Is that like B in this picture?
It looks quite interesting. And it would probably be possible to go back to C if it doesn't work out right.
As for A, that is just ugly. Drive units should not stick out of the box. Maybe in the boot of a car, but certainly not suited for home use.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
It looks quite interesting. And it would probably be possible to go back to C if it doesn't work out right.
As for A, that is just ugly. Drive units should not stick out of the box. Maybe in the boot of a car, but certainly not suited for home use.
A has the best isobarik coupling (but not really suitable if the woofer is expected to go very high), C is second (and if the cone is not flat, and the magnet small enuff, the front magnet can sit inside the back cone for better coupling. B offers some benefits as far as push-pull loading,
The DMS are as C.
dave
The DMS are as C.
dave
You have convinced me. I will go for B first. The design of the box would have to make provision for taking out the back panel to get to to the inner driver. Now that I think of it, it actually simplifies the construction.
The Sara (which has round drive units) has the outside woofer mounted in a plastic ring that fits inside the cabinet. Otherwise there would be no way to put the inside woofer in. Or to take it out when you have to replace it after your big-bucks high-end esoteric flat-earth-society amplifier blows an output stage transistor and puts out 40V on the speaker terminal (sigh, not funny, especially the second time).
I assume that the two drivers are wired out of phase for this configuration.
The Sara (which has round drive units) has the outside woofer mounted in a plastic ring that fits inside the cabinet. Otherwise there would be no way to put the inside woofer in. Or to take it out when you have to replace it after your big-bucks high-end esoteric flat-earth-society amplifier blows an output stage transistor and puts out 40V on the speaker terminal (sigh, not funny, especially the second time).
I assume that the two drivers are wired out of phase for this configuration.
Last edited:
They must be wired in opposite polarity in A and B. Maybe you have seen Wilson Benesch using A. http://www.wilson-benesch.com/downloads/manuals/Wilson-Benesch_Bishop_Manual.pdf
Thanks for the heads-up. It seems that woofers sticking out of cabinet may be ugly but it works, so Wilson-Benesch went ahead anyway. At least the Bishop covers those magnets with a grille when in use.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
Thanks, but the idea is more to come up with a modern version and not so much a reincarnation of the old. If the first pair works out well I may want to produce more of them.
Would make up quite a surround system, hehehehe. Naah, who needs 5.1 when you can have brilliant 2.0? But I guess that is a whole thread all on its own...
Would make up quite a surround system, hehehehe. Naah, who needs 5.1 when you can have brilliant 2.0? But I guess that is a whole thread all on its own...
Well what exactly about the old design, ie what characteristics or propertes of the old briks are you trying to emulate? Bit vague otherwise.
Hardly. Stereo will never come close to the envelopment of well recorded multichannel in a decent replay system.
I'm with Brett on this; from what you are saying I do not think that the speaker you end up building will relate in any way to the Linn Isobariks. It will just be another speaker design.
I think that the original speaker could be improved upon in certain areas but I believe that you would still need to use the original drive units in the format that the Briks use.
I contemplated building some new cabinets with the bass drivers re-aligned vertically to reduce the cabinet width and using heavier gauge timber but keeping the top face drivers and all the general internal construction as is.
If I remember correctly there is a site called "Pink Fish Media" that has quite a lot about Brik modifications and such like.
I think that the original speaker could be improved upon in certain areas but I believe that you would still need to use the original drive units in the format that the Briks use.
I contemplated building some new cabinets with the bass drivers re-aligned vertically to reduce the cabinet width and using heavier gauge timber but keeping the top face drivers and all the general internal construction as is.
If I remember correctly there is a site called "Pink Fish Media" that has quite a lot about Brik modifications and such like.
What I want to establish is if the Linn Isobarik topology
I'm open to other suggestions. Perhaps something a little more conventional, along the lines of the Keltik suggested above? The main thing is the isobaric woofers. That's the bit I'm really keen to try out.
I have seen the Pink Fish site. I've gathered some of the info that I do have from there, but I haven't scoured it in detail. Perhaps its time to take another look.
