SL's Pluto

Hey all - I just looked at SL's Pluto and I have to say "I don't get it!" A woofer firing straight up towards the ceiling AND into the tweeter mounting? Drivers firing at right angles to eachother? A tweet that dies at 15k? (Probably no music up there anyway?) Absolutely NO baffles whatsoever on either driver?

What doesn't make sense to me is that it's so different from how he says a speaker SHOULD be designed - yet he went ahead and broke a bunch of his own rules. Of course I don't know what the thing sounds like, but jeez - it looks like a mess to me. What's the point? Might as well have just made a smaller, cheaper OPEN BAFFLE, 3-WAY DIPOLE, which is what he says a speaker should be, and NOT what the Pluto IS.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm outta line - but I must say I lose a little respect for SL when he seems to so blatantly contradict his own principles. Pluto certainly seems to be a speaker of multiple sacrifices and compromises, with unbalanced emphasis on electronics, and for the money I think many of us could probably come up with something a little better.

Feedback folks?
 
Hey all - I just looked at SL's Pluto and I have to say "I don't get it!" A woofer firing straight up towards the ceiling AND into the tweeter mounting? Drivers firing at right angles to eachother? A tweet that dies at 15k? (Probably no music up there anyway?) Absolutely NO baffles whatsoever on either driver?

so.

What doesn't make sense to me is that it's so different from how he says a speaker SHOULD be designed - yet he went ahead and broke a bunch of his own rules.

There is more than one way to design a loudspeaker and
every loudspeaker will offer something good or bad. People
will perceive the sound as they please. It's ok to break rules,
it's just audio not the law. /hehe

Of course I don't know what the thing sounds like, but jeez - it looks like a mess to me.

What's the point?

I like it because it's 'black sheep'.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm outta line - but I must say I lose a little respect for SL when he seems to so blatantly contradict his own principles.

And who said that his principles is the Bible of audio?

Pluto certainly seems to be a speaker of multiple sacrifices and compromises

All loudspeaker designs are compromises.

and for the money I think many of us could probably come up with something a little better.

How can you say a loudspeaker is better when everyone
will precieve the sound quality different.




:devilr:
 

ScottG

Member
2003-02-04 12:23 am
US
there is a LOT going on here that is not readily apparent. And yes he is breaking his own rules, but like everyone else he is still learning.. It appears though that he is still grudgingly adhering to his rules by stating that the Pluto is only fractionally inferior to the Orion - not leaping so far to the conclusion that some of his rules may be wrong (i.e. that a better "pluto-like" desging might actually sound better than the Orion and therefor that some of the design behind the Orion is flawed).

What seems absurd though is that he has once again gone for the active crossover solution (..last time I checked). Not that an active solution is absurd, but rather that the speaker system was designed to be a very low cost solution and the active approach radiacally increases total cost.
 
Reply...

"Hey all - I just looked at SL's Pluto and I have to say "I don't get it!" A woofer firing straight up towards the ceiling AND into the tweeter mounting? Drivers firing at right angles to eachother? A tweet that dies at 15k? (Probably no music up there anyway?) Absolutely NO baffles whatsoever on either driver?"

:so."

SO - Linkwitz himself says no baffle is one of the worst designs - it's on his site.

"Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm outta line - but I must say I lose a little respect for SL when he seems to so blatantly contradict his own principles."

And who said that his principles is the Bible of audio?

No one - not my point - his principles are HIS bible - and yet he doesn't follow them - so they don't have much meaning, apparently even to Linkwitz.

"Pluto certainly seems to be a speaker of multiple sacrifices and compromises "

All loudspeaker designs are compromises

Yes, I know - these compromises are goofy.

"and for the money I think many of us could probably come up with something a little better. "

How can you say a loudspeaker is better when everyone will precieve the sound quality different

Build the Pluto, then for the same money build YOUR design - then listen - I'm saying YOU might like yours better, and other might too.
 

thylantyr

Member
2001-02-19 10:38 pm
Mars
sdclc126 said:


Wonder what kind of flak he's going to get on his site email?

:whazzat:

/joke

If he markets like Bose, then expect huge growth and the bad emails
are directed to the public relations officer, aka the trash bin.

:clown:

Oddly enough I wanted to do something similar with those NSB's
and $4 tweeters in a PVC pipe. Can't beat the <$10 speaker project
minus crossover.
 

BrianL

Member
Paid Member
2002-03-29 5:19 am
USA
Did it ever occur to you dudes that SL knows quite a bit;
that, in fact, he probably knows more than all of you (us)
put together when it comes to speaker design?

As to the active crossover being more expensive...
I recently purchased xover componenst for my speakers,
fairly simple design, and spent noticably more than
SL's xover would cost -- not to mention the "free" amplification
thrown in to his setup. And, no, I did not buy particularly
exotic xover components.

I believe that the Pluto is exactly what he says it is. An
easy-to-build fairly low-cost system. It is based on
his earlier work on pipe-based surround. Try/listen before
you make arbitrary judgements not based on fact. It would
also be handy to read the full text of his multi-page descriptions.
 
Did it ever occur to you dudes that SL knows quite a bit; ...

Yes, it did - which is exactly why I find it so bizarre that he would design a speaker using principles HE HIMSELF says are a bad idea.

This is a discussion forum - we talk all the time about speakers we've never heard, designs that have never been built, etc., and, like SL, have opinions based on our knowledge and experience. If I asked you what you thought about design XYZ, you would probably have some feedback, even if you'd never heard it. Happens every day here - if it didn't, this site probably wouldn't exist.

I wonder what the chatter would be like here if, instead of SL, the Pluto had been designed by one of us lesser mortals, and put up on the forum for review?

Dude.
 
BrianL said:
Did it ever occur to you dudes that SL knows quite a bit;
that, in fact, he probably knows more than all of you (us)
put together when it comes to speaker design?


Knowledge of speaker design doesn't guarantee that
I will like the loudspeaker sound. ie, all manufacturers claim
their loudspeaker is engineered properly, but yet I'm not
fond of the sound you get from store bought speakers. /rofl

I prefer DIY speakers to customize the sound for my specific needs.

Maybe you missed the --> /joke or :clown: in my posts.
 

BrianL

Member
Paid Member
2002-03-29 5:19 am
USA
Exactly the point.

I had a long reply typed which I just deleted. Waste of time.
It's obvious that people would rather take pot shots at
Siegfried than spend the time expanding their engineering
knowledge.

One doesn't have to be and engineer to enjoy the audio hobby.
But one should be mature enough not to ridicule those whose
skills and knowledge are so obviously superior to one's self.

One should also learn to recognize that any engineering work
involves tradeoffs and that the tradeoffs which are made are
highly dependent on the factors that matter for a given
application and those that are less important. So just because
a given "solution" doesn't meet your list of priorities, or --
as in this case -- the engineer chooses to design for a different
set of priorities/tradeoffs, doesn't render a specific design
(or the sum total of all his work as implied by the postings
on this thread) invalid.

Is the "quality" of a Lexus somehow diminished because the
same corporation also makes the Toyota Echo?

As they say:

Question Authority. Then listen respectfully to the answer.
 
BrianL said:
Exactly the point.

I had a long reply typed which I just deleted. Waste of time.
It's obvious that people would rather take pot shots at
Siegfried than spend the time expanding their engineering
knowledge.

One doesn't have to be and engineer to enjoy the audio hobby.
But one should be mature enough not to ridicule those whose
skills and knowledge are so obviously superior to one's self.

One should also learn to recognize that any engineering work
involves tradeoffs and that the tradeoffs which are made are
highly dependent on the factors that matter for a given
application and those that are less important. So just because
a given "solution" doesn't meet your list of priorities, or --
as in this case -- the engineer chooses to design for a different
set of priorities/tradeoffs, doesn't render a specific design
(or the sum total of all his work as implied by the postings
on this thread) invalid.

Is the "quality" of a Lexus somehow diminished because the
same corporation also makes the Toyota Echo?

As they say:

Question Authority. Then listen respectfully to the answer.


Taken from my first post;

I like it because it's 'black sheep'.

:shhh: :2c:
 

Pallas

Member
2004-08-23 5:59 am
In late summer I'll probably do the Pluto. I already have a pair of Aura Whispers that I don't have anything else to do with. I use them with a pair of Peerless SLS8's in my Miata; I bought a pair as spares in case they fried but so far they can take anything I can throw at them. A $40 pair of drivers might be a flimsy excuse to spend the money for his xover/amp modules, but I hate waste. I do wish he had designed it with a bigger midwoofer, though.

Based on personal experience with the Whispers, my only qualm is that their relatively high 2nd order distortion imparts a bit of a honey-toned sound to vocals and woodwinds. That sound works really well in an neoclassical roadster (BRG paint, wood steering wheel, Minilite replica wheels) but I'm not sure how it will work at home. Then again, the effect is very similar to what one gets from SET's or other honey-toned amps, so obviously some people like it.
 
Relax everyone

This is just another weird speaker. You just have to listen before making a comment. Of course, it is a strange design and I am sceptical. But what if it's good? Then we will all learn something.
If it is bad, so what? Everyone can make a design that is not popular. There are loads of bad speaker design on the web. Mr Linkwitz may be a DIY reference, no one should say that because SL designed it, then it is good.

