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

Right-o, AES report incoming. I'll report back in detail.

I'm all for ABX, but there's a lot of factors to consider when speakers are involved, and a single data-point (its reliability albeit improved by the number of listeners involved) is certainly not proof that Mr. Linkwitz is completely insane. Weren't the differences noted below the threshold of statistical significance anyway?
 
I don't have the report, but of course we cannot separate the directivity pattern and the room geometry/speaker placement. Different types of speakers need different placement. Nevertheless, some directivity patterns are more versatile than others and some types of placement can be more practical/common than others.
 
Everybody is comparing the Behringer to the Orion.....
What about the loudspeaker that actually took first place in the challenge?
That crazy IMP!
When I thought about this, John k's statement of the audiophiles preconceived familiarity with the box speakers sound doesn't hold water.....(although John, I was going to make the same statement myself)

But when all is said and done, you can't trust anybody with vested interest. That goes for SL, this study, corporations, government the federal reserve....ect.
So, trust your own perception.
 
Because the AES Report was buried, and I didn't discover this thread until WELL AFTER I had ALREADY purchased the plans. Also note that gainphile did not link to the actual report itself, but rather a summary PowerPoint presentation hosted somewhere on the web. I had to go digging for the AES Report (and pay for that too).

If Mr. Linkwitz had been completely open and honest, and provided a reference to the report on his website, then it would not be an issue. If I had purchased the plans with full disclosure then that would have been my educated prerogative.

Why should I be on the defensive now? Maybe we should be taking a close look and analyzing (and providing criticism) Siegfried Linkwitz's audiophile hyperbole instead. It's nothing personal, but when it comes to down to money in exchange for pseudoscientific Intellectual Property it tends to spoil the DIY fun and ethos.

Notice that the AES report was issued in November 2010. TWO YEARS later Linkwitz Lab is still making exaggerated claims in regard to the importance of radiation patters, the superiority of the open baffle dipole design, etc.... and selling expensive commercial kits and construction plans to naive, uneducated buyers.


This is getting tiresome. It's becoming a "p!ssy rant" against SL on your part, all because you somehow think your are under some great deception, and "lost" some money doing so. You've already as much stated that there is no "holy grail", but you complain when you apparently thought there was one (despite SL never having made that claim), and now no longer do. There is a simple description for that behavior: whining. ;) Now that may not be an accurate conclusion, but from reading your continued posts in this thread it appears to be accurate.

The AES article in question:

This "report" isn't buried anymore than any other AES article. Moreover, a simple Google search (Linkwitz Orion) displays this thread within a few pages. Anyone who can do a simple search and is that concerned about the issue could have that information without forehand knowledge of the article. (..and if you want to bitch about the AES pricing - that's on them, not SL.)

SL not only provides mention of the report's proceedings, but does his own comparison. He goes into a fair amount of detail discussing the differences he found, and in some respects where the AES "report" was lacking.

Is it "buried"? Not anymore than 95% of the all the other information he provides.

Should it be "front and center"? From any reasonable commercial perspective, hell NO! He is in fact selling/licensing a product/design, and he isn't stating he is utterly "altruistic". Go back and look at the "Terms and Conditions" page, it's obvious. You don't like that he charges money? Then you shouldn't have spent the money originally. ;) Frankly you have a much better claim against the AES charging as much as they do for articles, and who do represent themselves as altruistic.

The thing is, SL is such a nice person that I believe that if he honestly thought the Behringer was providing better performance (not "value"), then he would stop providing all of his designs, and would work instead on improving a different design that would better the Behringer. But he obviously doesn't believe that and you can actually read some of the reasoning behind that assessment so that you can make your own choice.

Again though, that would actually require *reading* the information on his site. Not reading *some* of the "front and center" SUMMARY (which is obviously also marketing) and concluding that it's "pseudoscience". :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Because the AES Report was buried, and I didn't discover this thread until WELL AFTER I had ALREADY purchased the plans. Also note that gainphile did not link to the actual report itself, but rather a summary PowerPoint presentation hosted somewhere on the web. I had to go digging for the AES Report (and pay for that too).

If Mr. Linkwitz had been completely open and honest, and provided a reference to the report on his website, then it would not be an issue. If I had purchased the plans with full disclosure then that would have been my educated prerogative.

Why should I be on the defensive now? Maybe we should be taking a close look and analyzing (and providing criticism) Siegfried Linkwitz's audiophile hyperbole instead. It's nothing personal, but when it comes to down to money in exchange for pseudoscientific Intellectual Property it tends to spoil the DIY fun and ethos.

Notice that the AES report was issued in November 2010. TWO YEARS later Linkwitz Lab is still making exaggerated claims in regard to the importance of radiation patters, the superiority of the open baffle dipole design, etc.... and selling expensive commercial kits and construction plans to naive, uneducated buyers.

Well, I would trust my ears before what read in an AES Journal paper.

As for Linkwitz labs making exaggerated claims and selling to the naive, that's capitalism for you. Buyer beware. I find it strange to be defending SL because I agree, as I posted earlier, that 90% of what is on SL site is audio hype and 1/2 truths. But what marketing isn't. I mean, you read it on the net so its true? You read it in the AES journal so it's true? Sl said it so it's true? SL wove a wide web when he introduce the Orion with his "followers" bashing a path to audio success. So what? Again, as I have said for years there is no reason to be a follower. Think for yourself. Every audio store on the planet sells to the naive, and the naive don't help themselves by pretending to know what the salesman is talking about or being talked into believing they hear something that the actually don't. I mean, now many times does a naive buyer say yes, I hear, that just be cause he has been told there is a difference and he is too embarrassed (or stupid) to say he doesn't. I have to say in my audio youth I was never afraid to say I don't hear it. But then point out a real difference that I did hear as ask the sales person why he did not hear what I was pointing out, only to be looked at with a cold stare. How many stupid naive buyers end up with $5000 amp because they were told it sounds different than the $500 amp they were originally interested it. For God sake, if you can't hear the difference don't spend the money just to prove you that dumb.


When the Orion introduce it took me about a month to point out a number of potential flaws or weak points in the design. When I finally heard the Orion it became apparent that the things I pointed out were accurate, and listening revealed there were other problems. Yep, the supporters just insisted I had no idea what I was talking about. Now, since just about every issue I noted has been addressed in the various updates to the Orion, it's hard to argue that I was just bashing SL design.

But all that aside, you apparently made the choice to be a follower and laid out the money to purchase not one but 3 SL speaker plans sets. Who's to blame for that? And no matter what faults the Orion and other SL designs might have, they certainly remain better than most speakers.

The real value of the AES paper was to Behringer who ended up selling a lot of speakers because of it. I wonder how many people who bought those speakers are still listening to them?
 
You've already as much stated that there is no "holy grail", but you complain when you apparently thought there was one (despite SL never having made that claim), and now no longer do.

I don't like to get personal but I think this is kinda true.

And I think there is lot's of theoretical information on SL's site that is useful for DIYers, which he shares for free.
 
..What about the loudspeaker that actually took first place in the challenge?
That crazy IMP!..

But when all is said and done, you can't trust anybody with vested interest. That goes for SL, this study, corporations, government the federal reserve....ect.
So, trust your own perception.


Yup, discussing the IMP would be far more interesting.


Actually I think you can overall trust in others, most people aren't out to lie (even if perhaps most everyone makes small lies all the time).

It more a matter of *RELIANCE*, and particularly the degree of that reliance without personal verification.

EX. I think that you can trust that everything SL's has written on his site he believes in, or believed in at the time he had written it. (..minor exceptions might include legalese.) Some of it on a comparative basis may be somewhat *exaggerated*, but the underlying belief is almost certainly there.

Now should you RELY on that information in all or in part, and if so - to what extent?
 
Yup, discussing the IMP would be far more interesting.


Actually I think you can overall trust in others, most people aren't out to lie (even if perhaps most everyone makes small lies all the time).

It more a matter of *RELIANCE*, and particularly the degree of that reliance without personal verification.

EX. I think that you can trust that everything SL's has written on his site he believes in, or believed in at the time he had written it. (..minor exceptions might include legalese.) Some of it on a comparative basis may be somewhat *exaggerated*, but the underlying belief is almost certainly there.

Now should you RELY on that information in all or in part, and if so - to what extent?

Yes, you are 100% correct.
I do trust that people believe in what they are doing. When I say trust in your perception, that includes your own perception of theories that others have stated. I agree with a lot of what SL has proposed, and I differ on some.
One of the problems is that if SL has vindicated even power and polar response through the use of dipoles or omni's for this long, it would be very detrimental to him and his followers if he all of a sudden said "nah, controlled dispersion through waveguides and horns is more realistic" !
Not that this is the case with him, it's just an example.
I mean, such a complicated speaker using active crossovers and op amps sure would be a hard sell to audiophiles, especially back when the Orion was designed...never mind the pheonix and the Beethoven!
 
Errr, Tongue in cheek sarc gents .......... :rofl:



No, it's not. A dipole with a delayed rear wave is a cardioid.

No.

Monopole:

attachment.php


Dipole:

attachment.php


Cardioid:

attachment.php
 
Is there really a point to this thread? That the Orion had flaws from the get go isn't exactly news. I pointed out several of them when it was first introduce. Some have been addressed over time. Some are inherent in the design (low tweeter x-o point leading to excessive divergence from dipole radiation above the x-o point). I addressed some of the issues in the original NaO design later in the original NaO Note took it further. Today we have the Note II and the LX521 which both follow the original Note concept. The Note II and LX521 both address the flaws on the Orion and are remarkable similar. They are both superior designs to the Orion and would likely fair differently in any comparative tests.

