NaO Note II RS

[dewardh]

Originally Posted by markus76

But that's what recordings are optimized for, a single listening position.

To the extent that that's true (and it's not universally true) it's a crying shame . . .

I guess I should add that a good part of the reason I prefer dipoles and a diffusive front wall is that with a substantial preponderance of the recordings I own they just sound better over a larger listening area.

[john k...]

I guess if you want to discuss recording techniques or the optimum position for listening it should be in another thread. It's rather OT.

[dewardh]

Originally Posted by john k...

I guess if you want to discuss . . . the optimum position for listening it should be in another thread. It's rather OT.

Well, you're the one who introduced the topic . . .

Originally Posted by john k...

I don't know why people get their panties all up in a bunch because they can't listen to there system hanging upside down from a trapeze hung from the ceiling.

[Juhazi]

Speaker placement and sound perception are discussed deeply in other topics/threads.

But it is important to know what is the placement recommendations of the designer and his/her listening room conditions. SL must be credited for this. Commercial speaker are usually more "universal" by design.

Also, the method of the recording makes a big difference. I it one set of X/Y mics or a mix of X/Y and close mics or even spatial mics ets. Binaural is a different story. Most of modern rock, jazz and pop is multimic-close mix, even most live recordings. Classical has a variety of recording methods and most album covers don't tell that.

[sfdoddsy]

Originally Posted by john k...

That is a very tough question to answer. I feel all my system have their strong points. Each system, starting with the NaO II was designed with specific objectives, one of which was to reduce cost. At the same time I have tried to keep the systems sounding as consistent as possible. The Note V1 and V2 do indeed sound very similar. V1 has greater low frequency capability but the integration with the tweeter is better in V2. The NaO II is a little different since it does not have the upper midrange coupler and even with the 2.2k crossover the tweeter there is a broadening of the polar response which seems to be the biggest difference between the three system.

The other point to realize is the the NaO II is a fairly flexible design. It can be build as a hybrid, bi-amped system, a tri-amped fully active analog system, or in either format with the miniDSP digital crossover replacing the analog unit. The Note I is only a bi-amped hybrid with analog or digital crossover. The Note II is only fully active, digital. So pick your poison. Personally I'm partial to the NaO II. It does some thing I don't think the Note versions do. But top to bottom, cost no object, the Note II is probably the most refined.

Interesting, given the emphasis in this thread and the LX521 ones about the 'new way' to do open baffles.

Could you be more specific about the things the NaO II does that the Notes don't?

I have this odd concern, based irrationally on the more delicate appearance of the Notes and LX521, that I will lose some of the 'liveliness' that made me keep my current speakers when I compared them other well-regarded speakers like Maggie 1.7s.

[dewardh]

Originally Posted by sfdoddsy

Interesting, given the emphasis in this thread and the LX521 ones about the 'new way' to do open baffles.

They’re (both designs) driven by the physics. As a result comparing Note with LX521 one finds more similarities than differences. The miniDSP has obvious advantages as the crossover, both in cost and flexibility. I’d be really surprised if we don’t see a lot of LX521-like implementations using it. The baffle shape of the Note (bigger) gives a bit more “boost” on the low end, I suspect that the LX521 gives a bit better vertical pattern control. For driver choice it’s six to one, half a dozen to the other . . . you could put the Scan drivers on the LX521 baffle or the Seas drivers on the Note baffle and not much would change, and those are not the only alternatives. The Note makes itself unnecessarily bulky with the acoustically pointless frame and grill . . . you could do the same with the LX521 and it too would then look like ORION.

Whether there's a change in "liveliness" with either of them (compared to other speakers or previous versions) . . . I'm not even sure I know what that would mean, let alone why it would be so. And while I'm already "on the road" to building a LX521 "clone" (using a miniDSP crossover and different drivers) I'm not entirely sure why I'm bothering, since I don't expect the "improvement" over ORION to be all that substantial (especially, and here I'm speculating, in an already tuned and treated listening room). I'm sure the LX521 (and probably the Note) gives "better imaging" with a selected few recordings . . . with most of the recordings in my collection it is probably moot.

[john k...]

Originally Posted by sfdoddsy

Interesting, given the emphasis in this thread and the LX521 ones about the 'new way' to do open baffles.

