"Scott - do you want to list some specifics here? Good time/place to do it. Or, is that what you elaborated on in the rest of the post?"
there is lot, it is complex, and well over my capability to accuratly describe.
I will say that HOW sound is radiated in time, (considering a complex signal in intensity and time), is very important to achieving a realistic presentation.
Consider that:
1. we hear in stereo in the horizonatal plane (..but also convolve with pinna cues sound in the vertical plane).
2. we hear direct sound at a very low time level at 10ths and even 100'ths of a millisecond (i.e. in the nanosecond range).
Read this (and in particular the 2nd paragraph under "Interaural time difference"):
http://www.aip.org/pt/nov99/locsound.html
After reading the article (and in particular that paragraph) consider:
1. Horizontal polar output of an omni vs. a forward radiating driver's output (..particularly with regard to short wavelengths - i.e. high freq. response).
2. Time characterstics of a driver (excursion related) of an axial ("firing up or down) driver vs. a typical forward radiating driver.
Additionally those that think designs like this are TOO realistic sounding (or hyper realistic) are wrong. What happens here is that our visual perception does not "jive" with our auditory perception. Its weird to actually hear depth and width that extends well past the boundries of our walls - particularly when the system is of such high quality that you can actually percieve the walls of the recorded space (real or virtual).
there is lot, it is complex, and well over my capability to accuratly describe.
I will say that HOW sound is radiated in time, (considering a complex signal in intensity and time), is very important to achieving a realistic presentation.
Consider that:
1. we hear in stereo in the horizonatal plane (..but also convolve with pinna cues sound in the vertical plane).
2. we hear direct sound at a very low time level at 10ths and even 100'ths of a millisecond (i.e. in the nanosecond range).
Read this (and in particular the 2nd paragraph under "Interaural time difference"):
http://www.aip.org/pt/nov99/locsound.html
After reading the article (and in particular that paragraph) consider:
1. Horizontal polar output of an omni vs. a forward radiating driver's output (..particularly with regard to short wavelengths - i.e. high freq. response).
2. Time characterstics of a driver (excursion related) of an axial ("firing up or down) driver vs. a typical forward radiating driver.
Additionally those that think designs like this are TOO realistic sounding (or hyper realistic) are wrong. What happens here is that our visual perception does not "jive" with our auditory perception. Its weird to actually hear depth and width that extends well past the boundries of our walls - particularly when the system is of such high quality that you can actually percieve the walls of the recorded space (real or virtual).
Poor Man's Dipole Effect...
OK so it's a REALLY poor man's dipole effect. I wasn't making a serious comparison - just wishful thinking as I don't have dipole speakers, nor the space for them.
My experience with DSP has been pleasant, however, as the sound coming from the rear channels does indeed give the illusion of a larger listening room, and does give a 3rd dimension to the music, and I have experienced no degradation in sound quality. And I can't IMAGINE any such thing as TOO real or HYPER real - you can't get better than the original, nor as good as (yet?).
Probably the better DSP units are (were?) the surround processors that plug into the tape/line-outs of the pre-amp/receiver. Non-DIYers think it's better, at least more convenient, to have it all in one, but I'll bet most of you guys out there have separates, especially since many of you have built your own electronics as well as speakers.
Some day, some day...
OK so it's a REALLY poor man's dipole effect. I wasn't making a serious comparison - just wishful thinking as I don't have dipole speakers, nor the space for them.
My experience with DSP has been pleasant, however, as the sound coming from the rear channels does indeed give the illusion of a larger listening room, and does give a 3rd dimension to the music, and I have experienced no degradation in sound quality. And I can't IMAGINE any such thing as TOO real or HYPER real - you can't get better than the original, nor as good as (yet?).
Probably the better DSP units are (were?) the surround processors that plug into the tape/line-outs of the pre-amp/receiver. Non-DIYers think it's better, at least more convenient, to have it all in one, but I'll bet most of you guys out there have separates, especially since many of you have built your own electronics as well as speakers.
Some day, some day...
Why doesnt SL participate in the DIYAudio.com community? I have never seen a post from him at least.... Maybe someone should invite him so we can get some facts from the source
BassAwdyO said:
Maybe it would be like Albert Einstein (if he were alive today) participating in a physics community - everybody would be trying to pick his brain, and he wouldn't have time to deal with all the requests. He could hide his identity I suppose, but I think people would recognize him after awhile.
Maybe when you're as smart as SL, there are a lot of people out there waiting to pounce all over your designs (like naive me did), and he simply may have no interest in butting heads with those who might take issue with his thinking.
I believe he used to participate in these communities, but stopped at some point - he does return emails at his website though.
you're saying linkwitz doesnt have time to make a few posts here every now and then? I seriously doubt that. I know Dan wiggins from adire posts ocasionally and Tom danley recently joined the forum. I'm sure those guys arent the only respected audio enginners on the forum, and they're probably just as busy as Sigfried with their work. No doubt they have enough knowledge to school most of us, yet they find the time to help out the common folk.
Hey Dave
I got to wondering about using the Vifa drivers in this design on the Pluto "platform" - using these plus the simple passive x-over would really bring the price down. I'd also look at using a wood cylinder for the woof tube rather than plastic - maybe a little more work in applying a finish but much more cosmetically pleasing I'd think.
planet10 said:
I got to wondering about using the Vifa drivers in this design on the Pluto "platform" - using these plus the simple passive x-over would really bring the price down. I'd also look at using a wood cylinder for the woof tube rather than plastic - maybe a little more work in applying a finish but much more cosmetically pleasing I'd think.
ScottG said:
He hasn't participated on the Madisound forum for some time now. The reason as I understand it is mainly due to JohnK.
mac said:
Is he the NaO guy? Nice speaker, but he's kinda rude. I chided him in another thread for calling the Orion the "wrong" speaker. Were they "butting heads" as I alluded to a few posts back?
This is kinda what I predicted - people at that level could have some pretty heated exchanges, with no meeting of the minds. A battle of egos, perhaps. I can understand someone tiring of that.
I'm sure both speakers are a dream to experience - no reason for one to pan the other - both good designs with similar goals. Too bad this kind of rivalry has to happen - can't we all get along?
I'm very confident that the Orion destroys the NaO in SQ. The fact that John has to put down the Orion and brag about the NaO gives me the impression that the NaO is inferior and John isn't a very classy guy. You don't see SL bragging about his Orion and putting down other designs. The Orions have been getting praises from ppl who have tested them, not the person who designed them.
I think that the SL vs. JohnK is nothing more than a rumor. Sure they would spar from time to time on design differences, but if anything I think that SL enjoyed this (after all there are not to many people as technically well versed as these two).
Instead I think it was a case of "been there done that", (even with regard to JohnK), coupled with too many non-technically proficient people asking for alterations to his designs - or simply putting down his designs without the ability to back up there claim. I think he has found that he prefers email correspondance. Additionally on the "MAD" board, about every couple of months you have a near week-long group of threads that are just plain abusive to others (and Josh doesn't really have the time to moderate them).
Instead I think it was a case of "been there done that", (even with regard to JohnK), coupled with too many non-technically proficient people asking for alterations to his designs - or simply putting down his designs without the ability to back up there claim. I think he has found that he prefers email correspondance. Additionally on the "MAD" board, about every couple of months you have a near week-long group of threads that are just plain abusive to others (and Josh doesn't really have the time to moderate them).
akunec said:
It may be an impression shared by others as well, but in truth JohnK is also a very nice guy (and very helpfull - and not just with respect to his own designs).
In reality John was very impressed by the design of the Phoenix (SL's design b4 the Orion) - but thought that the reason it sounded as good as it did might be for other reasons than what SL postulated (pressure/velocity vs. room interaction). And like many he was a little put-off by the need for so many channels of amplification which in particular increased total cost for most people.
This has always been his only real "put-down" of Phoenix and the Orion - that there isn't neccesarily the need for the additional amplification for the mid-treble panel. If you want to think of it as a "put-down" go ahead, I personally think it has more than a little validity for a variety of reasons (..though I can also think of several reasons why I might want an active crossover in this region as well). Additionally he discovered that he could obtain a greater spl with his method of bass reproduction over that of dipole (though they are NOT comperable at all freq.s - but he has posted graphs on the differences) So when John jumps on a board and says "mines better" (or some thing to that effect) it usually means that his provides very similar sound quality (perhaps better/perhaps worse, but thats subjective) at what should be a lower cost to the average person.
ScottG said:
Have you seen John's new NaO web page (which looks an awful lot like SL's)? The cost isn't that cheap.
http://www.musicanddesign.com/options.html
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I find it amusing that he's offering all the same "options" that SL does with the Orion. IMO john should have based his design on SL's most recent, rather than one that's now over 5 years old (the Phoenix).
of course - it was always intended to be a competitor (which is good for all of us, no?)
I don't think anyone ever said it was cheap, rather the lack of need to purchase an additonal stereo amplifier (particularly a high quality one) could allow total cost to be less (perhaps even F A R less depending on the cost of that amplifier(s)).
Under SL's own admission the Orion is the lesser "design", not the Phoenix (.. to allow for a more compact form factor that has higher acceptance in a domestic setting). The only reason the Orion has any gain in sound quality over the Phoenix is that it uses better drivers (than what the original Phoenix used).
I don't think anyone ever said it was cheap, rather the lack of need to purchase an additonal stereo amplifier (particularly a high quality one) could allow total cost to be less (perhaps even F A R less depending on the cost of that amplifier(s)).
Under SL's own admission the Orion is the lesser "design", not the Phoenix (.. to allow for a more compact form factor that has higher acceptance in a domestic setting). The only reason the Orion has any gain in sound quality over the Phoenix is that it uses better drivers (than what the original Phoenix used).
ScottG said:
I'm afraid you're wrong about the Orion being the lesser design. SL states that the Orion represents his latest thinking on design and that he could have not built such a speaker even a short couple of years ago. To paraphrase him, the Orion is the only speaker that he could live with in his own livingroom and that includes his past Audio Artistry designs.
"It [the Orion] is an open-baffle loudspeaker of the highest sonic accuracy and refinement. It is my latest design and not only incorporates what I learned from previous exercises, but also takes advantage of the latest in driver technology."
"It [the Orion] exceeded it [the Phoenix] in terms of driver integration, smoothness of response, clarity and overall refinement of sound."
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/orion-faq.htm#Q4
The only thing the Orion gives up to the Phoenix is absolute maximum SPL. Having owned Orions and being familiar with the Phoenix, I can emphatically state that the Orion is the more refined of the two. YMMV.
Of course he couldn't have built it b4 - the drivers were not available.
What about dynamics? What about low freq. extension for a less than low spl?
What about dynamics? What about low freq. extension for a less than low spl?
ScottG said:
What about it? And what does this have to do with the Phoenix "being a superior design" compared to the Orion as you incorrectly proclaimed? 🙄
IMO dynamics are fantastic on both speakers. IMO low frequency extension and articulation is exemplary for both designs. IMO the Orion (w/o Thor subwoofers) isn't suited for someone who wants to fill his 1000sq/ft H/T room with wall shaking effects. OTOH, neither is the NaO.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.