish to achieve they are nearly as good as B*se 9o1's.

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 09:31 AM   #200
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorstenL View Post
In the case of Omni's I do NOT need to listen.

What I know about acoustics suffices to tell how they will behave. Even with the best drivers, best electronics and so on their fundamental design is one that cannot produce a realistic reproduction in normal sized listening spaces that have not been acoustically treated to resemble anechoic chambers
If that is a theory concerning omni-directional speakers not being able to create a realistic sound space with good phantom sources in normal listening rooms (your "realistic reproduction") then there are some Linkwitz Pluto owners you should talk with who may have a different perspective -if you're open to some empirical exploration.
  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 03:58 PM.


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