It just depends on your goals. I build speakers because I simply love to build something and have it work better then expected.
I use DSPs because the give me incredible flexibility and lower my over all costs since I tend to build speakers then build new speakers after I learn something.
The only omnipole that sounded quite adequate to me was one made by German Physics, and it was in a pretty well damped room.
Not when you get a mixture of sources in the same channel. It's still best to keep the least sound source possible for a specific SPL design target. But as usual, tradeoffs need to be considered
Small speakers generally do not have uniform power response, and quite often they disappear, more often that larger speakers. However, when listening to music, speakers that have a longer decay will tend to have a flatter sound image. If the decay is not even, it is quite oftern that certain instruments will hit notes in those longer regions causing the sound to seemingly come from a specific speaker, thus the image of that instrument seems to jump around.
With a faster decay, the driver decaying sound does not mask the venue acoustics as long, so the venue acoustics is more obvious creating a more realistic spacial sound.
Normally the requirement of even power response is under the assumption that the room will respond to all frequencies in the same way, this is far from reality.
The only time I had encounter box sound was eather tuning of the box, or driver cavity resonance. Of course what we each describe as box sound might be totally different things. The room is a box, and if not properly treated, box sound may occur as well. I have data showing when box sound is hear and when eliminated by reducing cavity resonance.
Time and SPL level.
Well, again, I think there is entirely to much emphasis placed on "who said it", whether it be me, SL, Earl Geddes, Lynn Olson...... some group of guy's who got together for some contrived experiment. If SL were to comment why would it matter? What could he say? The whole challenge thing is foolish to start with, IMO. I would assume that if any of my speakers were in the same test they migh also have finished behind the Behringer. What would be my recourse? The test was flawed? The room wasn't right? The wrong source material was used? The listeners don't have a clue? The results of the experiment were not an indictment of dipole speakers. The results are what they are; a group of listeners got together and expressed their preference. The world didn't change.
No but I think the truely important point is that when we remove all other variables and just listen without expectation then its a completely different world. The conclusions are always going to be a little different then uncontrolled listening enjoyment.
The Audiophile world has always been a world of great exaggerations, IMO. Real conclusions are mostly boring and not as colorful
The Orion Users Group doesn't exist for that purpose. We started it simply as a support site for help/instruction to folks building the Linkwitz designs.
If a person is looking for a "discussion" forum to espouse modifications, second-guess the designers technical prowess, criticize the performance, etc, etc, there are plenty of other forums available for that. You're on one.
Cheers,
Dave.
Not So..... Has nothing to do with the material nor even size. If you keep the room ratios the same Big can disappear like small, of course a badly designed speaker is just such regardless of topology used..
The Orion is not the pinnacle of Open baffle design and you cannot expect to just plant the Orion anywhere and expect it to work and without E/Q !
Interesting ...
I would not write off OB designs just yet ....
Interesting experiment!
Hello Gainphile
Money really isn’t the issue. Radiation patterns and room set-up are. Just goes to show you there is more than one way to skin the cat.
They may not have used Earl’s speakers but it looks like they used his set-up techniques with the Behringers. The results seem to support his views as far as speaker radiation characteristics and set-up.
Good idea John. While thought provoking it doesn’t change my views or diminish the enjoyment I get from my home systems.
Nah, where would the fun be if you could find nirvana at your local music store?
Rob
Hello Gainphile
Money really isn’t the issue. Radiation patterns and room set-up are. Just goes to show you there is more than one way to skin the cat.
They may not have used Earl’s speakers but it looks like they used his set-up techniques with the Behringers. The results seem to support his views as far as speaker radiation characteristics and set-up.
Good idea John. While thought provoking it doesn’t change my views or diminish the enjoyment I get from my home systems.
Nah, where would the fun be if you could find nirvana at your local music store?
Rob
Good Catch, I was trying to find those details on the weblink.
Do you have a link explaining the setup technique better? Im about to raise my 2-way waveguide designs by building bass bins for them.
FYI
I looked at the testing protocal when Dave Clark asked me to participate. I did not like how the test was being performed because the assumption of "recreating a concert hall" was assumed and the questions and ratings were done under this assumption. I do not agree with this assumption as the "final criteria", so I declined to participate.
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.
Some people "prefered" one speaker and some people "prefered" another, nothing new there. Accuracy of the reproduction was not given any weighting at all and was not even asked about. It was all "preference" under specific recordings where the criteria was "a realistic impression of being in a concert hall".
The measurements of the Berhinger speaker were pretty incredible for such a cheap speaker. As to how it sounds? Well are we talking "preference" or "accuracy". The Orions were not "prefered" by this audience, but then again, they seemed to like the Eichmiers - at least for a "concert hall effect". Go figure.
I looked at the testing protocal when Dave Clark asked me to participate. I did not like how the test was being performed because the assumption of "recreating a concert hall" was assumed and the questions and ratings were done under this assumption. I do not agree with this assumption as the "final criteria", so I declined to participate.
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.
Some people "prefered" one speaker and some people "prefered" another, nothing new there. Accuracy of the reproduction was not given any weighting at all and was not even asked about. It was all "preference" under specific recordings where the criteria was "a realistic impression of being in a concert hall".
The measurements of the Berhinger speaker were pretty incredible for such a cheap speaker. As to how it sounds? Well are we talking "preference" or "accuracy". The Orions were not "prefered" by this audience, but then again, they seemed to like the Eichmiers - at least for a "concert hall effect". Go figure.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics..
Actually as far as listener preference is concerned, Toole's (et al.) research indicates a fairly large degree of correlation - at least over a large sample, and when using reasonably different loudspeakers (..not dissimilar to this testing).
The "preference" vs. "accuracy" argument here is garbage.
The test was designed to elicit preference based on accuracy (..though as pointed out by others, from a specific genre of music). In other words people had a preference for a particular loudspeaker because they thought it was more accurate. What was missing however were the notes accompanying each listener describing *why* they thought it was more accurate, something that SL not only advocates - but has published on his site using his own test. IMO, without it - it's far more meaningless than Toole's conclusions.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics..
Actually as far as listener preference is concerned, Toole's (et al.) research indicates a fairly large degree of correlation - at least over a large sample, and when using reasonably different loudspeakers (..not dissimilar to this testing).
The "preference" vs. "accuracy" argument here is garbage.
The test was designed to elicit preference based on accuracy (..though as pointed out by others, from a specific genre of music). In other words people had a preference for a particular loudspeaker because they thought it was more accurate. What was missing however were the notes accompanying each listener describing *why* they thought it was more accurate, something that SL not only advocates - but has published on his site using his own test. IMO, without it - it's far more meaningless than Toole's conclusions.
Accuracy - conforming exactly or almost exactly to fact or to a standard.
Interesting test by Clark and his colleagues.
I am curious why the B2030A Behringer was used. From the Behringer web site it seems its been superseded for at least 12 months now by the B3030A which uses a 2" ribbon tweeter in a wave guide.
I wonder if the ribbon tweeter might sound better, which would make these tests even more intriguing.
BTW, it seems to be roughly the same retail cost (within $50) in Australia as its predecessor.
I am curious why the B2030A Behringer was used. From the Behringer web site it seems its been superseded for at least 12 months now by the B3030A which uses a 2" ribbon tweeter in a wave guide.
I wonder if the ribbon tweeter might sound better, which would make these tests even more intriguing.
BTW, it seems to be roughly the same retail cost (within $50) in Australia as its predecessor.
Because he had them. They were pretty old and one died during the polar response tests. Sometimes frugality rules.
Well, most of the speakers I have used or designed are small. Do you have data showing otherwise?