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

[ScottG]

Originally Posted by Melo theory

Scott, where did everybody go?
Wait, I'll get them back........
The Orion sucks! The behringer rocks!

It's a Friday night man! My date canceled early.

It's particularly interesting going back and reading this thread.

Elias was the one that mentioned tweeter use and interest in the IMP. I suspect most people are more interested in the "tried and true" formula that measures moderately well and costs a fortune. I'm in that category as well, but I also like other approaches - in part because it's just different, and also because stereo is so d@mn flawed on it's own.

[Melo theory]

Yes, we can always count on Elias to get us back on track
His views more closely align with mine than anybody else on this forum.
After all he started the ambiophonics thread......my favorite subject

[scott wurcer]

Originally Posted by greenm01

$358 for a pair of Behringers that provides an equally, if not better, Audio Scene.

Amazing, this includes all the amplification! Probably nothing but stuff folks here would think excremental.

[ScottG]

Originally Posted by scott wurcer

Amazing, this includes all the amplification! Probably nothing but stuff folks here would think excremental.

It measures rather well also! (..or at least the nearly identical non-active version does.)

I've mentioned it and some of the other "Truth" monitors to others on a budget. At a certain point DIY is a fair bit more expensive than some commercial offerings, this is one of those "points".

Of course it's worthless as a hobby.


Also, others have *not* liked it. But it's still a potential option to explore.

[scott wurcer]

Originally Posted by ScottG

It measures rather well also! (..or at least the nearly identical non-active version does.)

Do the electronics actually degrade the measured performance? Not clear on what you mean. I too have friends that need cost effective recommendations, SY's Behringer DAC/DSP crossover sounded fine to me (I think it had Jan's mod though).

[a_tewinkel]

Originally Posted by scott wurcer

Do the electronics actually degrade the measured performance? Not clear on what you mean.

If I remember correctly, the active version measures even slightly better. It also has features like treble adjustment and boundary gain compensation. Basically it's more or less a cheap and smaller copy of a Genelec 1032a.

[scott wurcer]

Originally Posted by a_tewinkel

If I remember correctly, the active version measures even slightly better. It also has features like treble adjustment and boundary gain compensation. Basically it's more or less a cheap and smaller copy of a Genelec 1032a.

Thanks guys, one facet of an open mind is to accept the possibility that these kind of products can exist.

[greenm01]

Originally Posted by ScottG

Of course it's worthless as a hobby.

Right on. I'm saving my money and buying a nice guitar. peace.

[john k...]

Originally Posted by ScottG

There is a bit of a misnomer with the Behringer that almost everyone, including SL, makes:

Narrow dispersion.

The fact is that the Behringer doesn't really have the narrow directivity pattern everyone thinks (at least within 120 degrees of forward radiation).

Within +/- 30 degrees it's exceedingly similar in pressure except for a minor "dip" between 2.5 kHz and 4.5 kHz:

http://www.zaphaudio.com/temp/B2031P...5-30-45-60.gif

At 45 degrees the pressure loss is about what you would expect in most designs except for that 2-5 kHz region (..where some added diffraction from the tweeter often occurs). At 60 Hz most of the top two octaves probably has greater dispersion than most normal designs.

The Orion almost certainly has a moderately similar response to Nao II (which can be seen here when placing your cursor on the Nao Note Polar Spectrum vs. Frequency plot:

NaO Note Details

With the exception of the "blooming" between 1 kHz and 6 kHz, the Orion will almost certainly be *more* directive (overall) in the frontal lobe than either the IMP or the Behringer.

While the Orion and NaO II are similar the blooming, which is eliminated in the Note and Note II, is very significant and is part of the reason for the fairly dramatic difference in sound. It has long been a goal for any typical 2 or 3 way speaker design to ensure a smooth transition between midrange and tweeter. This results in more constant directivity and more uniform power response. This was always absent and a flaw in the Orion. While I recognized the problem (Tweeter integration), my attempt to address it by pushing the crossover higher than that of the Orion in the original NaO was of limited success, which is why I started working on the NaO Note almost immediately after the update to the NaO II. The idea of constant directivity is reasonable. But the miss in the Orion (and to a lesser, but still significant extent the NaO II) was because, IMO, SL was worried about holding constant directivity at the wrong end of the frequency scale. Constant directivity from a couple of hundred Hz up makes sense. Below that it's all room modes and dipole woofers are just a form of multiple low frequency sources. They don't really offer much benefit for modal response in the front to back direction over other formats and while they may not excite cross room modes to the same degree as monopole sources, any stereo system with symmetrically placed woofers will result in cancellation of many of those cross room modes.

[markus76]

Originally Posted by a.wayne

Yes but who determines good sound ... Pano ? Green? ....

The artists (mixer/producer/mastering).