Orions sound great because dipole?

[sendler]

The Orions continue to get raves wherever they go. They must be fantastic. I often wonder if the reason they are so good is because they are dipoles, or could it be that active cross sounds much better with no components between the amps and the drivers and better caps and resistors doing the work. (I already know this to be true and even more so for digital sources with a DCX2496 where the work load of the electronics is shared all the way back to the digital domaign.) Or is it the gobs of clean power from triamping. (I know that biamping a passive cross speaker sounds better) Or is it the great tweeter crossed really low. Or is the great bass from using 4 top of the line 12s. I am sure that SL is very happy with the performance of the Orions and rightly so. They are on the short list of the worlds greatest speakers at any cost. And, that he would feel no need to prove the sonic merits of dipoles further to anyone. But it would be fascinating to build the same drivers into a conventional, sealed cabinet with active cross for a direct comparison.

[vasyachkin]

i would have to guess its everything ...

good drivers, good crossovers, solid cabinets, direct coupling of drivers to the amplifiers ... and control over dispersion that dipoles provide

if you compare orions to the best studio monitors available ( top of the line genelec ) there isn't really much difference between them

they're both

* active
* 3-way
* take measures to control dispersion

except that Genelec has been doing this since forever ...

approach taken by Genelec ( waveguide ) is more practical while dipoles are a more exotic solution

and don't forget the effects of ROOM in this equation. Genelec is intended to be used in a recording studio that has proper acoustical treatment while Orion is intended to be used in a regular room. Dipole is a more drastic measure to control radiation pattern than a waveguide which might be appropriate for a room with poor acoustics ( like most rooms )

[billschu]

Any great speaker is a function of a large line of successes. My take is that everything matters. I can't believe I'm agreeing with vasaychkin. In addition to their dipole nature, they have a flat frequency response, nice dynamic capabilities, and low distortion. If they had a hideous frequency response or lots of distortion, it's likely the fact that they were dipoles probably wouldn't matter.

Bill

[Æ]

Mr. Linkwitz and a pair of his Orions were at the DIY held at Mark K's house a few years ago. I was there and heard the Orion's. There were several DIY pairs of loudspeakers that used some of the same drivers (SEAS W18's) as the Orion's. It became obvious that the reason for the excellent sound was the dedicated electronics, bi amping with electronic crossover and frequency/time correction.
I wouldn't attribute any of the sound quality to his open baffle design, even though open baffles can achieve great results when used properly. It's my opinion that you have more placement options when using a typical closed enclosure.
Open baffles, dipoles, bipoles have placement concerns, issues.

[mike1234]

Partial undersanding here. No offense AE but we must account for power response. Linkwitz is a smart cookie.

Mr. Linkwitz and a pair of his Orions were at the DIY held at Mark K's house a few years ago. I was there and heard the Orion's. There were several DIY pairs of loudspeakers that used some of the same drivers (SEAS W18's) as the Orion's. It became obvious that the reason for the excellent sound was the dedicated electronics, bi amping with electronic crossover and frequency/time correction.
I wouldn't attribute any of the sound quality to his open baffle design, even though open baffles can achieve great results when used properly. It's my opinion that you have more placement options when using a typical closed enclosure.
Open baffles, dipoles, bipoles have placement concerns, issues.

[Deward Hastings]

we must account for power response.

Exactamundo.

"Baffle step correction" is an oxymoron . . . baffle step cannot be "corrected".

[Æ]

Partial understanding here. No offense Æ but we must account for power response. Linkwitz is a smart cookie.

No offense taken. Yes Linkwitz is smart, but what he did was assemble a "total" package.
I'm totally aware of power response. But I don't feel that it had anything to do with the sound quality.
If you want to experience real power response, you need an omnidirectional pair of loudspeakers. I've experienced it plenty, having worked at Wolcott Audio.

[Deward Hastings]

There were several DIY pairs of loudspeakers that used some of the same drivers (SEAS W18's) as the Orion's. It became obvious that the reason for the excellent sound was the dedicated electronics, bi amping with electronic crossover and frequency/time correction.

Actually it's a W22 in ORION, but the point is well taken. It's not (just) the driver(s), it's (mostly) the crossover.

But it's not (just) because it's active, or that ORION is tri-amped. The significant thing about the ORION crossover, at least as regards the M/T transition, is that the low-pass on the W22 is LR4 electric, with an additional notch on the first breakup. It does not make the too common mistake of using a lower order filter (coupled with some driver rolloff to make a "LR4 acoustic" response) which fails to keep signal off the cone at breakup. The M/T crossover could be implemented passive (true fourth order plus a notch) were it not for the additional need for dipole boost at the low end. Of course there are other advantages to active crossover as well . . . offset correction, IM reduction, better amp/driver matching, crossover stability under varying load etc., but having the proper slopes on the signal is probably most important.

[Deward Hastings]

Or is the great bass from using 4 top of the line 12s.

The Peerless woofers in ORION are 10 inch, not 12, but yes, the bass is great. That comes in good part from their not being in a box . . . that is, from the many beneficial effects on room interaction of the dipole radiation pattern.

That said, they are not wall-whackers on the low end, where response is flat but limited. Since orchestral music (for which they were designed) goes low only with limited power this is not an issue for acoustic music (ORION will produce actual concert hall levels in a reasonable sized room), but if ORION are going to be dual-use in a music/HT system a subwoofer may be required.

[justame1213]

Any recommendations on speakers that may sound as good as these but not look so 'artsy'?

[Todd G.]

Any recommendations on speakers that may sound as good as these but not look so 'artsy'?

Easy answer......No. But it begs the question, "sound as good as these" in what aspect of their performance? As for "artsy", beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Fred T]

The significant thing about the ORION crossover, at least as regards the M/T transition, is that the low-pass on the W22 is LR4 electric, with an additional notch on the first breakup. It does not make the too common mistake of using a lower order filter (coupled with some driver rolloff to make a "LR4 acoustic" response) which fails to keep signal off the cone at breakup.

And the 1.4k xover point helps too.

[Deward Hastings]

but not look so 'artsy'?

Mine are black. Plain black. Nobody calls them "artsy".

Some builders have used more squared off side panels (see the ORION photo gallery) . . . while not recommended there is probably little to no effect on the sound.

[Fred T]

Any recommendations on speakers that may sound as good as these but not look so 'artsy'?

According to some these are apparently sonically on par with the Orions. http://www.musicanddesign.com/naomain.html

[ajinfla]

It became obvious that the reason for the excellent sound was the dedicated electronics, bi amping with electronic crossover and frequency/time correction.

If that was "obvious", then the average active studio monitor at Guitar Center would sound like an Orion. They don't.

I wouldn't attribute any of the sound quality to his open baffle design

Then you have a poor understanding of the design.

It's my opinion that you have more placement options when using a typical closed enclosure.

Yes, but you'll also have the typical closed enclosure placed poorly sound.

Open baffles, dipoles, bipoles have placement concerns, issues.

Loudspeakers, placed in rooms, have placement issues. Those with poor polar and power response, more so.

cheers,

AJ

[justame1213]

I certainly did not mean to oh-fend here. I didn't realize how sensitive that word was. I should have prefaced my remarks by saying something like "Excuse me young fellers. This here's an old fart white guy that ain't usedta these new-fangled dee-signs. Anything out thar look anythang like I'm a usedta, and sound dam good besides? <scratch, scratch, spit. dang missed the spitoon again.>
Thanks for the link Fred.

[Fred T]

Thanks for the link Fred.

Your welcome.

[Æ]

Actually it's a W22 in ORION, but the point is well taken. It's not (just) the driver(s), it's (mostly) the crossover.

But it's not (just) because it's active, or that ORION is tri-amped. The significant thing about the ORION crossover, at least as regards the M/T transition, is that the low-pass on the W22 is LR4 electric, with an additional notch on the first breakup. It does not make the too common mistake of using a lower order filter (coupled with some driver rolloff to make a "LR4 acoustic" response) which fails to keep signal off the cone at breakup. The M/T crossover could be implemented passive (true fourth order plus a notch) were it not for the additional need for dipole boost at the low end. Of course there are other advantages to active crossover as well . . . offset correction, IM reduction, better amp/driver matching, crossover stability under varying load etc., but having the proper slopes on the signal is probably most important.

You are probably correct. The DIY at Mark K's house was 5 years ago. I may have gotten some of the details wrong. For whatever reason, W18 is what I remembered. Things may have changed before or since then, however my opinions of them remain the same. He was able to tweak the sound into correctness with the use of his electronics package.

[Deward Hastings]

Back then it was W18's.

On his website SL discuses the W18 as an alternative driver for the MTM PHOENIX. He also notes several times that it was the introduction of the W22 that made the MT configured ORION possible. If you heard an experimental prototype with the W18 (certainly not impossible, since there are prototypes discussed with other small midrange drivers) it was, nevertheless, not ORION. In any case I find no reference to a W18 portotype on the linkwitzlab site. What SL does say there follows:


"The W18EX001 is the closest competitor for the 21W/8554 amongst the drivers tested. It might be worthwhile to experiment with it in a PHOENIX like system. Dipole peak equalization is likely to change and the baffle dimensions would have to be checked for optimum polar response.

Note 1: Since these tests were done Seas introduced the W22EX001. Like the W18EX001 it has very low distortion, but with 1.75 times the cone area it can move more air. This driver is my first choice for any new open baffle speaker design."

That new design did happen . . . ORION.

[dotzs]

OOOOOO those Wolcots were great spekers .

Because the old control room has been replaced along with what used to be a recording studio who knows what will work where ? open baffle speakers make the room part of their sound field even more than conventional " boxes"
and who has a clue where somebody will be recording now with the digi format .

One thing that has progressed is the dogmatic speaker selection for recording and there aren't guys taping paper towels in front of their Yamaha-ha N.S. 10s tweeters( some putz even sold a giszmo that held the paper towel/toilet paper in front of that retched tweeter .Gone are the Altc 603-604s that hurt and the J.B.Hells with a paper cup in the port .
Now you can use whatever works unless the client is a dweeb that can't hear between 2-5 K.

Still we face the fact that in the end the music may be listened to thru 2 dollar ear buds or an 80's "rack system " Speakers are like food .