ORION updated to ORION-3

[Face]

It appears SL has done some tweaking to the crossover: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/orion-rev3.htm

Some more info: http://orion.quicksytes.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1571

[critofur]

Re: ORION updated to ORION-3

It appears SL has done some tweaking to the crossover: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/orion-rev3.htm

Some more info: http://orion.quicksytes.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1571

People take note: flat FR is not always best, and IMO, probably rarely best - when it means sacrificing even power response, etc.

BTW Face, is there a build thread, or such for your "Regals"?

[framus]

Re: ORION updated to ORION-3

It appears SL has done some tweaking to the crossover: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/orion-rev3.htm

Some more info: http://orion.quicksytes.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1571

That's something of a head scratcher for me. I've listened to the Orion fairly extensively at Don Barringer's house here in Washington and at trade shows, and I had a pair of Pluto's in my house for almost a year (the owner's girlfriend said those pipe fittings had to go). I loved almost everything about the Orion--particularly the midrange--but the Pluto's midrange was smeared, particularly on brass. So I hope all of Sigfried's subjective attempts to get the Orion closer to the Pluto haven't ruined a good thing.

[Guest]

Re: ORION updated to ORION-3

People take note: flat FR is not always best

Flat FR where? How did you conclude this?

[MSaturn]

Re: ORION updated to ORION-3

hey, look who it is!

[Zilch]

Re: ORION updated to ORION-3

Deployment matters. Small broadband shifts in spectral content are certainly audible; it's about voicing.

If Geddes's measurements of Orion are correct, their directivity is not so controlled as Linkwitz supposes, and it is not constant. The room is still a participant.

I haven't quite got my head around his "phantom center is too bright/forward" concept, but it would seem that this could be verified (or not) using a real center channel.

Flat FR where? How did you conclude this?

Linkwitz also used "flat power response" there. He's usually quite precise with terminology, but I assume he means "linear," not "horizontal," instead.... ;)

[curt_c]

Re: ORION updated to ORION-3

Flat FR where? How did you conclude this?

I'm sure the design axis.

No surprise here. It's all about voicing and power response...

C

[Guest]

Re: ORION updated to ORION-3

Linkwitz also used "flat power response" there. He's usually quite precise with terminology, but I assume he means "linear," not "horizontal," instead.... ;)

Here is what I just read from his site:

A2 - High-frequency down-shelving for ORION-3

I confirmed that an overall flat on-axis frequency response is not optimum

That hardly makes the case for generalized FR non-linearity on any particular axis. Rather, it is a case specific "fix" for a global design issue...and hardly an optimal one. Perhaps the ends justifies the means in this particular case.

I'm sure the design axis.
No surprise here. It's all about voicing and power response...

Actually, its all about polar response and the need to apply single axis band aids, which affect the system globally, because there is no other option other than redesign. If the polar response is optimized during the design stage, single axis non-linearity band aids are not needed. Hence no non-linear axial "voicing" with high quality monitors like Genelec and JBL...

...because the "voicing" is already in the recording. If one has to introduce non-linearity aka "voicing" dips on a particular axis, one has problems elsewhere.

cheers,

AJ

[Dennis H]

Re: ORION updated to ORION-3

If Geddes's measurements of Orion are correct

That's an open question. He measures indoors and he admitted HOLM data errors in his first measurements of the Orion. AFAIK, he never got them back to measure again.

SL measures outdoors with the speaker hoisted up high. He doesn't have any off-axis stuff for the Orion but he has some for the similar Phoenix. As expected from baffle theory, directivity isn't very well controlled around 700 (dipole baffle width) and in the low end of the tweeter's range. It's all on his site.

[auracle]

Re: ORION updated to ORION-3

Deployment matters. Small broadband shifts in spectral content are certainly audible; it's about voicing.

If Geddes's measurements of Orion are correct, their directivity is not so controlled as Linkwitz supposes, and it is not constant. The room is still a participant.

I haven't quite got my head around his "phantom center is too bright/forward" concept, but it would seem that this could be verified (or not) using a real center channel.


Linkwitz also used "flat power response" there. He's usually quite precise with terminology, but I assume he means "linear," not "horizontal," instead.... ;)

Reading all of Linkwitz' material, I didn't get any sense that SL considers directivity of the Orion as constant at higher frequencies or that the room is not a major participant. If anything, he gives the impression that the energy reflected off the back wall is a major contributor to the ear/brain's perception of depth and realism. And given his data and design, it's pretty apparent that he's not hung up on hammering out a dipole radiation pattern to maintain narrow directivity at high frequencies (> 3khz). His discussion below suggests that both the dipole and monopole show reduced reflections at frequencies within about an octave of 3 khz because both "become more directional".


Siegfried Linkwitz-

"It is shown here for two frequency regions, an octave around 3 kHz and an octave around 800 Hz.

At 3 kHz the monopole has lower reflections because the tweeter becomes forward directional.

At 800 Hz, though, you can clearly see the larger amount of room reflections generated by the monopole compared to the dipole.

One might estimate the decay rate, but the envelope is rather ragged. I am of the opinion that reverberation time is not a very meaningful parameter for acoustically small spaces like we have here."


He goes on further to conclude that despite measured differences in spectral content and time domain response - largely due to the different radiation patterns particularly at the lower frequencies around 800 hz, the monopole and dipole sound largely the same. His conclusion about the apparent differences focuses on the effect of backwave energy - not the dipole cancellation effect. So your statement about SL's assertion of constant directivity seems pretty inaccurate.


Siegfried Linkwitz-

"The dipolar and monopolar loudspeakers sound almost identical in their spectral balance and clarity, despite the differences in measured room response and burst response.

Phantom imaging is very similar, but with greater depth for the dipole.

Loudspeakers and room "disappear" so to speak.

This to me is a most surprising result. I have demonstrated it many times to visitors seated in A or B. They can switch instantly between monopole and dipole."

[Zilch]

Re: ORION updated to ORION-3

That's an open question. He measures indoors and he admitted HOLM data errors in his first measurements of the Orion. AFAIK, he never got them back to measure again.

He claims to have found the post-processing error, fixed it, and that the revised directivity map is correct. The original objection has not been repeated, since.

SL measures outdoors with the speaker hoisted up high. He doesn't have any off-axis stuff for the Orion but he has some for the similar Phoenix. As expected from baffle theory, directivity isn't very well controlled around 700 (dipole baffle width) and in the low end of the tweeter's range. It's all on his site.

I'm not the only one who also cares about the top octave, apparently, as others are positing a CD waveguide tweeter up there....

So your statement about SL's assertion of constant directivity seems pretty inaccurate.

Read my post again.

Linkwitz calls it "controlled;" it's me observing that does not necessarily imply constant, as is shown in Geddes's actual measurements.

Also, it's too wide to take the room out of the spectral balance, according to Geddes.

Linkwitz's exploration of directivity and power response is fairly recent; he does not walk the walk, but that in no way diminishes the value of what he does....

[auracle]

Re: ORION updated to ORION-3

Read my post again.

Linkwitz calls it "controlled;" it's me observing that does not imply constant, as is shown in Geddes's actual measurements.

Also, too wide to take the room out of the spectral balance, according to Geddes....

Your getting into semantics here. You just stated:


"If Geddes's measurements of Orion are correct, their directivity is not so controlled as Linkwitz supposes, and it is not constant. The room is still a participant."

Nowhere does Linkwitz suggest on his site or elsewhere that the Orion takes the room out of the equation - in fact, the opposite is true. Your clear implication above is that the lack of "controlled" (or constant) directivity creates substantial room involvement and that somehow SL is not aware of or refuses to acknowledge this. On the contrary, the text cited above directly from the Linkwitz Lab homepage acknowledges the remarkable similarities between the monopole and dipole in SL's listening tests. The major difference cited is that which directly and purposefully involves the room - reflected backwave energy. You couldn't be more wrong in characterizing Mr. Linkwitz observations and remarks concerning his Orion. It's pretty evident that constant or "controlled" directivity is not the "holy grail" for Linkwitz that it is for Geddes. Linkwitz' designs and his commentary make that pretty clear.

[Zilch]

Re: ORION updated to ORION-3

No, huh?

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/frontiers_7.htm#B2

There are four lectures on the subject here:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/publications.htm

I attended his presentation on "Controlled Directivity" this year at our NorCal DIY meet. The slides are linked elsewhere on this site....

[auracle]

Re: ORION updated to ORION-3

No, huh?

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/frontiers_7.htm#B2

Exactly. No.

"If a loudspeaker is directional it should not change its directionality with frequency. The big remaining question is, how much can it deviate from that and not cause problems in a reverberant environment. I know that the polar response of the ORION above 800 Hz is only dipole like in that it has nulls at about 90 degrees off-axis. It has maximum horizontal dispersion around 2 kHz and then narrows with increasing frequency."

-quoted directly from Mr. Linkwitz on the link you posted above.

Doesn't sound like he thinks he has constant or "controlled" directivity or "directionality" to me. Doesn't look like he really cares either, particularly as he concludes elsewhere that there is a lot of similarity between the sound of his dipoles and monopoles - where the back wave reflected energy contributes the fundamental difference.

[Zilch]

Re: ORION updated to ORION-3

Controlled Directivity is loudspeaker "Job #1" according to Linkwitz, actually:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Roseville.pdf

"The reduction of Spatial Distortion in the Auditory Scene is the final frontier...."

[Look REAL close, and you'll find Geddes Summa there.... ;) ]