Please kind sir, could you offer up a measly reference..
Polar response
C2 - L-07 Dipole loudspeaker
Thank you!
Btw, he did have good reasons for not doing the phoenix as a more narrow dipole. And they are equally valid today.
Clearly the dipole tweeter was also there.
I guess the real question is why the "reversion" to an L-07 like format? What's changed?
Active crossover in the '90s. Not me.
(..The best I could muster was Behringer digital crossover a few years later.)
Last edited:
I've seen and heard both, don't find the LX521 "ugly" at all, and think that its midrange is, if anything, even better than ORION . . . certainly at least as good. On the issues of "imaging" and "acoustic scene" I'm still a bit more . . . agnostic . . . it so much depends on the room and the recording.
An evolving appreciation of the importance of the perceived direction of early reflections to the creation of an "acoustic image". At the time I think that he felt that getting the "spectral balance" of the reflections (ie. power response) right was sufficient. For most recordings it probably is.I guess the real question is why the "reversion" to an L-07 like format? What's changed?
Part of the impetus for LX521 was to produce a practical "monitor" that would let recording engineers actually hear the image that they are (or are not) capturing. They will never get it consistently right using the typical "studio monitor" . . . and without decent source material it doesn't matter what we do for speakers at home.
The LX521 as a studio monitor? Seriously? Commercial studios are dying and small project studios become the norm. Neither space can accommodate a omni type of speaker.
Sorry about calling the LX521 "ugly". It's just me. I would have made the Pluto look like a roman column too (a shaped acoustic foam wrap?). I love old art. Modern art rarely looks good to me.
I agree with Markus76 about using omni speakers in a mixing environment. Omni's bring into play the acoustics of the mixing room as an enhancement that most listeners won't have.
The funny thing about trying to create the best speaker you can, is that you may find yourself motivated to make some of your own recordings, perhaps using headmics or matrixed arrays or ? How else can you really judge imaging fidelity? At which point you might learn more about why Patricia Barber's voice seems "too large to be real". What's a mono mic going to do for image localization? Maybe that's how she wanted it.
I'm intrigued about the recordings David Griesinger has made, using hyper cardioid mic pairs (coincident pairs and head mics I think), for better stereo effect of individual instruments or singers. I've read about it and wonder if any of these recordings are available (?) Linkwitz offers a demo CD with recordings using a variation of a head-mic (his head - mics mounted on corners of glasses frame). Maybe Griesinger has a similar demo CD with a more state-of-the-art headmic? Does anybody know?
I found a bunch of free "binaural" recordings on the web, but don't know the details of how they were made in most cases.
I agree with Markus76 about using omni speakers in a mixing environment. Omni's bring into play the acoustics of the mixing room as an enhancement that most listeners won't have.
The funny thing about trying to create the best speaker you can, is that you may find yourself motivated to make some of your own recordings, perhaps using headmics or matrixed arrays or ? How else can you really judge imaging fidelity? At which point you might learn more about why Patricia Barber's voice seems "too large to be real". What's a mono mic going to do for image localization? Maybe that's how she wanted it.
I'm intrigued about the recordings David Griesinger has made, using hyper cardioid mic pairs (coincident pairs and head mics I think), for better stereo effect of individual instruments or singers. I've read about it and wonder if any of these recordings are available (?) Linkwitz offers a demo CD with recordings using a variation of a head-mic (his head - mics mounted on corners of glasses frame). Maybe Griesinger has a similar demo CD with a more state-of-the-art headmic? Does anybody know?
I found a bunch of free "binaural" recordings on the web, but don't know the details of how they were made in most cases.
Last edited:
Better polar response is one factor, the other is not pushing that 8" metal cone Seas too high !
Great FAQ posted on Linkwitzlab
linkwitzlab.com/LX521/FAQ.htm
From the tone of the FAQ perhaps SL is montoring the DIY boards, although not contribute/post.
It seems he suggest that we need to stop complaining about the looks and start building/listening
linkwitzlab.com/LX521/FAQ.htm
From the tone of the FAQ perhaps SL is montoring the DIY boards, although not contribute/post.
It seems he suggest that we need to stop complaining about the looks and start building/listening
Great FAQ posted on Linkwitzlab
linkwitzlab.com/LX521/FAQ.htm
From the tone of the FAQ perhaps SL is montoring the DIY boards, although not contribute/post.
It seems he suggest that we need to stop complaining about the looks and start building/listening
Yep.
I would never build somebody else's design, no matter how good it is.
To me DIY is....
Design
It
Yourself
Where is the fun in copying somebody's work?
Yes, but kit designed by SL, JohnK, Troel, Zaph etc. are targeted for people who are generally not equipped nor interested with microphones and do not have a stack of spare drivers!
Your right.....
Sorry, I was just doing one of these ->
Great FAQ posted on Linkwitzlab
linkwitzlab.com/LX521/FAQ.htm
From the tone of the FAQ perhaps SL is montoring the DIY boards, although not contribute/post.
It seems he suggest that we need to stop complaining about the looks and start building/listening
Yes interesting FAQ. I particularly like this one:
Sort of the compliment of my Q12:
That's fine in theory, but there are several "answers" to it.
First "design it yourself" is a tiny fraction of "do it yourself" which is a tiny fraction of . . . so what might apply to us doesn't apply to most of "the real world", and sometimes even we just want a speaker that works the first time . . .
Second, well, here's my ORION experience: I learned about ORION because I'd been working through a DesignIY exercise based on PHOENIX, and was more than a little hesitant about whether I could (or would . . . I've got a lot of "unfinished" projects) pull it off properly (this was before the day of "easy" stuff like OmniMic and Arta, remember, and before a lot of the now-free design software was avaliable either). So when the ORION design was announced, with the step-by-step explanation of the decisions made, almost all of it "just made sense" . . . I could step through the design process just as I had been doing and come to pretty much the same conclusions, and design. IOW I could tell myself "I would have done that too". Why re-invent the wheel?
The whole point of the exercise was that I wanted a speaker that worked, and there it was. Good choice of drivers (albeit a bit pricey). No crossover to sit on the bench for months working out the kinks. I didn't want to change it to boom-box or "cardiod" bass just to be different, and although I thought that I did want a rear tweeter that at least was easy to add, and I also understood the arguments why not. I'm still ambivalent about it (in a 3-way design). No dealbreakers.
If I were starting from scratch I think I'd come to the same conclusion now about LX521. As it is I'll probably mod my ORION into a 4-way on a sort-of LX521 platform . . . but this is now, and I have both more experience and better tools to work with. And some pretty fine speakers to listen to . . .
I didn't want to offend anybody here dewardh.....
I know how difficult it would be to build the Orion, even with step by step plans.
Personally, I don't see much satisfaction in building someone else's design. If I wanted their design, I would just purchased their assembled product. And if their assembled product is to expensive, I would just go without. Or design something around their theories....which is what we all do anyway of course
I know how difficult it would be to build the Orion, even with step by step plans.
Personally, I don't see much satisfaction in building someone else's design. If I wanted their design, I would just purchased their assembled product. And if their assembled product is to expensive, I would just go without. Or design something around their theories....which is what we all do anyway of course
You should suggest that to Madisound (for their flat-pack), or to Tap Plastics (just give them the dimensions) . . . SL sells plans, but not parts.
At the time there was no "assembled product" . . . (and when, eventuially, there was it was "over my pay grade").
The "enclosure" is not all that difficult for either ORION or LX521 . . . both are simple, in fact. Designing and building from scratch the ASP (3-way active crossover), however, would be a chore even for the well equipped workbench . . . this was before miniDSP made it all (relatively) easy. Electronics design and fabrication is a whole different skillset from loudspeaker design and from carpentry . . . part of the reason, I suppose, that so many people did and still do passive crossovers.
Oh, yeah....I was defiately referring to the crossover, not the woodworking.
I would hate to deal with that. I hated doing passives in the day, I don't have the patience or dainty dexterity for such little trinkets
I'm very grateful for DSP.