New Linkwitz "LX521" speakers..

[Melo theory]

hahaha! Wait....What?
I'm just a little boy on a rocking horse.

[ScottG]

Originally Posted by gainphile

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

Actually I don't think there is a lot of complaining here, most of us like newer designs to speculate on. It's one of the more entertaining facets of this forum.


I thought it was particularly interesting that it's his "best design" and that he expects "no change to the design".

-that might spark a bit of controversy. Perhaps more to very recent Orion builders and purchasers than anyone else. While everyone needs to have creative freedom, if it were me personally - I would in fact "feel sorry for them" (..in that I don't think they were striving for 2nd best, however good that may be, on a not insubstantial investment).

[dewardh]

Originally Posted by Bob Richards

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.

Well, first, the LX521 is dipole, not omni.

But more generally that raises the age old question of what you mix for . . . some "idealized" speaker (common monitors ) in the (typically rather dead) studio, or the speakers your listener is likely to have (in their car?) or the speaker most likely to realize the "artistic intent" in some (relatively) "good" listening room or ? ? ?

Dipoles and omnis have the clear advantage of uniform polar patterns (although it's still easier to claim than to actually acomplish). Dipoles in particular are also free from some of the inherent problems of "speakers in boxes", which makes it easier to accomplish "clarity" and "transparency", particularly in the critical midrange. I don't see any particular reason why monitoring/mixing shouldn't be done in a room acoustically similar to the typical listening room using speakers which (while admittedly not common) get the best that can be got out of such a room. Mixing using the typical small-box studio monitor in a "dead" room while expecting the result to translate well into the real world has produed what we've got . . . a lot of not-very-good recordings and a few (accidentally) exceptional ones (the "accident" often being low budget necessitating minimalist miking and post-processing).

I'm not sure that there is any one "right answer", but I suspect that using the best monitors possible in an environment at least somewhat similar to that of the quality-conscious end user probably serves everyone best. Mixes done that way will still sound good in cars and through earbuds (as good as they would otherwise, anyway), but they also have the potential of sounding excellent for the users who are willing to make reasonable effort to get that sound in their home (presumably that's us ).

[markus76]

Originally Posted by dewardh

Well, first, the LX521 is dipole, not omni.

Is there a real omni speaker at all? The LX521 is probably closer to being omni than any other commercial speaker.

Originally Posted by dewardh

But more generally that raises the age old question of what you mix for . . . some "idealized" speaker (common monitors ) in the (typically rather dead) studio, or the speakers your listener is likely to have (in their car?) or the speaker most likely to realize the "artistic intent" in some (relatively) "good" listening room or ? ? ?

The latter is actually what mixing/mastering engineer believe they are doing. Anyway, I doubt that the majority would agree a dipole like the LX521 is "the speaker most likely to realize the "artistic intent"".

Originally Posted by dewardh

Dipoles and omnis have the clear advantage of uniform polar patterns (although it's still easier to claim than to actually acomplish). Dipoles in particular are also free from some of the inherent problems of "speakers in boxes", which makes it easier to accomplish "clarity" and "transparency", particularly in the critical midrange.

You've omitted lots of "ifs".

Originally Posted by dewardh

I don't see any particular reason why monitoring/mixing shouldn't be done in a room acoustically similar to the typical listening room using speakers which (while admittedly not common) get the best that can be got out of such a room. Mixing using the typical small-box studio monitor in a "dead" room while expecting the result to translate well into the real world has produed what we've got . . . a lot of not-very-good recordings and a few (accidentally) exceptional ones (the "accident" often being low budget necessitating minimalist miking and post-processing).

The "typical listening room" doesn't exist and most recordings aren't made for audiophiles but for the rest which is probably 99% of all consumers (with headphones on). Only proper production standards would help everyone.

Originally Posted by dewardh

I'm not sure that there is any one "right answer", but I suspect that using the best monitors possible in an environment at least somewhat similar to that of the quality-conscious end user probably serves everyone best. Mixes done that way will still sound good in cars and through earbuds (as good as they would otherwise, anyway), but they also have the potential of sounding excellent for the users who are willing to make reasonable effort to get that sound in their home (presumably that's us ).

Again, what makes you think a speaker radiating the same way to the front and to the back is "best"? There are too many variables at play and there's still a lot of psychoacoustic research to be done. A speaker like the LX521 is just another concept for exploring sound reproduction.

[lolo]

I am tired of this Linkwitz bashing.. If he doesn't do anything, he is lazy, if he does something, he's late.. Whatever, he's always wrong..!

I think this thread says more about the psychology of some contributors than it should.. like the joy of "killing the father" sort of attitude..

[lolo]

Originally Posted by Melo theory

hahaha! Wait....What?
I'm just a little boy on a rocking horse.

Yep, me too.. acousticaly speaking, I still swim with a ring!

[bzfcocon]

Originally Posted by markus76

Is there a real omni speaker at all? The LX521 is probably closer to being omni than any other commercial speaker.

There surely are some true omnis out there. But I don't think people use them as monitors

MBL: MBL 101 E Radialstrahler Omnidirectional Loudspeaker | The Absolute Sound
Raal Eternity: http://www.raal-requisite.com/pages/eternity.html

[markus76]

Originally Posted by bzfcocon

There surely are some true omnis out there. But I don't think people use them as monitors

MBL: MBL 101 E Radialstrahler Omnidirectional Loudspeaker | The Absolute Sound
Raal Eternity: http://www.raal-requisite.com/pages/eternity.html

Now compare radiation pattern to the LX521 and "typical" 2- or 3-way speakers. QED.

[lolo]

Originally Posted by Bob Richards

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.

Modern, really?

[IMG] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

3000 BC..

[dewardh]

Originally Posted by markus76

You've omitted lots of "ifs".

Yes, you have . . . as you generally do.

But then, neither of us are writing textbooks, are we . . .