I always found entertaining Danny Richie's youtube videos explaining basics of speaker designs to a crowd which then buys tons of "high-end cable" and connector upgrades, acoustic treatment upgrades and Xover component upgrades from him. One does get to see the innards of many a commercial speaker Danny gets to open up in those videos and take some basic measurements on.
His business model seems perfect for this digital age giving easy exposure to a large crowd of average users with suggestibility personality traits (see his post on the future of Gr-research; apparently orders took off by 400% since Covid placed many in front of their home computers).
> But what got my attention was his video on "upgrading" linkwitz orions. The guy is knocking with his knuckles on the open baffle on which the mid driver is not even mounted. Then points out "stored energy" coming from edge diffractions. Completely misses a point on dipole design with cancellation at 90 degrees to get controlled dispersion for early reflections, designing for off-axis response where on-axis is not meant to measure flat at all and for the design to be active and use EQ. Wants to add side wings etc. and just ahhh....
I posted a comment suggesting to him to consider staying with upgrading commercial speaker designs made for a price point and probably refrain from changing designs made by DIY enthusiasts, especially those as qualified as the late SL. else we may turn his youtube comments into a forum where the real speaker design trade offs will be discussed. Will see what effect my post may or may not have.
Granted that every speaker comes with some functional trade offs, I find it distasteful to pick on a design by someone who fairly recently passed away and could not chime in to explain a few things to "the more knowledgeable".
His business model seems perfect for this digital age giving easy exposure to a large crowd of average users with suggestibility personality traits (see his post on the future of Gr-research; apparently orders took off by 400% since Covid placed many in front of their home computers).
> But what got my attention was his video on "upgrading" linkwitz orions. The guy is knocking with his knuckles on the open baffle on which the mid driver is not even mounted. Then points out "stored energy" coming from edge diffractions. Completely misses a point on dipole design with cancellation at 90 degrees to get controlled dispersion for early reflections, designing for off-axis response where on-axis is not meant to measure flat at all and for the design to be active and use EQ. Wants to add side wings etc. and just ahhh....
I posted a comment suggesting to him to consider staying with upgrading commercial speaker designs made for a price point and probably refrain from changing designs made by DIY enthusiasts, especially those as qualified as the late SL. else we may turn his youtube comments into a forum where the real speaker design trade offs will be discussed. Will see what effect my post may or may not have.
Granted that every speaker comes with some functional trade offs, I find it distasteful to pick on a design by someone who fairly recently passed away and could not chime in to explain a few things to "the more knowledgeable".
Last edited:
Actually, I'd agree with most of what he's saying.
..where I wouldn't agree:
-passive is better than active. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.. (..this rather depends on the rest of the system, IF it's a "low parts" system then almost certainly with a complex active ANALOG crossover - where that crossover tends to limit the potential result of the rest of the system. A decent digital crossover though that's implemented well can sound very good, though you might miss some of the character that certain passive parts (quality cap's) can provide in key areas like the tweeter. At a certain "level" though, the DAC (and it's power supply) from the digital crossover does limit things a bit subjectively.
-the passive alteration of the REAR tweeter isn't quite the same because of the depression of output below 10 kHz. It might sound better to him, but it might not to others.
Everything else within the context as presented was pretty-much spot-on.
I've always thought that SL's best design from 300 Hz up is the Pluto, even though it lacks some of that velocity (as opposed to pressure) characteristic (..that I really like).
SL might well have agreed with his comments when you factor-in the differences in the LX 521.4 (vs the Orion) - which addresses most of what Danny had issues with.
Ex. note that the mid driver IS mounted to the bass assembly - and in (almost) the worst possible way: with "stick" like appendage on the back that mounts to the driver's magnet (..it would have been even worse mounted to the frame). Basically it's a wood "tuning fork" with energy traveling down the mount and particularly back up from the bass drivers. The LX on the other hand is physically separated from the bass drivers that are contributing to most of the energy with an exterior "frame" around the bass baffle that shouldn't be touching that bass structure.
..where I wouldn't agree:
-passive is better than active. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.. (..this rather depends on the rest of the system, IF it's a "low parts" system then almost certainly with a complex active ANALOG crossover - where that crossover tends to limit the potential result of the rest of the system. A decent digital crossover though that's implemented well can sound very good, though you might miss some of the character that certain passive parts (quality cap's) can provide in key areas like the tweeter. At a certain "level" though, the DAC (and it's power supply) from the digital crossover does limit things a bit subjectively.
-the passive alteration of the REAR tweeter isn't quite the same because of the depression of output below 10 kHz. It might sound better to him, but it might not to others.
Everything else within the context as presented was pretty-much spot-on.
I've always thought that SL's best design from 300 Hz up is the Pluto, even though it lacks some of that velocity (as opposed to pressure) characteristic (..that I really like).
SL might well have agreed with his comments when you factor-in the differences in the LX 521.4 (vs the Orion) - which addresses most of what Danny had issues with.
Ex. note that the mid driver IS mounted to the bass assembly - and in (almost) the worst possible way: with "stick" like appendage on the back that mounts to the driver's magnet (..it would have been even worse mounted to the frame). Basically it's a wood "tuning fork" with energy traveling down the mount and particularly back up from the bass drivers. The LX on the other hand is physically separated from the bass drivers that are contributing to most of the energy with an exterior "frame" around the bass baffle that shouldn't be touching that bass structure.
Last edited:
I don't know how I'd improve an Orion but Pluto is a great platform. You can turn it into surround/center channels and augment it with subs. You can also add cardioid low-mid or turn the high frequency driver into an array.
Pluto is flexible because it's omni from Schroeder to 3kHz with its crossover at 1kHz.
Pluto is flexible because it's omni from Schroeder to 3kHz with its crossover at 1kHz.
I would not give too much importance to most of what is contained in those videos.
It’s hard to take someone seriously who claims that “tube connectors” can make a major difference in the sound you hear if they are substituted for quality binding posts.
He refuses to show any measurements that would even begin to explain an improvement. Nor does he offer any scientific explanation for it. And if anyone challenges the idea of improved sonic performance by these magic connectors on the AudioCircle forum they are quickly shouted down by his fan club.
There are also other positions he has taken on speaker design and performance that are diametrically opposed to virtually all the experts on the subject.
As a result, I take everything that he posts with a grain of salt.
Last edited:
Well for him to say how the narrower open baffle around the tweeter is "better": well it holds true in a certain context as everyone knows now thanks to the works of the very likes of SL, John K, et al. Orion design was before SL decided to put function ahead of the form, thus the conventional width baffle.
Moreover, in this case it makes little difference since uniform dipole dispersion through the Xover region could not be maintained with just a 8+1 driver combo on any baffle; hence both NaoNote and LX521 later converged on an 8+4+1 config on a minimalist baffle.
Also to make blank statements about Mg drivers sounding veiled etc. is nothing more than an opinionated commentary. We know he does not buy drivers from Seas for his kits.
As far as passive Xover: there is little acoustical merit to those; their primary (and often only) goal is to allow for using fewer amplifiers. I myself made one for LX521 for the same reason and know how they measure compared to the active. Some benefit might be achieved in Xover designs like Elsinore's as far as super flat impedance and good response to a current amp.
Given that active Xovers come with steep filters with no added interactions in the circuit and are commonly integrated with EQ capability, they are a clear winner if the multiple amps are available and can be tolerated in the set up.
spot-on? and how does the edge diffraction add to the stored energy measurement?
I do not think that anyone who designed a speaker would be happy with someone "upgrading" it by dropping a part of the frequency range on the back tweeter and saying "well that worked out very well". Ok, we get it that he was tasked and paid to make a passive Xover but let us not sell that as an "upgrade" even when it clearly means a functional trade-off with the original design. Just as you think you can hear a particular cap on a tweeter, someone else might be missing that reflection off the back.
Last edited:
you have to admire the guy though for gathering a crowd of believers akin to those in a religious setting; going: "Wow, NOW I understand. He shed the light"
.It would be interesting to see those guys who can "hear a connector" in an objective listening study at Harman where they could not exchange opinions with others. I bet they could not repeatedly evaluate the same stuff played in a blind study because of the imagination kicking in.
I thought that video was enjoyable enough. Not a lot of snake-oil there. He seems to like improving crossovers and wiring and cabinet damping.
The Linkwitz design gets a largely passive crossover which works out cheaper.
I enjoyed the videos on improving the B&W 601 and Epos ES12 designs too.
Interesting was his take on supertweeters. I have tried the upfiring idea myself:
Tech Talk 4: Adding a Super Tweeter - YouTube
Works well. Ryan at Impulse Audio is good too. He gives complete designs:
Life S5 | Part 1: The Build - YouTube
Nice little computer monitor IMO. Cheap too.
The Linkwitz design gets a largely passive crossover which works out cheaper.
I enjoyed the videos on improving the B&W 601 and Epos ES12 designs too.
Interesting was his take on supertweeters. I have tried the upfiring idea myself:
Tech Talk 4: Adding a Super Tweeter - YouTube
Works well. Ryan at Impulse Audio is good too. He gives complete designs:
Life S5 | Part 1: The Build - YouTube
Nice little computer monitor IMO. Cheap too.
I've watched a number of his videos. One has to take into account he is promoting his products and services in these videos. If he has money to make by selling tube connectors, crossover component upgrades, cables that block out RF and other interference between amplifier and speaker... then justification will be found.
When someone spouts that there is science in his method, when clearly he is making a claim without evidence... then I tend to doubt all other claims moreso.
The problem is some of the followers do not seem to have the skepticism/critical thinking required. That's ok by me too. I'm not here to save them from themselves.
When someone spouts that there is science in his method, when clearly he is making a claim without evidence... then I tend to doubt all other claims moreso.
The problem is some of the followers do not seem to have the skepticism/critical thinking required. That's ok by me too. I'm not here to save them from themselves.
you have to admire the guy though for gathering a crowd of believers akin to those in a religious setting; going: "Wow, NOW I understand. He shed the light"
It would be interesting to see those guys who can "hear a connector" in an objective listening study at Harman where they could not exchange opinions with others. I bet they could not repeatedly evaluate the same stuff played in a blind study because of the imagination kicking in.
When asked at one point whether the tube connectors had been subjected to a double blind test his response was that there was no such thing as a double blind test. I think someone should get that word to Floyd Toole who seems to think otherwise.
Then when asked further whether the tube connectors had been subjected to even a single blind test his answer was that it wasn’t necessary either. He had listened to tube connectors and concluded that they sounded significantly better than other types of connectors. No further proof needed. He put out the word and dozens of his followers confirmed it.
You can make up your own mind about it, but that is not very different from what happens in a religion.
Last edited:
Certainly there are higher quality binding posts than those cheap ones and I think most people here would opt for spending a little more money to get the better ones.
For the same amount of money as four tube connectors you can get a four of these high quality Cardas non-ferrous gold plated binding posts.
Cardas ACBP s Binding Post
And I think that anyone who believes they could possibly hear any difference between the two types is either delusional or trying to sell you something to serve their own profit purposes.
For the same amount of money as four tube connectors you can get a four of these high quality Cardas non-ferrous gold plated binding posts.
Cardas ACBP s Binding Post
And I think that anyone who believes they could possibly hear any difference between the two types is either delusional or trying to sell you something to serve their own profit purposes.
I mean the guy to his own admission (see future of GR research video) is selling hundreds of meters of the "high end" cable (cannot keep up with the orders). his average customer does not have the attention span to read something like Pass review:
Pass LabsSPEAKER CABLES: Science or Snake Oil - Pass Labs
I find it really admirable that one could get someone to ship to him a pair of speakers to be "upgraded"; sometimes a pair that was made by a reputable company where a bunch of engineers rotated iterations of development prototypes between themselves trying to get the speaker voicing right across different generations, different music material and different amps.
And then he offers his own speaker design (originally done for someone else who apparently could not move them) as something to upgrade again because (paraphrasing) "the Chinese took shortcuts and built crap despite my clear instructions..." etc.
Clearance! THE SPEAKERS YOU'VE BEEN ASKING FOR! - YouTube
who are you kidding? they build stuff for the most reputable brands and cannot take shortcuts around specs and quality control. They build it cheap when you tell them you want it cheap.
Pass LabsSPEAKER CABLES: Science or Snake Oil - Pass Labs
I find it really admirable that one could get someone to ship to him a pair of speakers to be "upgraded"; sometimes a pair that was made by a reputable company where a bunch of engineers rotated iterations of development prototypes between themselves trying to get the speaker voicing right across different generations, different music material and different amps.
And then he offers his own speaker design (originally done for someone else who apparently could not move them) as something to upgrade again because (paraphrasing) "the Chinese took shortcuts and built crap despite my clear instructions..." etc.
Clearance! THE SPEAKERS YOU'VE BEEN ASKING FOR! - YouTube
who are you kidding? they build stuff for the most reputable brands and cannot take shortcuts around specs and quality control. They build it cheap when you tell them you want it cheap.
"Veiled" was a poor word choice (though it was his second choice), but "artificial"? Yes. It sounds over-damped (..and so do the woven poly drivers that the LX has, though to a lesser degree). I've heard these in a number of different designs and they always have this sound. "Veiled" on the other hand traditionally relates to clarity - and they do NOT lack clarity. That over-damped character seems to attenuate decay and overtone character - that yes: results in something sounding less "musical". Sure, it's also my opinion - but it's obvious that it's Danny's opinion as well.
There is particular merit to the approach he used as a passive crossover relative to someone wanting to use fewer amplifiers, and potentially preferred (expensive) amplifiers. He said as much:
Danny takes on upgrading the Linkwitz Orion! - YouTube
Edge diffraction changes the linear response for a given axial response derived from a combination of diffractive gain and effective multi-source "combing" that combines with the tweeter's response creating resonant issue "peaks and troughs" in the freq. response that lead to elongated decay or "ringing".
Danny takes on upgrading the Linkwitz Orion! - YouTube
Issues in speaker design - 2
As to the reduction in output of the rear tweeter below 10 kHz.. Depends on the listener I guess.
A number of designs utilize the alteration that Danny has done here, and it has merit. The reason is that a typical tweeter starts loosing pressure off-axis around 7-8 kHz and the resulting power response is depressed ABOVE this freq.. Utilizing a Dipole or Bipole tweeter addition above this range helps "fill-in" the power response. (..it should also DECREASE some the diffractive effects far off-axis.)
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.