- two times three-way,
- isobaric woofers,
- one firing forwards
- one midrange/tweeter pair firing upwards,
- sub-enclosures for the midrange drivers
I'm open to other suggestions. Perhaps something a little more conventional, along the lines of the Keltik suggested above? The main thing is the isobaric woofers. That's the bit I'm really keen to try out.
I have seen the Pink Fish site. I've gathered some of the info that I do have from there, but I haven't scoured it in detail. Perhaps its time to take another look.
Last edited:
I believe that the reason for the mixed reviews of this loudspeaker is beause the configuration relies a lot on reflected sound. Different listening environments would then give the speaker a totally different character. More so than with a conventional layout.
I remember the adverts for the Linn ISOBARIK. I think this speaker was mostly about Linn having something different to offer, more than out-and-out performance. Bose: "direct/reflecting"; BIC: BIC Venturi with the tapered port; Technics: honeycomb diaphragms; Yamaha: ear-shaped speakers; B&W: golf-ball effect ports. It's mostly gimmickery.
I remember the adverts for the Linn ISOBARIK. I think this speaker was mostly about Linn having something different to offer, more than out-and-out performance. Bose: "direct/reflecting"; BIC: BIC Venturi with the tapered port; Technics: honeycomb diaphragms; Yamaha: ear-shaped speakers; B&W: golf-ball effect ports. It's mostly gimmickery.
LINN ISOBARIC PMS - NAIM SIX PACK ACTIVE . .
@ ingenieus. Shaun,
If You'll ever have a chance to evaluate the real LINN PMS ISOBARIC-NAIM SIX PACK ACTIVE speaker setup with front end loaded with LINN LP 12 in its full (best drive, tonearm + internal wires, lo MC cartridge) pack, playing back a Vinyl records from 80s, with the system fully tuned by a trained LINN guy then You'll for ever change Yours standards for a Stereo only playback system for sure. From my own experience I can only say that no one 5.1 (digital) setup play-back chain can fairly compete to the previously mentioned - 2 CH vinyl play-back chain - playing back the LP disc produced in 80s with the real music recorded (classical, Jazz, instrumental, vocal) consisting of real instruments, real natural dynamics recorded & unprocessed - Direct Cut LP discs... yes this was way before the computer copy-paste compressed sound invention and CD killed music arise. Such a play-back chain is a totally different world with totally different emotional qualities. Even todays the most technically advanced DSD or XDSD recording - playback equipment can't come close to the old 2 inch Studer Tape machines at 78 ips ... Mr. Tim De Paravicini is the guy who knows more about.., Studer simply leave all the current digitally inventions way behind . . I have some 6 Direct Cutted LP discs at my collection. ( The real Direct Cutted - Orchestra is playing live and 20 Studer LP cutters cut groves directly to 200g Vinyl blanks. Only 100 LP discs produced this way and the orchestra has to play 5 times the same scores to achieve this. Setup: Mics ---> Mixing Desk ---> Studer LP master Cutting machines, even 2 inch tape machine wasn't in the signal chain). I have listen such a discs on a previously mentioned LINN-NAIM SIX pack system and till today I was not able to hear any system playback chain sounding better in terms of a NATURAL & LIFE LIKE SOUND, stage and dynamics this vintage 2 CH playback chain can produce. The only YAMAHA was able to play back the similar sound with theirs 10000 series CD, preamp-power amp and with theirs top anniversary all berilium 3 way+1 (woofer) a two piece 4 way speaker system. I hear this system once but the source was Yamaha CDX 10000 CD player and the comparation isn't possible at all because of lacking the sound informations due to limits of a CD - missing supersonic frequencies above 20 KHz. The Linn Isobaric speakers mentioned here on this thread are only a single link in a play-back chain and they need to be in a system which is dedicated & specifically fine tuned to them and to real music. Only then they can shine singing. If only a single part from the playback chain is missing they will newer sing - they will only play . . .