F
 
Pot Shots

It's obvious that people would rather take pot shots at...

If you told me that a particular design was bad or would work poorly, and you stated it on your own website, with supporting data (ala SL), then went and built a speaker with those same design characteristics you just slammed, I'd take pot shots at you too.

The point is not what it sounds like, or the price, or anything else - he said A and did B - one invites criticism when one contradicts one's self. It's another example of "do what I say, not what I do."
 
Why so angry?

Why do we need to take "pot shots" at anyone? Personally, I find it refreshing that SL isn't afraid to try something new. Actually, it's not new at all for him. He has been using pipe surround speakers forever and this is just extending the theme.

As for SL breaking his own "rules", he has always said an omnidirectional speaker is a good second choice to a dipole and better than a traditional box. He was designing to a specific goal here. You can't listen to a big dipole like the Orion up really close. SL's minimum recommended room size for them is 12'x16'. The upward pointing woofer, low crossover and no baffles approximates an omnidirectional radiator. The close C-C distance between the woofer and tweeter means you can listen to them in the nearfield with no lobing problems.
 
Pot Shots, Anger, etc.

Good points! Actually I'm not angry - maybe just confused; in my original post I asked "Am I wrong? Am I out of line?" So I think I invited my own criticisms and pot shots - and got them. As I look at the criticisms of MY criticisms they make quite good sense.

SL says no baffle is bad for a dipole, rather than an omni, which are two distinct designs. The more I look at (and read about) the Pluto (what's with that name anyway - because it's far out there? he he) the more intrigued I am. I understand the concept of his ambience speakers firing toward the ceiling; I'm a little curious as to that idea for MAIN speakers though, especially without the "reflectors" I've seen on other omnis to direct the sound in a more horizontal fashion.

I'm wondering about the drivers - might be interesting to try this with the SEAS Excels or similar - shift the budget toward drivers and maybe use passive electronics/existing amps - might come out around the same money.

My apologies to SL - I actually have great respect for him and shouldn't second guess someone like that - I think his is the first site I came across when I started looking into this whole DIY business and would like to build the Orions (or something like them) some day. I probably know less about all this than most of the people on this forum, and have learned a great many things from you folks in the short time I've been here, and hope to continue to do so.

I actually have yet to build my first REAL project that I would want to post on these pages, but I'll have one some day...maybe it will be a Pluto...
 
I dont see anything wrong with the design. I dont see the point either unless I listen to a pair and like it muchas, but I am intending on trying this type of thing and seeing what it is like.

As far as I have learnt dipole bass is good because it minimises room interactions such as room modes.

Dipole midrange is good because it removes cabinet reflections.

This speaker does neither of the two so largely looses out on the main benafit of the Orion.

We shall see how it is received by the people who decide to build it.
 

ScottG

Member
2003-02-04 12:23 am
US
BrianL said:
As to the active crossover being more expensive...
I recently purchased xover componenst for my speakers,
fairly simple design, and spent noticably more than
SL's xover would cost -- not to mention the "free" amplification
thrown in to his setup. And, no, I did not buy particularly
exotic xover components.

This was my major critisism - and you have raised the typical (yet valid) response.

In truth though, you CAN produce a better sounding passive design for far less IF you use another pair of drivers (for BSC), AND you work with the driver's response when constructing a minimalist passive crossover. (..and at the same time perhaps produce even better sound than most active solutions.)

In particular I think this is a MAJOR failing SL has with his designs - he always opts for an active crossover because in essence he always opts for a high order crossover* (..and has legitimatly found that high-order passives sound like [email protected]@, and are as you noted - expensive.) This might be acceptable on a reference system where cost is secondary, but I find it entirely UNACCEPTABLE on a what is essentially intended to be a low cost system (..and $900 isn't exaclty "low cost").

*note: I think that the reason for the high order crossover "neccesity" IS based on two particular valid reasons: 1. that you can more aptly structure a driver's passband for optimally low distortion; 2. that driver to driver consistency is not always "consistent" - and that it is easier to obtain a far greater degree of uniformity.
 
Part of my original "criticism" of the design was the relative financial emphasis of electronics over drivers, etc., and I suggested perhaps a better (sounding) speaker could be had for the money, with passive x-over & external amps.

Maybe I should start a whole new thread here (maybe I will anyway), but this could be a fun thought experiment: Let's all pretend we're given $900 to build any speaker we can come up with - any design/drivers/electronics, etc. What would YOU build? And do you think you might be able to better the Pluto?

C'mon - this should be fun - let's have a "What I Would Build With $900 Contest!" :smash: