That's what Toole is about -- correlating loudspeaker measurements with listener preferences. His work tells you what most everyone else likes, statistically, and how to achieve it. If you like something else, that's fine, too, but there is value in knowing the difference.
I believe I have made a credible case that classical music enthusiasts preferring the sonic character of an acoustic concert hall want a different voicing. That's Linkwitz's target, in my view; he's designing for a niche demographic....
Last edited:
So where are they sitting in what concert hall? Front row center? Second balcony?
In the "best" seats, of course, of the "best" halls, certainly not what the conductor hears.... 😉
I don't know what seats, but Mr. Linkwitz has told me his only comparison in voicing is live sound. He does not listen to other speakers. (I'm sure he hears plenty, they are hard to avoid - but does not use them as a reference).
From reading his stuff, his "live sound" seems to always be the concert hall.
From reading his stuff, his "live sound" seems to always be the concert hall.
Yes, and it's not the "Led Zep Live in Concert" concert hall we're talking here.... 
Last edited:
The real problem I have with this statement and all the hype about the Orion 3.2.... is that the Orion has been a round for, what, 8 years now. Not to mention the Phoenix before that and all his other designs. The Orion is, "Last speaker you will ever own, etc...." SL has always said that he uses live music as his reference. So after all this time he finally has it right?
Both the Orion and my NaO II have similar flaws regarding the integration of conventional dome tweeters. I tried to reduce the problem by using a narrower baffle and higher x-o pointin the NaO II, but it is still present. The problem is with the power response. I discussed this on my web site 4 years ago in my article on integrating tweeter with dipole mids . The thing is, what is important is the spectrum of the direct sound and the relative ratio of direct to reflects sound, and how this varies with frequency. Understand that by reverberant sound field I am thus limiting the discussion to that region above the sparsely populated modal frequency range. The problem with speakers like the Orion and NaO II is that the power response is not monotonic. It increases sharply through the crossover point before dropping off due to tweeter directionality. I believe, and I think it is faily well accepted, that power response should be relatively constant from about 100 Hz up and then to drop off somewhere around 4k Hz. Now, that is what should reach your ears. It is a lot easier to accomplish that if the speaker radiates power in that way to begin with. But as discussed on my site when a dome tweeter is added to a dipole mid the power response is anything but monotonic. If you look at Figure 5 on the web page I reference above look at the transition between the red dipole mid curve and the blue or green tweeter curves. The blue is representative of a front only tweeter, the green, front and rear tweeters. The figure is based on flat on axis response. From it, it is obvious that the only way to correct the power response would be to change the on axis response from flat. But there are several caveats. If for example you were in an anechoic room, there would be no reverberant field and therefore power response is a non issue. All that matters is the direct sound associated with the on axis response. When we move into a more reverberant room, assuming the radiation pattern is fixed (i.e. we are dealing with a given speaker) then there are a number of ways to address the problem. One way to correct the problem is by adding room treatment to absorb the "excess" energy radiated by the speaker. IMO this would be preferably to changing the on axis response, but for other reason (WAF) this might not be possible. Another is to alter the on axis response so that the power response is as desired, or should I say so that the reverberant field is as desired. That is fine if you listen in the reverberant field. But if you sit closer to your speakers this may not be such a good idea. And the thing is, the more lively the room, the bigger the problem.
The last way is to design a speaker with power response that, at least, behaves in a monotonic manor. While a step in the right direction, as speaker designers we all have to recognize that the best we can to is shoot for a design that will hopefully sound good is a variety of rooms with parameters (such as RT60) within a limited range.
[Edit]
By the way, if you look at the bottom of the web page I references you will see a plot of the in room response which is an indication of the reverberant field, of the NaO II. Also notice that the room RT60 is presented as well.
Last edited:
I believe one of the strong points in small diameter full range loudspeakers that make them desirable for voices and tone despite their huge dynamic shortages, its their natural progression in power response. Geometrical wave launch coherence its their other obvious merit.
*That experience from little FR speakers reinforces the desire for a coherent & naturally drooping power response in bigger multi way systems.
*That experience from little FR speakers reinforces the desire for a coherent & naturally drooping power response in bigger multi way systems.
Which concert hall then? 🙂
Personally I think the whole idea of using a live event as reference for reproduced sound is flawed, if not totally wrong.
Music recorded in stereo will never sound like a live event. Decca (and others) realized that in the beginning of Stereo back in the 50's. Stereo was a new medium, different from the theater and concert hall. It would have to be different, and it could also be better in many aspects than "the real thing". Recorded music is produced to sound great on a pair for speakers, not to mimic a live event.
Some may argue that "purist" recordings with a single stereo mic-pair is close to the real event. Its not. In such recording they also seek a mic position and orchestra placement in the hall for a "best" reproduction through speakers, with the mic pair located in positions impossible to sit in for an hall audience, like 4-5 meters above the floor.
''Because I like it'' it would be much closer when we are asked why this and that in most home use designs IMHO.
Good point! 🙂
The different tastes among people is probably the main reason we have so many and very different loudspeakers on the market, most all of them finding happy customers.
The different tastes among people is probably the main reason we have so many and very different loudspeakers on the market, most all of them finding happy customers.
BINGO!!! you and I see things through the same eyes my friend 😀..
Over the years I have come to this conclusion...
No matter what science you have behind it... not matter what measurements...calculations etc... you will NEVER please all in audio.. It's all about creating that emotional connection.. and if you don't get emotional about great audio playback then you need to find another hobby as the music you are listening to are relaying emotion..
now you may create a design that may please most.. but is that because it's different? or as allot of people don't have the opportunity to listen to a broad range of loudspeakers so once they hear something nice the assume or place it as the best?
just my .02$
Last edited:
If there really was an objective goal for sound reproduction (which there isnt), we would still have a great variation of sound tailored to a specific taste I think.
A parallell to cars is a bit off maybe, but there are several objective measures here regarding performance, comfort, economy and so on that CAN be measured and compared, but those measures do not rule out individual tastes, not at all.
Its true you cant please everyone in audio. The most important part for me is to please myself. 🙂
A parallell to cars is a bit off maybe, but there are several objective measures here regarding performance, comfort, economy and so on that CAN be measured and compared, but those measures do not rule out individual tastes, not at all.
Its true you cant please everyone in audio. The most important part for me is to please myself. 🙂
Exactly as has always been my point. Music playback in your home is about creating a listening experience that provids the most enjoyment. It is not about what anyone defines as right. There are obviously certain parameters which can be used as a guide in design because we knwo that if we verture to far outside those parameters the result is not good.
What parameters do you think should be looked after?
I do have a feeling that its not easy to find a common set of design parameters.
I do have a feeling that its not easy to find a common set of design parameters.
I think you guys are being too hard on Linkwitz. His practice is to record something (anything) with mics on his eyeglasses, near his ears, and then go home to compare how it sounds through the speakers. He likes classical music so those are the concerts he records, along with more mundane sounds such as walking in a crowd of people, sounds at a car mechanic's garage, surf at the beach, etc.
Sound Picture CD
That looks a lot like binaural recording, and while, as this thread points out, you can listen to any recording any way you want, it's "most appropriately" listened to over headphones.
Apparently the approach doesn't work or the original Orion would not require these updates. The mods, from what I can see, are far from subtle. And, IMO, the explanations are just rationalizations.
I agree that it is difficult to find a common set of design parameters. My point is just that as a designer you have to sit down and make a list or write specification. Then execute the design to confine within those specified parameters. The parameters can vary depending on the objectives. How's that for being vague?
John, I think we're all aware of the problems with the Orion although I've heard them at a friend's house and they sound good to me with all kinds of music. Ultimate speaker? Probably not. Dang good speaker? You bet.
Whether or not SL has succeeded in his design goals, I think his stated goal of having the speakers sound like the original is often misunderstood and/or intentionally used as a straw-man. The argument goes 'who wants Steely Dan to sound like they are playing in a symphony hall and, if so, which hall?' That's not what he's trying to do and that's not how the Orion sounds to me.
I look forward to your progress with the NaO Note, as it appears to fix some of the obvious directivity problems with the Orion and your earlier NaO versions.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.