Andrew
@ ingenieus. Shaun,
If You'll ever have a chance to evaluate the real LINN PMS ISOBARIC-NAIM SIX PACK ACTIVE speaker setup with front end loaded with LINN LP 12 in its full (best drive, tonearm + internal wires, lo MC cartridge) pack, playing back a Vinyl records from 80s, with the system fully tuned by a trained LINN guy then You'll for ever change Yours standards for a Stereo only playback system for sure. From my own experience I can only say that no one 5.1 (digital) setup play-back chain can fairly compete to the previously mentioned - 2 CH vinyl play-back chain - playing back the LP disc produced in 80s with the real music recorded (classical, Jazz, instrumental, vocal) consisting of real instruments, real natural dynamics recorded & unprocessed - Direct Cut LP discs... yes this was way before the computer copy-paste compressed sound invention and CD killed music arise. Such a play-back chain is a totally different world with totally different emotional qualities. Even todays the most technically advanced DSD or XDSD recording - playback equipment can't come close to the old 2 inch Studer Tape machines at 78 ips ... Mr. Tim De Paravicini is the guy who knows more about.., Studer simply leave all the current digitally inventions way behind . . I have some 6 Direct Cutted LP discs at my collection. ( The real Direct Cutted - Orchestra is playing live and 20 Studer LP cutters cut groves directly to 200g Vinyl blanks. Only 100 LP discs produced this way and the orchestra has to play 5 times the same scores to achieve this. Setup: Mics ---> Mixing Desk ---> Studer LP master Cutting machines, even 2 inch tape machine wasn't in the signal chain). I have listen such a discs on a previously mentioned LINN-NAIM SIX pack system and till today I was not able to hear any system playback chain sounding better in terms of a NATURAL & LIFE LIKE SOUND, stage and dynamics this vintage 2 CH playback chain can produce. The only YAMAHA was able to play back the similar sound with theirs 10000 series CD, preamp-power amp and with theirs top anniversary all berilium 3 way+1 (woofer) a two piece 4 way speaker system. I hear this system once but the source was Yamaha CDX 10000 CD player and the comparation isn't possible at all because of lacking the sound informations due to limits of a CD - missing supersonic frequencies above 20 KHz. The Linn Isobaric speakers mentioned here on this thread are only a single link in a play-back chain and they need to be in a system which is dedicated & specifically fine tuned to them and to real music. Only then they can shine singing. If only a single part from the playback chain is missing they will newer sing - they will only play . . .
Andrew
I have no doubt that there exists an ideal setup (speaker placement and room acoustics included) in which this speaker will beat all others hands-down. I just think that it is more difficult to emulate that performance in a different room with this design, comparatively speaking.
Having actually owned this, I would disagree. It was good, but I have since heard better; much, much better.
One can stop drinking the kool aid any time one chooses.
Tastes differ. I heard full Linn/ Naim systems including Isobariks, Saras and Kans several times in the 80s at shows, in shops and home systems and was never really convinced. The active Isobariks were the ones I liked the most, unsurprisingly, but I really didn't like the Sara at all. I'm interested to see positive comments on the imaging, since although the Isobariks certainly filled a room well, and the bass was very solid, they always sounded rather 'diffuse' (or 'spacious', to put a positive spin on it), in an artificial way, to me. Reminded me of a good quality PA system more than anything else. As Shaun says, if you set a system like that up in the right room with the right support equipment- and probably listen to the 'right' music and have the 'right' tastes- it may be that nothing else will do. The odds are probably worse than a more conventional system that you'll like what you end up with, but more power to you for giving it a go!
The new active design with an old direction to target ?
@ Brett,
I have mentioned my sound impressions only for the particularly fine tuned PMS based system and with the exclusive mentioned front end with only the direct cut LP masters played back in a very typical 4,5m X 6m room with no special treatment at all, so any other combinaion which only slightly differ from mentioned one cannot compare.
I was each year on the best Hi-End shows in EU and I haven't yet have a chance to hear more lifelike & with such a natural non compressed (by the whole system in mind) dynamic sound, but yes, I heard more than hundred different trendy fashion sounds which they mostly represent the sound for the demonstrators abilities to tune the sound on theirs own preferences.
I daily work with real live classical orchestra music and that exactly setup I mention is the closest approximation what I hear in real. I'm not comparing my feel of a real live sound to any other Hi-End fashion style sound at all.
@ ingenieus
The project . . .
Maybe it would be great to go for an active speaker design approach - The Tang_Band circular bass driver will nicelly fit here - (lovest fs & height of only 76mm.) or oval bass (bit higher fs & its height ... - not suitable.) It would be good to wire the bass drivers in series to get an aprox. 6R drive, - for the mid sect. the Audiotechnology C-Quenze 5" - 15 H 52 06 13 SDC will be sound-neutrality vise a good choice and for the tweeter a Hiquphon (D2094-8708-03) would be a good match, there are several other models but this one is very promising.
Then make a plan for a go for a LINN stile enclsure design or make a dcision related from best evaluated & liked designs and go for a novel design with implemented org. Isobaric bass loading principle.
To achieve the target sound would be much easier in an active system eg. using nice fet sounding amps for the Hi and Midrange section and a much powerful Bjt amp for the Bass section. For the active freq. dividers would be best to go with simple discrete modules thus avoiding the very lifeless + - 12V IC oriented designs but instead chose much higher + - 24V discrete modules passing throe much greater headroom - perceptible dynamics.
Please go for as much possible wide options choices and at the end chose the most suitable to You.
Andrew
@ Brett,
I have mentioned my sound impressions only for the particularly fine tuned PMS based system and with the exclusive mentioned front end with only the direct cut LP masters played back in a very typical 4,5m X 6m room with no special treatment at all, so any other combinaion which only slightly differ from mentioned one cannot compare.
I was each year on the best Hi-End shows in EU and I haven't yet have a chance to hear more lifelike & with such a natural non compressed (by the whole system in mind) dynamic sound, but yes, I heard more than hundred different trendy fashion sounds which they mostly represent the sound for the demonstrators abilities to tune the sound on theirs own preferences.
I daily work with real live classical orchestra music and that exactly setup I mention is the closest approximation what I hear in real. I'm not comparing my feel of a real live sound to any other Hi-End fashion style sound at all.
@ ingenieus
The project . . .
Maybe it would be great to go for an active speaker design approach - The Tang_Band circular bass driver will nicelly fit here - (lovest fs & height of only 76mm.) or oval bass (bit higher fs & its height ... - not suitable.) It would be good to wire the bass drivers in series to get an aprox. 6R drive, - for the mid sect. the Audiotechnology C-Quenze 5" - 15 H 52 06 13 SDC will be sound-neutrality vise a good choice and for the tweeter a Hiquphon (D2094-8708-03) would be a good match, there are several other models but this one is very promising.
Then make a plan for a go for a LINN stile enclsure design or make a dcision related from best evaluated & liked designs and go for a novel design with implemented org. Isobaric bass loading principle.
To achieve the target sound would be much easier in an active system eg. using nice fet sounding amps for the Hi and Midrange section and a much powerful Bjt amp for the Bass section. For the active freq. dividers would be best to go with simple discrete modules thus avoiding the very lifeless + - 12V IC oriented designs but instead chose much higher + - 24V discrete modules passing throe much greater headroom - perceptible dynamics.
Please go for as much possible wide options choices and at the end chose the most suitable to You.
Andrew
I agree in essence with Andrew's comments here. An active crossover, such as the MiniDSP, would provide maximum tweakability, and therefore allow the loudspeaker to be tuned to a particular room.
There is certainly something attractive about the sound produced by a loudspeaker that produces a diffuse sound. I have enjoyed speakers that provide pinpoint imaging, as well as ones that throw a "wall of sound" at you. I don't know if this Linn can be put into either of those categories, though ("diffuse" might be a third). I think it approaches the Bose 901 (which I have also enjoyed), whilst retaining the direct-radiating approach of a conventional speaker. So, maybe it does a bit of everything. The trick is to get the mix right. So - by all means - go for it, but make it flexible would be my advice.
Hee hee.
The level of knowledge in the audio DIY community is orders of magnitude higher today than it was back then when this speaker was on the market. And the problems that gave digital a bad name then have since been mastered. DIYers even have better and more sophisticated tools available now. I