Not really -- Orion is a niche of acoustic concert hall realism enthusiasts; the other 97% of listeners have different priorities.
Look at SL's playlist; Pink Floyd and Led Zep are simply not on the radar....
Linkwitz said:
Last edited:
Not really -- Orion is a niche of acoustic concert hall realism enthusiasts; the other 97% of listeners have different priorities.
Look at SL's playlist; Pink Floyd and Led Zep are simply not on the radar....
Zilch, normally this is the argument for Open Baffle design.
But remember that in this case the Orion is beaten in that exact area (the plausability of sound stage or what SL calls "Auditory Scene" as per his challenge).
The blind test result shows that the Behringer and IMP are better in reproducing believable AS.
That's why it is very "disturbing" I guess.
nb. Dave Clark's tests also includes classical and live jazz recording. Have a look at his presentation.
]The PDF shows that Orions are driven through dcx2496, might that affect things? Any components on the signal path?
P.S. I have to say I'm quite pleased with my 2030P (smaller Behringers), crossed at 120 Hz, tapped horn for sub duty 40-120 Hz. Still, in my opinion, 2030P can't imagine like dipoles do, some magic is missing.
--
Tuomas
P.S. I have to say I'm quite pleased with my 2030P (smaller Behringers), crossed at 120 Hz, tapped horn for sub duty 40-120 Hz. Still, in my opinion, 2030P can't imagine like dipoles do, some magic is missing.
--
Tuomas
I basically don't think the open baffles will work as good ad they were meant to.
1. The more interaction among waves really don't work well, no matter what the polar plots tell you. You just have a bunch of waves passing through each other.
2. It's always necessary to keep reflections at low levels below the venue of the original recording. Only this will allow you to hear the acoustics of the venue more clearly.
3. Fast CSD decay will make the speakers disapear. If you use paper coned drivers or any material with high loss. The speakers will disapear.
1. The more interaction among waves really don't work well, no matter what the polar plots tell you. You just have a bunch of waves passing through each other.
2. It's always necessary to keep reflections at low levels below the venue of the original recording. Only this will allow you to hear the acoustics of the venue more clearly.
3. Fast CSD decay will make the speakers disapear. If you use paper coned drivers or any material with high loss. The speakers will disapear.
1. Moot point. You'll get this with any type of speaker.
2. Can you clarify?
3. I disagree. CSD describes a transducer's tendency to continue to produce sound after the input signal is gone - whether or not this effect is significant has nothing to do with how easily one can discern the location of the speakers. I mean, what does the average CSD show compared to the RT60 of the room? And yet speakers can exhibit vastly different behaviour.
1. The levels of energy are different. OBs back waves have much higher energy than other types of speakers.
2. When room acoustics are at a level higher than the venue acoustics, it messes up reproduction of the venue acoustics.
3. If the transducer is producing sound after the input signal is gone, you hear the speakers, how can the speakers disappear? Unless it's masked by room acoustics, an issue which I addressed previously.
Then you are saying that an omnipole does not work either (or even less), which is in its ideal form a point source ratiating into every direction uniformly.
Isn't that what stereo and phantom sources are all about ?
Disagreed. Only a uniform power response make speakers disappear. I have used many materials in the past in speakers with non-
uniform response. They never disappeared. No matter how good or bad the drivers had been in terms of CSD.
"Regular" speakers do not have a backwave at all. Their sound comes from the front and wavelength depending it may or may not reach
to the back. That creates an uneven power response and the typical box sound.
If I understand correctly what you are saying then this is a matter of timing.
regards
There are several point that should be made. I mentioned some of these in another thread. First, one not mentioned in the other thread is the reaction of a dipole woofer with distance from the rear wall. The dipole bass will decrease as the woofers are place closer to a wall which is perpendicular to the dipole axis. This is to be expected. I discussed this on my site years ago. It is another reason why I prefer U-frame, quasi-cardioid woofers.
The next issue is dipoles vs direct radiators (w or w/o wave guides). First, speakers with wave guides generally address one major issue; controlling the radiation pattern through the crossover. Some wave guide speakers may also retain relatively constant beam width at higher frequencies. By the same token, some well designed direct radiator speakers have very smooth variation in beam width without resorting to wave guides.
Next we have the room. The optimum polar response can not be void of room considerations and the roll of reflections, both early and late. It should be obvious that in an anechoic room all that matters is the direct sound. Thus speakers with the same direct response and having similar dynamic capabilities should sound similar. When the speaker is moved into a more reverberant room the optimum polar response will depend on the room absorption characterists, which will control the ratio direct to reflected sound. The optimum polar response will also depend on the characteristics of each reflecting surface and the distance of those surfaces from the speaker which affects early and late reflections.
