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

[ScottG]

Originally Posted by greenm01

Nothing personal here. I'm not even suggesting the designs are inadequate; I know the Orion/LX521 and Pluto (sitting in my living room) sound good. But, there is no audio Holy Grail, stereo is a compromise, and the Orion/LX521 are not the end-all-be-all as advertised.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan


Of course, and that validates my point in regard to commercial interests. Lets not hide behind the guise of benevolent benefactor to audio.

Much of the technical literature posted on SL's website, specifically in regard to the superiority of the open baffle dipole, is subjective hand-waiving. Last time I checked I didn't notice any objective Orion/LX521 measurements posted.

The AES Report contracts this statement.


More subjective BS:


...pure fluff.

I'm sure many naive audiophiles have fallen for this language. I sure did... but I'm thankful I did a little homeowork before dropping several thousand dollars on drivers and outdated analog crossovers and filters.


Well, for the $325 (two instruction manuals) I could have purchased the Behringer Truth monitors - or more cool MiniDSP gear.

You do realize that you have just gone from one extreme to another, now placing great faith in the Clark article. (..more than a little ironic IMO. ) It too is also subjective - if trying slightly harder to obtain those subjective assessments *objectively*.


Honestly the man is just trying to share his passion with the rest of the world, and maybe make some money doing it. The intent is obvious - passion 1st, making money a far distant "2nd".

As far as "Holy Grail" and "extraordinary claims" - that is base hyperbole. So too is a claim from SL that dipoles are "inherently superior". In fact even a cursory reading of his website provides more than enough detail that SL is quite flexible in regard to loudspeaker design (..with of course the Pluto as the most obvious example).

The 2 quotes you have used are not extraordinary. In fact Toole has been saying something very similar for a little more than 2 decades.

[terry j]

Originally Posted by a.wayne

@Terry J,

Obvious we are exposed to different experiences, are you disputing or asking? not sure from your response.

my apologies for not being clear.

I was 'disputing' any broad statement like 'eq will damage dynamics and image size' (or whatever the exact words were)

In fact almost as a matter of principle I object to virtually ANY broad statement.

I do however, as I said, respect that that has been your experience.

Please name the active setup you are discussing, no need to throw out academic situations as to setup and alignment. As to the orions, they were poorly designed from first sight, i did not need to hear them, i did the due diligence on that one 25 years ago, but this is audio, so good to me , may not be good to you.

As mentioned, that it is an objection to a too broad generalization, then no real need to be specific about any given system. I will however simply say I use two deqx units, and employ needed eq, and can assure you that never has been uttered any statement like 'poor dynamics or poor imaging' (whatever the exact words were.)

Quite the opposite in fact.

On a side note, I too heard the orions after reading everywhere about 'how close they come to the real thing'. I was decidedly unimpressed. I mean they did not make you run from the room screaming, but I sure did think and wonder what the fuss was.

I have since heard other dipole designs, and think they simply 'are not for me'. In some ways I guess I can see the attraction, if you like diffuse vague sound.

What I certainly did not do was attribute the 'blame' to the use of eq. I'll take your word that they are poorly designed, in fact it would be interesting if you expanded on that.

Poor design as a dipole?? Poor design because it is dipole? I'd like to get your thoughts on your statement.

I can respect what others like, once it is not passed off as the only way ....

Well yes, there ya go. If we take as equally prescriptive a statement NOT to do something as a statement TO DO something, then now you'd understand why I responded to your post.

Cause you see, it came across to me that you were passing off as the only way to have a system is NO eq.

Ironic really.

After all, here is your passing off worded in a different way

My perspective is that eq does not work, it may make a bad speaker sound acceptable, but it will never match a good speaker.Behringers are bad, Genilic's are OK, as pro monitors, yet like the venerable NS10's studios live by them because most who work their dont have ears, they work with what they know and what works for them, it's the difference between a guitar player and one taught to play the guitar..

regards,

In addition to you telling us the 'only way' I find it interesting that you have a back up...most of them don't have ears.

What's it like up there in the clouds all by your godlike self?

I really do suggest you at least keep open as an option the possibility that an eq'd system can at least match what you call a 'good speaker'. Admittedly I must admit that by using the deqx it is possible we are moving past what could be called 'mere eq'.

To that degree your observations might have a tad more merit than I have conceded yet.

So, is there NO situation where any sort of eq could make an improvement? What about putting your perfect speaker in a room. There could be no circumstances ever that eq could help?

[picowallspeaker]

Originally Posted by greenm01

Much of the technical literature posted on SL's website, specifically in regard to the superiority of the open baffle dipole, is subjective hand-waiving. Last time I checked I didn't notice any objective Orion/LX521 measurements posted.

The AES Report contracts this statement.
"...that the loudspeaker's radiation pattern and placement in the room are more important than the acoustics of the room."

More subjective BS:

"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.

I'm sure many naive audiophiles have fallen for this language. I sure did... but I'm thankful I did a little homeowork before dropping several thousand dollars on drivers and outdated analog crossovers and filters.


Well, for the $325 (two instruction manuals) I could have purchased the Behringer Truth monitors - or more cool MiniDSP gear.

I'm with Wayne:
DSP kills
in whichever way

[picowallspeaker]

Originally Posted by terry j

Poor design as a dipole?? Poor design because it is dipole? I'd like to get your thoughts on your statement.

Why not ? It could be, as it places two different images ( to mimic SL's aural
language ) one being the negation of the other, so the brain will accept
the right one and reject the wrong one.

[lolo]

Originally Posted by ScottG

You do realize that you have just gone from one extreme to another, now placing great faith in the Clark article. (..more than a little ironic IMO. )

Honestly the man is just trying to share his passion with the rest of the world, and maybe make some money doing it. The intent is obvious - passion 1st, making money a far distant "2nd".

+1

19 "audiophiles"?
Ok, it's published in the AES, but hey, it's not the bible either! You have to see through it!
Did you see SL's own tests after the results? Were is your own sense of critic?

I would be surprised if the money made pays off all the expenses that goes with a new design. How many drivers have been bought and tested in the last 20 years? Naive, yes, indeed, the rule being to always check by yourself. 150$ a lot of money for a licence? You must be joking really, go and visit an audio shop and get some sense of reality.. Remember what you pay for with SL's designs is mostly superior drivers. I really do not understand your anger. You must have some french roots to moan in such way!

As for the Orions being a "bad design from the start", how many other dipoles designs where built and compared with to come with such an assessment? The only thing that maybe one could argue, is that better could be made with less money, and we all know what the result is now.

I suspect a lot of negative comments come from people that are just looking for something else in music reproduction. HT style music has unfortunately made it's way there I think.. I just cannot listen to a double bass on something else than a dipole, sorry guys. That's my taste because I know the real sound of instruments and have been used to it.
One audiophile came to my place to audition the Orions last summer, I started with a solo violin that did not put him at ease, he found the sound not "mellow" enough, but when asked admitted he never heard a real violin before. Maybe this is just an anecdote, maybe not..
Go to a live concert and try to pack 120 musicians playing dynamically in your room with the Behringer and report back, I am very curious.

The recording anyway makes or brakes it, whatever the speaker..

[terry j]

Originally Posted by picowallspeaker

Why not ? It could be, as it places two different images ( to mimic SL's aural
language ) one being the negation of the other, so the brain will accept
the right one and reject the wrong one.

Have no idea, twas not me that said they were poorly designed from the start.

[greenm01]

Originally Posted by ScottG

You do realize that you have just gone from one extreme to another, now placing great faith in the Clark article. (..more than a little ironic IMO. ) It too is also subjective - if trying slightly harder to obtain those subjective assessments *objectively*.

ABX listening test, my friend. The gold standard.

[markus76]

"Science is religion for intellectuals"? That's deception.

[greenm01]

Originally Posted by lolo

Did you see SL's own tests after the results? Were is your own sense of critic?

Yes, and that was one's person's subjective interpretation of his own equipment in his own living room, all by himself. Definitely not an objective evaluation. Also notice that in no circumstance is the AES report explicitly mentioned in his evaluation, nor a link to the document. In a double blind test I doubt SL (nor anyone else) would be able to, without a doubt, distinguish between his own design and the Behringer.

Originally Posted by lolo

I really do not understand your anger. You must have some french roots to moan in such way!

Not anger, just disappointment. Again, there is no personal malice.

Originally Posted by lolo

As for the Orions being a "bad design from the start".. I just cannot listen to a double bass on something else than a dipole, sorry guys

After further study I have learned that the dipole is not optimal, particularly in regard to power output. It's a mathematical fact that a dipole radiates much less energy than a monopole. From "Acoustics and Audio Technology" by Mendel Kleiner, equation 1.92:

Wd = Wm*((k*b)^2)/3

Wd = dipole power
Wm = monopole power
k = wave number (2*pi/wavelength)
b = distance between dipole point sources, oscillating at the same frequency but 180 degrees out of phase.

[lolo]

Well, seems like a lost battle. Go with the 19 "audiophiles" conclusion then..

Any others throwing their LX or Nao away for a Behringer? :-)