Could you be more specific about the things the NaO II does that the Notes don't?

I have this odd concern, based irrationally on the more delicate appearance of the Notes and LX521, that I will lose some of the 'liveliness' that made me keep my current speakers when I compared them other well-regarded speakers like Maggie 1.7s.

The new way (well not new to me) is to extend the dipole response to higher frequency. I said when the original Note was introduce that I really didn't know it is was better or just different sounding. For me the idea of extending the dipole behavior to higher frequency was more of a technical challenge with outcome, as far as reproduction of recorded music, being a wait and see affair. It's like building an F1 race car. You design it as best you can, run around the track and get a lap time. Then you sit back and think about everything and wonder where can a change be made and will that yield a better lap time. So you make the change and the lap time comes down by a couple of tenths. Seems better, right? Maybe, maybe not. There are lots of other things to consider. For example, suppose those couple of tenths came because of better grip in the corners. Still sounds great until you run some mock races and find that the tires only last 28 laps where as the old way they lasted 31, and it's going to be a 90 lap race. So those couple of tenths which save 18 second in the race out on the track don't do the trick because its going to take 22 second for the extra pit stop. Thus, 0.2 seconds faster per lap equates to 4 second slower in the race. The slower car is actually faster in the race.

I can assure you that the NaO II RS (which no one but me has heard), the Note and the Note II RS are very live sounding, at least by my standards with the type of music I listen to. But I have no idea what "liveness" means to you. I honestly can not believe that anyone would be disappointed with any of the systems as they are all very good speakers. I know that that sound like self promotion, but I also want to emphasize that I consider myself a DIYer and an active member of the DIY community. I want my speakers to be as good as I can make them. That is why I am active at DIY Audio. I may criticize and be criticized. I'm OK with that because in the end I listen to what people are saying and if something seems like a good idea, I'll try it regardless of the source. And I'll report back on what I find.

Now, all this doesn't answer your question because I've avoided it. And I avoided it because I really can not give you a definitive answer. I like the midrange of the NaO II Rs a little better but the highs might be considered better in the Note II Rs, at least until I put on a different recording and that turns everything "nwod edispu". Both speakers are very dynamic, provided you give them the power to breath. Both have very good bass, unless you think HT bass is a must, and both speakers really do disappear.

[gainphile]

I have the Nao Note for a week in my living room now.

- Ultra smooth high frequency. No biting harshness I sometimes heard with dome tweeters/horn. They play much more recordings well with no complaints. Some recording that I thought were bad played flawlessly.

- But sometimes I thought there is something missing, sparkle etc. Maybe less "lively" in sfdoddsy's word (?). Not sure if this is the characteristic of planar tweeters. I think john had used the work "soft" before when comparing to Nao II (?). Something like that.

[john k...]

Originally Posted by gainphile

I have the Nao Note for a week in my living room now.

- But sometimes I thought there is something missing, sparkle etc. Maybe less "lively" in sfdoddsy's word (?). Not sure if this is the characteristic of planar tweeters. I think john had used the work "soft" before when comparing to Nao II (?). Something like that.

Yes, I did say softer. The Note II is the same way, but I would not call it a lack of liveliness. It is definately not the Neo3 as the Note II has domes. Playing some jazz and rock where the drummers hit some hard rim shots both speaker are very dynamic and "lively". I also referred to it as sounding more natural.

Way back when I first designed the Note (the version you have been listening to) my impression was similar, there was something missing. But after extend listening I found that what was missing was that the speaker never revealed itself.

[dewardh]

Originally Posted by john k...

But after extend listening I found that what was missing was that the speaker never revealed itself.

People used to say much the same about Maggies (despite their other flaws), and that feeling is perhaps more there with LX521 as well. I remember when I got my first Maggies . . . more than one person looked at them, commented that the sound in the room was "good", and then asked "where are the speakers?".

I think it has to do with the uniform polar . . . we're so used to "the box", particularly baffle step, but also the divergence of on-axis and "room" response in general, that when it's gone it does seem like "something's missing". I think it's one of the generally unremarked characteristics of really good loudspeakers (lots of box makers claim the effect but don't really produce it).