Last, preferences. There is no doubt that if you want the most accurate representation of what is recorded a direct radiator with relatively narrow beam width will generally provide that better than a dipole in a reverberant room, even one of modest reverberation. A dipole source will typically provide a greater level of early reflections which will obscure some spatial detail resulting in a more open sound. It is the same old argument, do you want a window on the performance as provided by a direct radiator, or do you want to bring a performance into you room, as generally provided by dipole type speakers? You don't need wave guide speaker to hear these differences. Small monitor like the LS3/5a and its spin offs are excellent at providing the type of image found with direct radiators.
I would suggest we all go listen to some of our favorite music on our systems. If you like what you hear don't worry about what you rear on the web or who wrote it.
The next issue is dipoles vs direct radiators (w or w/o wave guides). First, speakers with wave guides generally address one major issue; controlling the radiation pattern through the crossover. Some wave guide speakers may also retain relatively constant beam width at higher frequencies. By the same token, some well designed direct radiator speakers have very smooth variation in beam width without resorting to wave guides.
Next we have the room. The optimum polar response can not be void of room considerations and the roll of reflections, both early and late. It should be obvious that in an anechoic room all that matters is the direct sound. Thus speakers with the same direct response and having similar dynamic capabilities should sound similar. When the speaker is moved into a more reverberant room the optimum polar response will depend on the room absorption characterists, which will control the ratio direct to reflected sound. The optimum polar response will also depend on the characteristics of each reflecting surface and the distance of those surfaces from the speaker which affects early and late reflections.
Last, preferences. There is no doubt that if you want the most accurate representation of what is recorded a direct radiator with relatively narrow beam width will generally provide that better than a dipole in a reverberant room, even one of modest reverberation. A dipole source will typically provide a greater level of early reflections which will obscure some spatial detail resulting in a more open sound. It is the same old argument, do you want a window on the performance as provided by a direct radiator, or do you want to bring a performance into you room, as generally provided by dipole type speakers? You don't need wave guide speaker to hear these differences. Small monitor like the LS3/5a and its spin offs are excellent at providing the type of image found with direct radiators.
I would suggest we all go listen to some of our favorite music on our systems. If you like what you hear don't worry about what you rear on the web or who wrote it.
The Behringer speaker is a great value speaker, several blind tests and measurements show its peforms extremely well. The down side for most is that they can not get past the Behringer name. Its like the Klipsch name and everyone thinking all klipsch speakers are bright when they are not.
Now the $360 for the Behringer is great but the Econowave DIY can high clean SPL needed for custom HT rooms. The behringer can not do that, it like every other small woofer, dome tweeter speaker fails when it comes to properly handling dynamics in movies.
btw, the actives are $200 each on PE
Last edited:
Not at all, its not like Orion owners will now dislike their speaker and anyone that builds Orion speakers is definitely not the type of person that will stand for having a Behringer speaker in their room
The other simple fact is that the majority just do not care about these ABX, they still think cables matter and amps are so important. They will still think what they hear is what they REALLY hear.
Last edited:
Johnk
By coincidence, 2 days ago a guy in my local audio club said he was thinking about an Orion, but hard to justify the cost.
I pointed him to the NaO Note, and gave 4 reasons that I see, as to why it could/ should sound better than the Orion. Though there may be a couple of factors the other way.
Alas he doesn’t know of your work, which makes him "wary"; and doesnt seem technically quick on the uptake
When i see a couple of favourable reviews of it, I’ll point him to them.
By coincidence, 2 days ago a guy in my local audio club said he was thinking about an Orion, but hard to justify the cost.
I pointed him to the NaO Note, and gave 4 reasons that I see, as to why it could/ should sound better than the Orion. Though there may be a couple of factors the other way.
Alas he doesn’t know of your work, which makes him "wary"; and doesnt seem technically quick on the uptake
When i see a couple of favourable reviews of it, I’ll point him to them.
Last edited:
I wonder if the folks here ORION/PLUTO Users Group • View forum - ORION General have seen the results of the comparison
As John said, we all should be happy with our system. After all it's well known that there is no way any stereo can reproduce live sound. As SL cleverly put it: Stereo = Illusion Engine.
However the excercise was exactly that: To find out which type of speakers can produce convincing illusion. To many's surprise it's not the Orion which is one of the best dipole implementation (in other word: the majority of other dipoles would fail even more).
Are we doing something wasteful here? Multi amps, complex xo/dsp and all when a simple Behringer can do the job?
However the excercise was exactly that: To find out which type of speakers can produce convincing illusion. To many's surprise it's not the Orion which is one of the best dipole implementation (in other word: the majority of other dipoles would fail even more).
Are we doing something wasteful here? Multi amps, complex xo/dsp and all when a simple Behringer can do the job?
I am a member and follow that forum quite often. It is full of great information, although things are not as quick/many as diyaudio.
This is old news so I don't know why no one is mentioning it there (Linkwitzlab also never mention the result of the challenge). Maybe just a matter of time or simply lack of interest.
SL is a member of diyAudio. It would be very interesting if he still visit here and provide his opinion.
Last edited: