On further review I see now that I did put "Abbey" togther with "show" and that you did not specifically say that. My apology. My point was that no Geddes speaker has been at a show in eight years so I was pretty sure that you were not reading reviews from a show.
..and you didn't go back to it once to check before writing your accusing post? Or any other time since then despite all the other posts you have made on the subject?
Stop it. Now. Next person to go off topic and start the personal sniping will be in read-only for the next two weeks.
Every time I read your review I have this strange feeling of wanting to build one !!
Do it. 😀
But, after you have - try and see if you can do something to improve the aesthetic of at least the top portion. 😉
Your last design looked very good, perhaps something "pulled" from its looks?
Me too . . . 😀 . . . but I’m going to start with a “clone” using the W22 from my ORION (and the ORION woofers) and a (still testing) for the upper-mid. Haven’t made a final decision on tweeters, either (whether to use the Seas that SL does or some others that I already have). But in any case the rears, if I use any at all, will be mounted differently and equalized differently (my listening room has a “thing” about rear tweeters).
I gather you’ve read my previous comments, but I’ll summarize and combine them here. My first “listen” to the LX521 was at BurningAmp, and I went specifically to hear whether 4-way and the new baffle shape resolved ORION’s “polar problem”. It does. But I heard (and commented on as possibly being the room) some midrange issues, and that led to a second listen at Chez Linkwitz, where I focused solely on the midrange (which had also taken some criticism for the low-order “passive” crossover SL uses). I took two not-terribly-good recordings of performers and performances I know (soprano with orchestra and a wind ensemble, shows I worked on and performers I know well) and didn’t hear any of the problem I’d heard at BurningAmp (I heard the flaws in the recordings all too well, though). I thought, in fact, that the midrange was as good as I’ve ever heard over the 120Hz to 7 k Hz range of the “compound driver”.
So maybe I’m making a mistake reusing the W22 with an (unknown) upper-mid . . . time and listening will have to answer that. The polar will be the same (excepting the tweeters), but I’m gambling on the driver integration. I’ll be using a MiniDSP so changing to the specified drivers and different crossover slopes won’t be all that difficult if I’m not satisfied.
As for the “looks” . . . having seen it I like it. Despite having the same footprint they look a lot smaller than ORION. Mine won’t be quite the same (shorter, without so much broadening at the top) so they will look smaller still. But for those whose eye they offend, put a Vandersteen-style grill around them. It’s OK for speakers to look like a box as long as they don’t sound like a box . . . 😛
Last edited:
I havent build anything since my last one, which was my first 'properly aesthetic build' and they had caused some 'mental scars' due to the time taken to do it 🙄
But I reckon a W22 with well selected midrange and tweeter would be great indeed. But not after I finish my 'Elias Pekonen clone' 😎
What midrange are you planning? I want the look of W22 but W12 is so expensive and have that whacking resonance near the proposed 7khz frequency.
This looks cool too?
For tweeter I'm very happy with Seas DXT. Awesome directivity and all. And a single forward-firing tweeter should be OK at 7khz.
But I reckon a W22 with well selected midrange and tweeter would be great indeed. But not after I finish my 'Elias Pekonen clone' 😎
What midrange are you planning? I want the look of W22 but W12 is so expensive and have that whacking resonance near the proposed 7khz frequency.
This looks cool too?
For tweeter I'm very happy with Seas DXT. Awesome directivity and all. And a single forward-firing tweeter should be OK at 7khz.
What I'm liking so far is, of all things, the Vifa TG9FD.
http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-1064-vifa-tg9fd-10-04-specifications.pdf
It's crazy good despite being dirt cheap . . .
About the NaO Note.
NaO Note Details
Is it correct that the MTM was created to compensate for a 15 degrees upward polar tilt/lobe? How are the measurements presented?
I'm afraid it doesn't quite look as well as it's demonstrated. Especially considering it's using a passive crossover.
NaO Note Details
Is it correct that the MTM was created to compensate for a 15 degrees upward polar tilt/lobe? How are the measurements presented?
I'm afraid it doesn't quite look as well as it's demonstrated. Especially considering it's using a passive crossover.
Nothing is too tough for a DIYer, right ? It appears IMP is just a simple box with nonconventional arrangement of drivers.
I think the reason for dismissal is psychological rather than technical 😉 People's prejuidices stick too deep.
See Figure 4, the optimal radiation pattern for the speaker according to the theory.
- Elias
I also would like to keep the Seas W22. It's very good in the mid bass, and should be even better with a higher woofer integration with the new V frame. Dewardh, are you planning on crossing it lower than 1k?
Current plan is to keep the ORION H frame and (the original) W/M crossover point. The M/M crossover will be determined by how low the upper-mid (whatever I end up using) can go, but I doubt much if any below 1 k. The W22 handles that three octave range just fine in ORION, so I don't see a reason to go lower and strain the upper-mid driver. The M/M crossover is going to have to stay 4th order anyway because of the W22 breakup . . . I don't see getting away from that without a different lower-mid driver.
I'll have a better sense of it after I've run distortion tests and polars on the test baffle . . .
Are You aware of the fact that Elias himself is doing entirely different things now?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/121385-loudspeakers-room-system-182.html#post3385840
an interesting paper, but the guy assumes quite conventional stereo triangle geometry and that acoustical axis of the loudspeaker is - again quite convetionally - parallel to the floor which are both very limiting assumptions
I do not know, since there are no polar plots of the CBT36 version. Audioartistry has promised they will measure it under right conditions and publish polars. I only have Don Keele's words so far and he says the CBT36 has controlled directivity down to 100-200 Hz. That seems to correlate with my experiences. In a room with the schroeder frequency around 200 Hz, they are very flat down to that area and changes very little at different postions and heights in the room. You will not see that with a dipole.
In another room, which has a very odd and assymetric shape but is still large with a lower schroeder the response was very flat down to 110 Hz with one of the speakers. The other one, placed next to a wall of all windows had a cancellation at 150 Hz, but was very even apart from that.
Personally I've not encountered speaker with such a flat response so low in frequency. Even my former speakers with two stacked dipole drivers up to 200-250 Hz couldn't compete.😉
Of course they would like to have a constant response as low as possible. A uniform response over a wide area is vital. Whether the Q is high or low is more related to the goal and environment. If one desires a precise image, is listening only at one spot, and doesn't have the chance to treat sidewalls, a speaker with low and uniform Q would be the better choice. That does however require a horn that's bigger then most can have in a listening room. And you still have vertical lobing.
The NaO Note is not an MTM. The NaO II is. Neither have any "tilt" in the vertical polar response. In any event, the NaO Note has been superseeded by the Note II RS.