I will add one thing about such test. Regardless of the tests, if the subjects are used to listen to convectional box speakers then even in a blind test it is probably likely that they will have a build in bias (subconscious) to box type speakers because they will recognize the sound as familiar. Since dipoles will typically sound very different it is likely that they would be discounted as they would stand out and under such tests human psychology suggest that this deviation for the generally more familiar sound of a box system (the norm) would trigger a "fault" response.

It's time to move on here. As usual the discussion leads nowhere. Audio is never about perfection though some would like you to believe it is. It's about personal preference. If I like inaccurate, boosted bass or glaring highs who is anybody to tell me I'm wrong?

Baffle design and layout is much worst John... :)

Most energy a dipole radiates into the room does only one thing, it masks low level details. Dipoles are a sledgehammer approach not too far from a Bose 901. Why do you think Linkwitz found the Pluto to sound similar to a dipole?

Reflections for added spaciousness and realism should come from only a few distinct locations in order to maintain clarity. In this regard I'd think a toed out cardioid is more desirable than a dipole or omni.

LOL.... Good rum markus , I love it, keep on thinking ... :)

Firstly the Orion is not dipole in the highs................... :)

Secondly,

While i do agree most dipole's mask, being dipole alone is not what mask details, mostly single source xrta wide sounding board types do. Multiple drivers, good Baffle design, xover alignment and room reflection control is very critical when designing...

Big Sound panels are not the way for imaging and details ... ;)

I prefer Tchaikovsky to Beethoven,.. Absolutely !

The Stones to the Beatles, YEP

Ferrairs to Lamborghinis,.... YEP

BMWs to Mercedes, ......... NOPE

New England to the midwest, .. Hate both, SAND and Water for me ...!!!

Class A transistors to tubes. .... YEP

Life is about choices................. DEPENDS

:)

Reproduction in my home is my choice. I don't need someone else telling me what is right or wrong or trying to define what reproduction is or should or should not be.

Can't argue with this one .......... :magnet::)
 
Where exactly is the reference or link to the AES proceedings? The only information I can find is here, where "a group of investigators" is casually mentioned.

Please provide the correct link; it's possible I didn't see it.

Again Green,

I do believe the test was flawed, have you heard both speakers and felt the same way, then if so , walk.. Softly ..!!!
To continue in this manner is very counterproductive and unnecessary, discuss the Orion's not SL....

Just saying ..:usd:
 
Last edited:
I prefer Tchaikovsky to Beethoven,

The Stones to the Beatles,

Ferrairs to Lamborghinis,

BMWs to Mercedes,

New England to the midwest,

Class A transistors to tubes.

Life is about choices.

Reproduction in my home is my choice. I don't need someone else telling me what is right or wrong or trying to define what reproduction is or should or should not be.

You can prefer whatever you want but science isn't meant to be another form of religion.
 
I will add one thing about such test. Regardless of the tests, if the subjects are used to listen to convectional box speakers then even in a blind test it is probably likely that they will have a build in bias (subconscious) to box type speakers because they will recognize the sound as familiar. Since dipoles will typically sound very different it is likely that they would be discounted as they would stand out and under such tests human psychology suggest that this deviation for the generally more familiar sound of a box system (the norm) would trigger a "fault" response.

Don't know how I missed this. Thank you. Why it's not blisteringly obvious that listeners accustomed to a lifetime of forward radiating multi-driver systems will generally test preferential towards forward radiating multi-driver systems - raising serious questions about the assumed coupling between tested preferences and reproductive accuracy - is one of the great mysteries of audiophilia.
 
Where exactly is the reference or link to the AES proceedings? The only information I can find is here, where "a group of investigators" is casually mentioned.

Please provide the correct link; it's possible I didn't see it.

That's it, and you seemed to have no trouble finding it. :)

At the time it was referenced there may not have been a link available (or even a paper), and SL's site is more of a blog than a fully updated reference source.

In any event the net results were broadly comparable. In fact I think there was even a thread in this forum on how brutally honest SL was when comparing the two designs. Try reading section Z in its entirety several times. There is a LOT of information there, and some of it doesn't always "get through" on the first few readings. Honestly, it should help you to resolve some of the difficulties you are having - providing you with a more informed perspective. (..this would even include issues with respect to dispersion patterns, up to and including room influences from those patterns.)

The one thing I miss from the comparison is, as Melo Theory mentioned, information on the IMP. Sadly though, even in the power-point presentation there isn't much information provided other than a short description.

Still, it would be nice if he updated it to include the link to AES paper. (..and I can accept a minor bitch about that.)


Again though, read the whole site - it's more of a blog with some front-loaded marketing on each design's page. There is a fair bit of objective data on his site in an exploration for better performance. That's not pseudoscience, and it's not "half-truths" (as JohnK alludes to). The theorizing however may not all be accurate (even if he currently believes it is), and obviously any perceived "exaggerations" are relational to each individual. If he think's his design has "pulled-off" a bit of "magic", doesn't mean you'll have the same conclusion (even under identical conditions).