|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.60.251.13
In Reply to: Glad to see you reading some non-fiction for a change, but you missed where he referred to you posted by AJinFLA on February 23, 2007 at 16:48:27:
Hey AJ,I am just looking at all this logically and not interested in the pissing matches, and especially name calling that goes on here.
Now you did read the web site. You were impressed enough to build the speakers. Or to put it another way, SL "suggested" to you what you would hear. But yet you have now decided to make a change. Why? Did the suggestion wear off? Is it possible your ears won out over the "suggestion"? Were you seduced by another suggestion? Is it possible you learned long ago that the only way to know for sure is to build it and listen and live with it for a time?
Follow Ups:
R57 - I am just looking at all this logicallyExcellent, thereby I will respond to you as such. You start at a point with no history, so let me fill the gap with an extremely abbreviated version, so that my answer can be viewed in context (unlike TG54's cherry picked ramblings). I've owned lots of speakers, planars, boxes, boxes w/ horns, etc. Each had their strengths and weaknesses. I liked the openness and clarity of the boxless planars. I liked the dynamics and power of the dynamic driver boxes, the effortlessness of horns etc, etc.
Needless to say there were things that I didn't like about each, which have been discuss Ad infinitum by speaker owners all seeking better sound. I started building my own in college. Drifted away from planars and focused more on active bipolars with adjustable rear radiation (power shaping). Then I started surfing the internet (latecomer, mid to late 90's).
Didn't really get into the speaker building/DIY audio sites till maybe 4 yrs ago (I know, silly me). Stumbled across Linkwitz's site.
Immediately caught my interest. Found out that a friend had bought a set of Orions. Went and listened. Heard the "type" of sound that I had been seeking. Clarity. Openess (like an electrostat). Dynamics (cone drivers). Bass naturalness unheard of in monopole box speakers. Compact overall size that would suit my loft (16' deep room). Output limitations would be more than adequate for my loft (single wall between me and neighbors). Now hit the FF button.R57 - Now you did read the web site.
Yes.
R57 - You were impressed enough to build the speakers.
I was impressed enough to use his platform to build my own speakers, which are clearly not Orions, but most certainly related to and inspired by them.
R57 - Or to put it another way, SL "suggested" to you what you would hear.
I read far more about the design principles, than how it sounded subjectively, although a lot has been added to the site recently mentioning the "sound". Things like the isolation mounting that TG54 has pounced on were added *after* I had built mine. Ironically, I had already incorporated isolation mounting in my design because of necessity (plexiglass baffle). It's not like I had never heard a boxless speaker or a dynamic driver before, but I suppose you can draw whatever conclusions you wish. I tend to differentiate between suggestions backed by measuremnents or found in my physics books than suggestions backed by 2 prayers, one voodoo spell and three jars of pixie dust. Don't you?
R57 - But yet you have now decided to make a change. Why?
I thought I had made it clear to you previously that I had moved? Larger room. Further from neighbors. Dynamic limitations and max SPL ceiling has been largely lifted (within reason. Danleys 130+ db capacity would probably get me thrown out of the neighborhood)
R57 - Did the suggestion wear off? Is it possible your ears won out over the "suggestion"?
What suggestion?R57 - Were you seduced by another suggestion?
I was seduced by a different listening environment.
R57 - Is it possible you learned long ago that the only way to know for sure is to build it and listen and live with it for a time?
Sure. But I also learned long ago that I don't actually have to drive a Yugo to know its accelerates slower that a Ferrari (that measures quicker) and I don't have to first fly in an airplane to believe in aerodynamics and I don't have to attend a Voodoo ritual in person to know that magic spells don't work and .....cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
"I don't actually have to drive a Yugo to know its accelerates slower that a Ferrari"Amen brother!
So what's the new speaker design going to be? Can you elaborate on the strengths/weakness of the orion design? In particular, do you think open baffle bass (and/or midrange) is worth perusing?
R57 - So what's the new speaker design going to be?More of the same. With the emphasis on more :-).
R57 - Can you elaborate on the strengths/weakness of the orion design?
Reduced speaker signature. Since we are listening to a recording trying to emulate real music, the signature of the reproduction system must be minimized (or at least, that is the goal here). Slightly easier to forget that you are listening to speakers.
Weakness is output - by design. A trade-off of the small form factor.
See the Beethoven when these restrictions are eased somewhat http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/328/
(BTW, his gush at the end about it "remains the single most impressive audio component I've yet encountered" was quite obviously before the advent of TG54's Mastersound Ref 845A)R57 - In particular, do you think open baffle bass (and/or midrange) is worth perusing?
That is a 15 page answer I'm not going to type (I'm a terrible typer). Short answer: maybe. If the tree fits the design of the forest, then yes. If not, no. No black and whites here. Did you check out the Geithain or Gradient sites, that I mentioned?
I found them worth pursuing within the paradigm of my design, which always includes the room.cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
I personally think that open back mids are very well worth pursuing.
This is purely subjective, but I just find them more open and natural sounding than I have ever been able to achieve with boxed mids.I cannot see me building anything in future that does not use open back mids.
I can't talk about Dipole bass because I don't have the fund or know-how to do the EQ to do them properly.
But I can tell you that I have now done 4 or 5 different speakers with open baffle mids, and have come to the conclusion it is very unlikely I will build boxed mids ever again. A local fellow DIY loony also made a pair after hearing mine, and now says he doesn't see the need to build anything else.In other words, my thoughts are that if you haven't tried open back mids, you really owe it to yourself to at least find some and have a listen.
I haven't gotten around to doing the woofers yet. I am still thinking about what drivers to buy. I use a compression driver and waveguide for treble. I like what I hear so far. But I think AJ has more experience and would like to hear what he feels are the strengths/weakness of his speaker with open baffle bass and mid.
AJ, SL, John K approach things a bit differently from me. IIRC, they all started with the premise of dipole bass units using sub drivers, this limits the low x-o point to around 100Hz, meaning that you need big drivers in the MTM section (8" usually) so the drivers can take the EQ needed to get down to meet the bass unit. This in turn leads to using a very low, steep upper x-o point (usually around 1500Hz)
I actually worked with the MTM section first using smaller drivers, the low cut-off ended around 250-300Hz, so I had to use a normal (old style) bass driver in a vented cab to be capable of being smooth up to meet the mids.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: