|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
192.25.142.225
Sigfried Linkwitz' Orions get rave reviews. The speaker drivers are individually amp'ed and each amp is fed from an active crossover. The critical midband and highs get 3 or more op amps plus a bunch of "just okay" capacitors, bunches of caps and resistors and op amps in the signal path, then goes on to a ho-hum SS amplifier from a HT multichannel amp. And the source of choice for Sigfried - an ordinary CD player.When I have used such components in my system I have a flat lifeless and dimensionless sound, especially depthless imaging. Yet everyone that listens to Orions say it is not that.
The only way I can check them out myself is to pay $400 for an audition (and weekend stay) at his vacation home.
Is there anyone who can offer what is really going on with this system and why this set of electronics yields such supposedly terrific results? I can't figure it out. Is the speaker's "radical design" overcoming the electronics and source limitations in a big way?
What got me started was the question about the Plutos in the thread below.
Follow Ups:
Guys,
I have listened to his speakers at two CES shows and was not impressed both times. They had they good qualities but overall, not my cup of tea. Show condition usually are difficult, but that is exactly were this type of speakers should shine.
Hey Sergey, what years did you find "his" speakers at CES? I can only assume you are referring to one of the Audio Artistry speakers, but I don't know this for sure. The reason I say that is because, to the best of my knowledge (based on a statement made to me by Mr. Linkwitz), Mr. Linkwitz's Orions have never been presented at CES. It has never been a commercial product, and Mr. Linkwitz has never sought out dealers. Was it some exhibitor representing some other product that was demonstrating his product with a pair of Orions?
Well, I has been a few years but here we go:
Good things first: Very extended sound, you could not wish of more high or low end. Very balanced sound. I could not pick of any range that would stick out as good or bad compare to the rest of the range. Well integrated drivers.
Things I did not like: Sound was too sterile to the point of too clean. Analogy that comes to mind is too much of "solid state", as opposite to "tubey" qualities. Also, for some reason they did not sound involving to me. I don't know why.
They are responsible for more sonic grunge than anything in audio especially when you consider something like a recording studio mixer and the endless chains of the %@# things most with their + input grounded and 100% feedback around them. Quick and dirty! I might drive a VU meter with them. Ray Hughes
"I take you as you are
And make of you what I will,
Skunk-bear, carcajou, bloodthirsty
Non-survivor.
Lord, let me die but not die out." THE LAST WOLVERINE by James Dickey
This is true...evil they are!!!!!!!!!!!
More especially, audio engineers should be penalized for using them or either sent back to school! But I'm not so sure even that would help the way engineers are trained. Ray
"I take you as you are
And make of you what I will,
Skunk-bear, carcajou, bloodthirsty
Non-survivor.
Lord, let me die but not die out." THE LAST WOLVERINE by James Dickey
IMO, highly restricted is more realistic.There are some decent sounding circuits built around opamps. Jim Hagerman's "Bugle" phono preamp is a prime example. Jim used passive EQ between opamp sections. No attempt was made to squeeze both gain and EQ out of an opamp section and its associated NFB circuitry.
"Bean counters" PAY ATTENTION! A small extra expense along with some TLC resulted in a BETTER product. 75 cents profit per unit on sales of 2 units is better than a 1 dollar profit on the sale of a single unit. Cheapness can have a negative impact on the bottom line, especially when the buying public is reasonably knowledgeable.
Eli D.
of op-amp topology of a diff amp input and global feedback to the - or + input to set gain. This was formulated in the fifties for such things as computers, power supplies, and nuclear missles. Why do they think they can apply it to music amplifiers. I'm not an EE. I'm a layperson who loves music and enjoys building my own equipment. But it seems to me IMHO that audio has been put on the back burner. Audio has been made the stepchild in the electronics world. EEs make the assumption that if an op-amp is good enough to drive a shaker table then it's "good enough" for audio. Why has it taken EEs so long to learn to design with transistors? In this lies the answer to why tube circuits command the best sound. Once the EEs who never use their ears have made their calculations proving to themselves mathematically that their design is "good enough" for audio, we audiophiles must live with it. And in some of their designs, that is indeed difficult to do for people who do use their ears. Cordially, Ray Hughes
"I take you as you are
And make of you what I will,
Skunk-bear, carcajou, bloodthirsty
Non-survivor.
Lord, let me die but not die out." THE LAST WOLVERINE by James Dickey
Ray,At the EXTREME of the "high end", tubes and SS seem to be on a par. Look at the best work of Bob Crump and John Curl, who most definitely use their ears. Unfortunately, that kind of equipment (tubed or SS) will be forever out of the reach of "ordinary" folks with limited financial means.
Click down but 1 notch and tubes RULE. Also, a large body of experience shows that for the DIYer obtaining highly satisfactory results is best done with tubes.
While all sorts of advances in Science and Technology have started with the work of theoreticians, hypotheses are always subject to the ACID TEST of experiment. Stu Hegeman embodies (IMO) what an audio engineer should be about. Stu was competent using both his ears and his slide rule. He worked in both the recording and the reproduction of music. The QUALITY of the man's work speaks for itself.
Eli D.
...then they must be really amazing speakers!So they must sound even better - perhaps far better - without the opamps.
Most times in C/O's, opamps are simply used as either +1 or -1 gain buffers and this can be done far better sonically by a single discrete part, i.e. a jfet or a tube. But if you want to have it sound really good - then that part needs a CCS load and also bootstrapped if a CF or SF, which makes it more complex - but so what? His speakers are not exactly simple (or cheap) to build either.
But a good word for him - I am using a DIY version of his dipole subs with my ESLs and they are GREAT with a (lucky chance) passive crossover!
I will not use an opamp anywhere in a signal path, not even in an AM radio!
Hi.That's why my first thing to choose any amp is NO op-amp chips around, that surely includes SS phonostages.
Despite I've read rave reviews on some power amps with OP-amps, I still want to stick with discrete bipolars if sand devices are needed in the design.
John makes loudspeakers that are similar to SL's, but he does not go completely active in doing so(see link below).His site is very informative, especially the "tech" section.
For what its worth I am currently switching between line level crossovers both active and passive - first and second order (LC) and then passive speaker level. I have no doubt that line level caps are less sonically damaging than speaker level caps and I think ( but the jury is still out ) that passive second order L-C is better in my system than active.
I have used both tubed and opamp active line level and the tubed is better than the opamp - I built both using identical filters and caps and it was not close
Hello Kurt,I truly understand your feeling of a "credibility gap' between what you read about the Orions and what your experience with op amps, OK capacitors, ho-hum amps etc. would dictate. I, too, went through a similar thought process.
First, let me state that the Orions are indeed a stellar performer as you have no doubt read elsewhere. They are anything but lifeless and dimensionless in sound quality. I am not an Orion owner, but rather am a person who spent 3 days in Mr. Linkwitz vacation home auditioning the Orions, and then months later actually auditioned Mr. Linkwitz's personal Orion system in his home in Corte Madera, CA. My second audition was due to my not being entirely convinced that the system in Sea Ranch was performing at the level that others had expressed, and I wanted to resolve the issues I had with its sound.
In my second audition, I found the Orions to be everything that others had praised them for. Admittedly, Mr. Linkwitz's listening room is acoustically superb and ideally suited to his speaker's design, but I'm sure many speakers would perform near their best in his room. That they are able to perform at such a high level with such pedestrian equipment is certainly a tribute to their design and Mr. Linkwitz's ingenuity.
I can only provide a layman's perspective as to why it works so well, but I would submit that: (1) the highly reactive loads that are presented to an amplifier through passive crossovers are far more deleterious to the overall sound than are op amps and OK capacitors, (2) with his active crossover he has been able to compensate and/or correct for some of the deficiencies in the drivers and the overall design, and (3) open baffle design has certain inherent qualities that are most difficult if not impossible to achieve with a boxed loudspeaker. In other words, Mr. Linkwitz has been able to identify the parameters in loudspeaker design that are the most audible and the most critical to optimize, and then executed the design accordingly.
Its not to say that the system might not improve even further with higher quality parts, cables, amplifiers, etc., but as a design he has demonstrated that greater performance results can be achieved through proper speaker design than through higher quality amps, capacitors, wiring, etc., etc. While people have different tastes in music and value different aspects of sound reproduction, I would submit that anyone with any knowledge of music and experience with reproduced sound who was fortunate enough to audition Mr. Linkwitz's personal Orion system would agree that his system is one of the best sounding systems they've ever experienced.
.
and is it worth it or not.
-3db
There is a local guy here who built Orions and sought my help in improving the active crossovers. We used better (but hardly exotic) PP caps and improved the PS. He was very pleased with the improvement.Interestingly, when I talked to Siegfried at CES about it, he was certain that component identity changes would make little or no difference in the sound of the Orion. These things hint at the effect the complex op-amp based active crossover has on sonic resolution and portrayal and Siegfried's perspective on design.
This local guy's system is totally unfamiliar to me in a context I understand. It sounds good, but in a sort of "hifi spectacular" way.
Two of the principals of Siegfried's former company, Audio Artistry live here, so I have heard all of the speakers from that era of his design efforts. They are all very good speakers when heard in a very good quality solid state system. They are even-handed in a way that higher efficiency or limited bandwidth speakers never seem to be, but they were never ultimately emotionally moving in the way that some more simply conceived speakers can be.
We all have different ear-brain assemblies, so we all perceive music differently. Each to his own...
Kevin Carter
K&K Audio
www.kandkaudio.com
"Interestingly, when I talked to Siegfried at CES about it, he was certain that component identity changes would make little or no difference in the sound of the Orion. These things hint at the effect the complex op-amp based active crossover has on sonic resolution and portrayal and Siegfried's perspective on design."
I once e-mailed Siegfried about me possibly redesigning his Audio Artistry's active crossovers using tube circuits instead. He responded that he had no understanding for the need to do that, that is, to use tubes at all. I then began to learn where he stood on things about audio. Everything to him was about the general speaker design - the mechanical aspects, the basic crossover networks for max level frequency response, radiation patterns, distortion from drivers, and the theories on sound waves generated by the speakers and rooms. It was a given that anything else wouldn't matter much at all. We disagreed on that issue, but he's a nice man.Now contrast Siegfried to say, Charles Hansen, of Ayre Acoustics and formerly of Avalon Acoustics (source components, amps, and formerly speakers). And Charles uses those new-fangled transistor thingies in his products, but you couldn't find a more different approach to design and belief system. People sure hear things differently, as you say. I think people take on things they find more important to them, sonically, since it's never like live. That we do agree on.
That maybe, just maybe, we can meld the two and come up with something like a wide range driver that isn't asked to do too much and combine that with line level crossovers (ideally passive) for the top and bottom octave?I am thinking along the lines of a supravox with a super tweeter and something for the lower bass.
There has to be a way to keep the emotional aspect but have that even handed thing. Some wide range stuff is just to peaky and quirky not to mention lacking in real bass and the ability to crank and headbang when desired.
nt
HI.Active X'overs can be a huge can of worms, as I heard complains from quite a few audiophile friends who spent years & good moneys to get it right. Of course, I am not talking ahout the same brandname you mentioned. The X-over frequency issue is already hard to resolve right.
Is that the critics' appraisals led you going into it or you actually heard it really so great somewhere.
IMO, I don't want to touch it for stereo music, which I only go for as I am yet to be convinced that the now very popular multi digital home theatre sound can take over the sonic subtlies of a good stereo system. Maybe I belong to the old conservative asses.
I've taken s much milder approach - to avoid getting into the restless sonic 'trap' my audio acquaintances already stepped into. I've taken discrete passive bi-wiring approach by upgrading my two-way factory single-wired speaker system.
I am very happy with such passive upgrade which I DIYed myself.
To make the long story short, you can check up my posts in Cable Assembly & Propeller Head Plaza in these few months on passive bi/multi-wiring topics.
Sorry, I can't contribute here in salvaging your current situation which I want to steer away.
c-J
to describe audio phenomena- but not the same ears and some people expect more from a stereo than others as they know what is possible.Due to this, you will have to try for yourself- you might expect more than others. You'll just have to see.
I have used Marchand and Erno Borbely active crossovers in the past. The digital domain electronic crossovers/speakers were supposed to take over the world a few years back. You can do a phenominal amount of accurate frequency shaping in a line level environment that you really can't do in the passive components of speakers. When all an amp has to do is drive the little voice coil you can get away with a lot. Look at the mess an amp has to drive with some of the 21 element crossover speakers out there and it starts to make sense.
_______________________________
Long Live Dr.Gizmo
Hi ,
I know what you mean , the most evil parts are those nasty ferrite-cored inductors and bipolar electrolytics . I've experimented briefly with active crossovers , things like crossover inductors and zobel networks can be taken out , make an easier load and enable better damping . When I was working on my DIY electrostatic panel/cone hybrids , active was the only way to go . That for me is no more , now I'm more into high efficiency speakers and high 'Dunker factor' amps , I just don't have the space for multi amped setupups any more .cheers
Hi.Less the X-over network parts, passive or active reqardless, less signal loss (distortion) & better will be the sound. Theoretically, less speaker count inside the speaker box, more musical would be the sound - less X-over harmonic & phase distortion. Easier for an amp to drive.
Also passive is a less harmful devil than any active. Many like the sorta clinical sound of active X-over system, but no thanks for me.
The question is: music first or electronics first?
c-J
C-J> > music first or electronics first?
They both come into play when you're reproducing sound.
I too don't like "the in your face" presentations too popular today.
The reason I got rid of my Jolida CD player and Sophia Baby.First priority is choosing the right drivers to use.
If you get this wrong then everything else is doomed.
I chose drivers with a smooth roll-off so
that I could get away with no inductor.
Audax 5.25 and 4" Aerogels, HiVi D10G & Dynaudio D260
(Audax's in parallel-the 5.25 went low enough and
the 4" mated well with the Dynaudio D260 I tried them
in parallel just for laughs and it worked great)
I was lucky as I had these on hand from
prior attempts at speaker building.
I have only 1 cap per speaker for my crossover
to protect the expensive Dynaudio D260 tweeter.
Now choosing the cap is critical too -
voicing is everything - it's got to blend.
Voicing the speaker can make it in your face
or totally laid back - the choice is yours.
I had 4.7uFd Hovlands and it was in your face which
I thought was great but it soon started to get to me.
Replaced it with a 5uFd GE Oil w .1uFd Vit Q and
was much better but still had an edge to it.
About 2 hours ago I thought of putting a resistor
across the tweeter to attenuate it and increase the
crossover frequency and VOILA a magical presentation!!!
Open and spacious without the "in your face".Second you need an amp that will drive it easily.
Again I had one laying around that fit the bill.
At least til my SE KT66 is finished.And third you need the synergy of everything together.
Interconnects, speaker wire and electronics.You can try active crossovers BUT (a big but here)
you need the drivers to be flat during the transition.
If not then you do have a big can of worms.
Here is were passives excel because you can have a first,
second or third order and mix and match with each
different impedance slope for the best response.
A variable not available when using active crossovers.
Actually, it is easy to get an active crossover that allows for different slopes and asymetrical crossover points. You just have to pay more:)An active is really nice when you are trying to dial in the right crossover points and slopes for drivers. The drivers need not match in sensitivity either.
Okay, I have already posted too much to this thread. What can I say, I am excited about my recent speaker DIYing.
Hi ,
I'm with Russ here and it's a strong belief of mine that there's no such thing as a 'flat' speaker when room acoustics are taken into consideration . It's also fairly easy to implement contour networks or mixed order (1st order for comp driver/2nd order for bass etc) . What I believe is really required is a decent measuring mic to see what is really happening . It's high on my list of priorities ;)ps How's the hi-eff setup coming along ?
cheers
Amen brother! I have decided my ears may be fine for building amps but when it comes to speakers I got crap for ears:) Or more to the point, I lack the experience to know what a certain problem sounds like.My speakers are on a holding pattern. I have the active crossover on loan to a friend who is also working on speakers (joint effort with 3 guys). Right now I am going back and forth on active or passive line level. The passive appeals to me but the load is punishing for any normal tube preamp. I think I may go rent a good active and see if I can tolerate all those nasty op amps:) In the end I am thinking the ability to quickly change things, while listening, might outweigh the more pristine passive line level approach. Once I know for sure what I want I can always go the passive route.
All I can say is speakers are a lot harder than amps to get right. So many disciplines come into play and I have so much to learn. Don't help that I don't know filter theroy nor am I up on op amps.
RussP.S. I saw your post regarding CD boost network. My gut feeling was you needed the padding resistor to be much larger. I use 27 ohms bypassed with a 2uF cap. But I don't know your horn.
Hi ,
The Behringer ECM8000 is around $60 , it is phantom powered so requires a suitable 48V mic pre also fairly inexpensive . I'm buying one once the next amp gets built . I think I've finally sussed my step network/crossover problem . It was not just the pad but also the order of network . Originally I used 1st order on both bass and HF and just couldn't get rid of a nasty bit of harshness . I then went 2nd order on the bass , 1st order for HF . Played around with phase , series cap etc . I'm now using the HF drivers (TAD TD4001) as nature intended : 650Hz 2nd order , plumped for a Linkwitz Riley alignment . On the bass unit I've had to apply a zobel , I believe this is required due to the high output impedence of my current amp (4 ohms!) combined with a peaky woofer response . For the bass I'm also now using symetrical pairs of gapped 2mH 20A C-core chokes which measure as close to 0 ohms DCR as I've ever seen with an inductor , every little bit helps . By the way get those dustcore ferrites out of your bass crossover , they're all horrible sounding ! Horns I'm using are 340hz Azura with LeCleach profile , the ones with a large roundover ;) Slightly beamy at the top registers but at present I don't feel the urge for a supertweetps TADs are pretty cheap second hand and are well worth considering . Your side of the pond the things are only $450 each for good ones , $300 for a blown one , Radian diaphragms are fairly inexpensive replacements though
cheers
Hi.Since you did not mention it, what realtime acoustical audio spectrum analyser you use?
I used to use one complete with factory prealigned electret condenssor microphone with realtime display of the complete audio spectrum screen.
I measured my room acoustics with the microphone at my 'sweet spot' with the mic placed on my head. No guessing.
Playing my favourite double-album test CD (actually stereo soundtracks featuring a French pop band, which many speaker vendors used to demo their hi-end speakers), I can see abundant useful 20-30Hz synthesized bass notes pumping out from my KEF 2-way bookshelf speaker (my DIY rebuilt & DISCRETE passive bi-wired) on the screen, while the rest of the spectrum remained flat.
I am happy with the acoustic performance of my audio rig.
As I said, if done properly, I don't think I need to touch the can of active X'over worms. Have fun, amen.
c-J
PS: surprised you go for saaannnnd active pulse filters considering your tuby moniker.
Hi ,
I don't think you read the post correctly . I said that the measurement mic was next purchase on the list after the next power amp is built . I will be only be using the mic for ironing out anomalies rather than playing music and analysing that . I am surprised you measured such low notes , most mics are not accurate under 100Hz . What mic did you use ?'surprised you go for saaannnnd active pulse filters considering your tuby moniker.'
...this I do not understand at all . Where do I say that I use sand active filters ? When I went active I built the filters into each respective power amp . Both were 1st order , bass unit was a Jordan JX150 (ask Allen Wright about these) , HF was a DIY ESL panel 50 x 25cm . There are pictures of these in the archives if you would care to look . For the HF part of the system , which was a direct drive amp , the filter was a cap on the input . For the bass amp the filter cap was between the input stage and the concertina phase splitter .
cheers
Going the bi-amp/tri-amp route with an active crossover and pro audio drivers is such an eye opening experience I am floored.I used to waste time on amps/caps/tube rolling...etc. Now I think none of that matters much....at least in comparison. Really if you consider the typical parts and the quality of them in a speaker crossover it begins to make sense.
No way you'd put a 20 or 100 mike coupling cap in your amp and if you did it would be a really nice and costly one. Given that you could have a dozen such caps in a pair of 3-way speakers you are forced to use metalized caps at best and typically not the top notch ones. Then you have inductors, the worst passive part ever made. Typically you have over a hundred feet of no name 14 gauge wire you are running through. And then the driver's impedances are anything but a constant for the crossover and the amp to work into.
Needless to say I could go on but it is time to head home. But rest assured a couple of sonic T amps with a good active crossover, a good compression driver on a CD horn, a nice pro audio paper cone mid, and a big old 15" or 18" pro audio woofer driven with a Bash plate amp will kick serious butt and won't sound nasty or grainy.
Yes, sometimes I think I might have lost some finess. But what I have gained in balls, detail, clairity, and lack of driver distortion more than makes up for it and makes my previous cone and dome speakers freaking over priced toys.
You can start small and add on. Pick a good mid range like the Visaton B200 or the Audax PR170MO and mount it on an open baffle run full range. Next add a compression driver and CD horn and go rent a decent active crossover from a pro audio store. By now you should have a good idea even though you will have no low bass.
Anyhow, got to run but I'll think of something more to add later I am sure:)
I must agree with just about all that has been said here.No cross over is better, but better than what?I played around mostly with Lowthers , B200, vintage etc etc on open baffles, biamped with 4x 18" pro drivers. The cross over ( notches etc ) does reduce transparancy but makes the sound smoother. Then there can be too much manipulation. Taste too comes into it. Front horns are great, but they all drive me crazy.Eh crazier? The in your face presentation of all I have heard some love.
> Front horns are great, but they all drive me crazy.Eh crazier? The in your face presentation of all I have heard some love. <That's where the passive equalization in the amp's signal path comes in. It removes this problem to place it exactly in the position of your face you want it. Really, it can be done because I did it.
Kurt
I am finishing up fine tuning speakers for my biamp system.
Audax Aerogel 5 1/4 and 4" in parallel without inductor.
Dynaudio D260 with just a 5uFd GE oiler and .1 Vit Q.
Just added a 50 ohm resistor across the Dynaudio D260.
BTW the Audax drivers are in dipole.
Sounds great - dynamic, alive and clarity I've never heard.
Driving it with a SE mosfet amp till I finish my SE KT66 amp.
Rhythmic mosfet plate amp on my woofer/subwoofer below 150 Hz.
With my Monica 2 12B4 preamp with Dave Slagle's AVC WOW !!!
Using Radio Shack solid core 18ga hook-up wire for speakers.So I concur the less crossover parts used the better the music.
That is if you have speakers capable of being without them.
The Audax Aerogels have a nice smooth high end roll-off.
Now to build a better way of mounting the drivers because
they are about 8" apart now (measured center-to-center) also
to make it prettier too - maybe some cherry stained birch.
> > Going the bi-amp/tri-amp route with an active crossover and pro audio drivers is such an eye opening experience I am floored.
I used to waste time on amps/caps/tube rolling...etc. Now I think none of that matters much....at least in comparison. Really if you consider the typical parts and the quality of them in a speaker crossover it begins to make sense. < <I drive my Oris 150 front loaded "full range driver" directly from my 45 SET amp. It has a little passive equalization in the amp before the output stage using quality parts in it and the amp goes from 150 Hz on up.
I drive the bass bins (bass reflex "Onken" cabinets) directly from a SS amp that rolls off at 150 Hz using op amps in this application (but this is not the "critical mids and highs").
This is also a system of "active" crossover/biamped drivers similar to what you have. It's great, but still...
I hear differences in caps and tubes and source quite easily and it also has excellent dimensionality. It does not sound better by adding in more components than absolutely necessary, like 3 op amp stages in a row.
So is the Orion a speaker for people who like SS sound? My brother heard the Audio Artistry Vivaldi's once and he said it sounded flat and excessively dry, like "desert dry". He blamed the SS electronics as the likely culprit. Are these Orion fans used to flat soundstages and think this dryness is cleanliness and never heard what transparent tube electronics offer? Just postulating, not criticising.
Again, I would have to make a real effort and expense just to hear for myself. I want to hear them, though. I have never heard a cone dipole speaker.
BTW, whatever happened to Audio Artistry? The amp requirements were too much - too many channels at that time?
then I think you are ahead of the game already. You are in a situation where your amp(s) drive the speaker directly instead of a crossover. I have not inquired as to the price of the Oris but considering I can't even afford the AER drivers I think it is safe to say "if I have to ask I can't afford".Now the dipole sound does have some strong points. But so does horn loading. IMHO the biggest difference is the dipole creates an illusion of a bigger soundstage. One that has all (or close to) the depth of a good horn but has some increase in width and height. To me a good horn has better clarity but I find I like the warmth of a non horn loaded paper mid. But I'd dang sure jump at the chance to throw a 150 or 250 hertz horn in the mix.
So considering where you are at I'd so no, the Orion isn't for you. But then I have not heard it. However I have heard the basszilla and think it would be closer to what you like and it is a dipole in the 100 to 10,000 hertz (I think) range. First time I heard a Lowther sound fantastic!
As you mention op amps aren't evil if you keep them below a certain range. For you that is 150 hertz. I'm not so lucky and for me it has to be 250 hertz (for now). I hope to soon give open baffle bass a try and see what that brings to the table. I have big hopes in that area.
I am sure the orion sounds nice. I think it is hard to judge such things outside one's home and in a few hours though. Before I would leap from Oris to Orion I'd want them in my home for a month.
Russ
P.S. I didn't mean to sound like parts/amps don't matter....just that they pale compared to going from a run of the mill decent speaker to a much better speaker. Also, have you ever measured in room response? If not it might be wortwhile. Our rooms are part of the audio chain...even if "she" doesn't agree:)
For what its worth, I heard his earlier speakers that he was selling commercially and met him as well. The speakers were well worth a listen and he is a very charming and intelligent man. The speakers that I heard were far from lifeless and dimensionless.You also might ask on the speaker forum if anyone has a set in your area.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: