Linkwitz Orions beaten by Behringer.... what!!?

Jump to Latest
#101
Eric Weitzman said:
For those who haven't actually read the statement of the test goals and/or the results, the test was set up to evaluate the speakers ability to create a plausible auditory scene. That was all. See here: http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/SLC.htm. As gedlee noted earlier in this thread, the results were statistically insignificant and seemingly David Clark agreed. So there aren't too many conclusions one can draw from it. gainphile's title for this thread is kind of misleading.
Click to expand...

But this is the point. Why didn't the dipoles "blow away" the bookshelf loudspeakers on terms of creating plausible auditory scene? Don't get me wrong as all my speakers are dipoles too (even my bookshelves). But if a study told me that my my god did not exist, I better check and investigate. That's what the "Y" is for in DIY. At the moment I'm building the CD Box speakers just to see.

An anecdote: A friend brought his Mackie 624 monitors over to my place a few years ago. These were highly regarded for their accurate and clean sound. We listened to these first. They were impressive, for their performance, size and price. Sound familiar so far? Then we turned on the Orions. Game over: the sound from the monitors seemed like a caricature of the music from the Orions. He now has Orions.
Click to expand...

Yes but there are Orion owners convinced enough to buy Gedlee speakers. This is not interesting enough to investigate?

Again the only way is to build one and listen 🙂
 
#102
gainphile said:
But this is the point. Why didn't the dipoles "blow away" the bookshelf loudspeakers on terms of creating plausible auditory scene? Don't get me wrong as all my speakers are dipoles too (even my bookshelves). But if a study told me that my my god did not exist, I better check and investigate. That's what the "Y" is for in DIY. At the moment I'm building the CD Box speakers just to see.
Click to expand...

If you have done enough controlled listening tests you would know the answer. Its a very simple one!

When you remove imagination/expectation bias. The differences across the board are never going to produce anything that "Blows Away" anything else unless one product had major flaws.

There is a reason the majority of audiophiles refuse to do the tests. It takes away the most important part of their hobby, expectation and imagination is very much the cornerstone of those deeply involved. That isnt a bad thing either, we experience and enjoy placebo induced conclusions 100 times a day. Its simply human nature!
 
#103
gainphile said:
But this is the point. Why didn't the dipoles "blow away" the bookshelf loudspeakers on terms of creating plausible auditory scene? Don't get me wrong as all my speakers are dipoles too (even my bookshelves). But if a study told me that my my god did not exist, I better check and investigate. That's what the "Y" is for in DIY. At the moment I'm building the CD Box speakers just to see.



Yes but there are Orion owners convinced enough to buy Gedlee speakers. This is not interesting enough to investigate?

Again the only way is to build one and listen 🙂
Click to expand...


They are both reasonably wide dispersion designs that are fairly uniform.. the design that was wider was preferred - despite combing effects and non-uniformity. 😉

I suspect that those Orion owners that subsequently purchased Gedlee kits did so for somewhat different reasons than their capability to present an "auditory scene".
 
#105
gedlee said:
Talk about "garbage".
Click to expand...

..I think not.

btw, as is often the case, I think you have misunderstood my post. 😉

I think that their preference was not because of auditory scene - because I think they are relatively complementary in that regard. Rather I believe that there were *other* compelling reasons for their preference.

As I posted in your own forum.. nycavsr2000 specifically commented on his preference in post 77 here:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/163072-nao-note-preview-8.html

Btw, If I'm wrong - please provide some evidence of this. I'm courtesy enough to actually *explain* my objection.. but perhaps you are "above" that.
 
Last edited:
#110
Yes the TW were only forward facing. Maybe I should have said "bipole version of" instead. The difference in the design is really the dual angled drivers. The Allison Model Ones were similar. I have a pair of Time Windows and in a small room, they create a truly spacious and large sound. Ive been meaning to try some single drivers in that configuration to see if they can sound similar.

amt
 
#111
amt said:
Yes the TW were only forward facing. Maybe I should have said "bipole version of" instead. The difference in the design is really the dual angled drivers... Ive been meaning to try some single drivers in that configuration to see if they can sound similar.
Click to expand...

As i was posting i was wondering if that was the interpretation you meant. A set of FonkenPrime with FE127eN do a pretty good job of truly spacious and large sound... especially with helper woofers.

The Mark Audio incarnations promise to do better yet.

dave
 
#117
gainphile said:
But this is the point. Why didn't the dipoles "blow away" the bookshelf loudspeakers on terms of creating plausible auditory scene?
Click to expand...
If the test as not statistically significant as gedlee and Dave concluded, then we don't know if any speaker did or did not "blow away" any other speaker. The data just doesn't support any conclusions about the speakers. We can draw some conclusions about the test, though: It either needed more participants and/or trials to reduce the variance, or better discriminating questions.

- Eric

gedlee said:
I later discussed the results with Dave, and after listening to his analysis, I said "Well then basically the results were null - statistically insignficant" and he responded, "Well basically, yea." The individual variance was greater than the speaker to speaker variance under the test protocal performed.
Click to expand...
 
#119
First of all if you build them yourselves the Orions aren't anywhere near 9K for a pair. Second, there have been multiple mods to the Orions since the first poster posted this. Third, the information presented originally is years old. Why don't you try building the Plutos if you don't like the Orions. Personally I prefer the Orions but haven't heard teh challenger. But the audio world doesn't seem to have held up the results. The Orion isn't going to be reviewed except in off the world publications. One thing the Orion does allow you to hear is that many "exotic" preamps aren't better than cheaper versions. Different, but not better. But I have the drivers to build the Plutos now and they are quite inexpensive to build, plumbing pipe being the enclosure for the woofer and tweeter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom