Newest design by Sigfried Linkwitz

Russell Dawkins · « **on:** 29 Oct 2012, 07:54 pm »

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/LX521/Description.htm

jackman · « **Reply #1 on:** 29 Oct 2012, 08:08 pm »

Interesting looking. I like them better than the Orion, aesthetically, and hope to hear them sometime.

ltr317 · « **Reply #2 on:** 29 Oct 2012, 09:24 pm »

Very interesting. At audio shows, the Orion speakers are either my favorite sounding speakers or close to the best. Any idea how much this new design will cost?

Davey · « **Reply #3 on:** 29 Oct 2012, 09:44 pm »

Quote from: ltr317 on 29 Oct 2012, 09:24 pm

Very interesting. At audio shows, the Orion speakers are either my favorite sounding speakers or close to the best. Any idea how much this new design will cost?

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/LX521/Supplies.htm

Dave.

SteveRB · « **Reply #4 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 12:13 am »

...those are not very attractive.

satfrat · « **Reply #5 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 12:41 am »

Quote from: SteveRB on 30 Oct 2012, 12:13 am

...those are not very attractive.

They're down right ugly, I wouldn't want them in my room, YMMV.

Rclark · « **Reply #6 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 12:47 am »

Well it is a prototype, and I think they are functionally attractive and probably sound awesome. Looks, well that whole speaker type is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think the GR V speakers are much to look at either, buy that isn't really the point. You grow to love what performs.

jackman · « **Reply #7 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 12:56 am »

I think if you like GR Research V speakers, aesthetically, you probably will like the old Orion's....they are very similar looking. Siggies new model reminds me of the speakers from John K. Nothing wrong with that, John K is a bright guy. I don't mind the looks of the new speakers. I'm sure they sound good.

I don't think they play loud enough for my liking but who knows. I'll reserve judgment until I hear them.

WGH · « **Reply #8 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 12:57 am »

Since these are DIY, with a little creativity a person could make them look like the VR-33. It would take a lot of creativity to make them look like the model on the left, then they probably would have even less WAF than the prototype.

The Vandersteen 2Ce has used socks since 1977.

jackman · « **Reply #9 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 01:06 am »

I prefer the model on the left! Wow!

Either way, building a big frame to put a sock over everything seems like a lot of work for nothing. The new Linkwitz speakers look better than the VS or Vandersteens, IMO.

JohnR · « **Reply #10 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 01:32 am »

I like the look, much better than a rectangle

First-order crossover between two different-sized mids. Interesting way to simplify complexity of an active system.

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #11 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 01:55 am »

I've met Dr. Linkwtz a couple times....nice chap.

He lives no more than 3 miles away, has invited me in the past to hear his creations and I've never done so

Gotta' get my head outta' me hands - neither of us getting any younger

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #12 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 03:37 am »

Quote from: TheChairGuy on 30 Oct 2012, 01:55 am

I've met Dr. Linkwtz a couple times....nice chap.

He lives no more than 3 miles away, has invited me in the past to hear his creations and I've never done so

Gotta' get my head outta' me hands - neither of us getting any younger

You really should get down there - and post a report, if you don't mind!

JLM · « **Reply #13 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 08:56 am »

His ideas relating to room acoustics aren't quite standard fair, makes me wonder. These again are quite complicated, rather big/tall speakers, so I suppose they're really meant for very large residential spaces. I'm glad he indicated a minimum room size, but these would overwhelm a 12 ft x 20 ft room IMO (especially if WAF was included).

Overall the design reminds me of making chili (just keep adding ingredients until it's either just right or ruined). It also looks like a double recipe with two of everything. I'd be much more impressed if he'd come up with a better/cheaper/smaller Pluto that fits a more typical lifestyle.

HAL · « **Reply #14 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 10:26 am »

Quote from: TheChairGuy on 30 Oct 2012, 01:55 am

I've met Dr. Linkwtz a couple times....nice chap.

He lives no more than 3 miles away, has invited me in the past to hear his creations and I've never done so

Gotta' get my head outta' me hands - neither of us getting any younger

Have met him at a few RMAF's with his wife. Very nice people and great sound in their room! Please post a discussion if you do! That would be one for the audiophile history book!

JohnR · « **Reply #15 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 10:54 am »

Quote from: JLM on 30 Oct 2012, 08:56 am

Overall the design reminds me of making chili (just keep adding ingredients until it's either just right or ruined).

Hm, everything is there for a reason, in pursuit of the goal of an accurate dipole speaker. On the other hand, I do wonder why Linkwitz didn't look into planar drivers. Or perhaps he did and just hasn't written it up.

Quote

I'd be much more impressed if he'd come up with a better/cheaper/smaller Pluto that fits a more typical lifestyle.

Pluto? Do you mean Orion? Pluto is small already: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Pluto/intro.htm . But there are size limitations to a dipole speaker, it's not really possible to make dipole speakers small.

AJinFLA · « **Reply #16 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 02:22 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 30 Oct 2012, 10:54 am

Pluto? Do you mean Orion? Pluto is small already: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Pluto/intro.htm . But there are size limitations to a dipole speaker, it's not really possible to make dipole speakers small.

To add to that John, the Pluto, being omni, would need more room than an Orion, not less. Front wall min distance 3', but side wall less, due to the strong side nulls. The Orions/LX521 might squeeze into a 12' w room, the Pluto's not so much, unless one listened near field.
A great many people are misinformed/confused that the "size" of a speaker makes it incompatible with the "size" of a room. This is entirely incorrect. It is the radiation characteristics that matter. With knowledge, a large speaker can outperform a small one in a small room....precisely because it is large.

cheers,

AJ

JohnR · « **Reply #17 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 02:35 pm »

Quote from: AJinFLA on 30 Oct 2012, 02:22 pm

A great many people are misinformed/confused that the "size" of a speaker makes it incompatible with the "size" of a room. This is entirely incorrect. It is the radiation characteristics that matter. With knowledge, a large speaker can outperform a small one in a small room....precisely because it is large.

You might need to drop me a bone on that one... I've thought for a while that corner speakers are the best approach in a small room - currently experimenting with/listening to monitors pushed into the corners of my study. The actual size of the speaker should make no difference.... I think... soo.. what is it about the size of a large speaker that would be an advantage in small rooms (instead of merely irrelevant)?

JohnR · « **Reply #18 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 02:46 pm »

Hm, well, if located out in the room, a larger speaker would have half-space radiation down to a lower frequency, which would be an advantage in terms of reducing reflections from the front wall. Am I warm?

That is of course for a box speaker.

DS-21 · « **Reply #19 on:** 30 Oct 2012, 03:07 pm »

Quote from: JLM on 30 Oct 2012, 08:56 am

His ideas relating to room acoustics aren't quite standard fair, makes me wonder. These again are quite complicated, rather big/tall speakers, so I suppose they're really meant for very large residential spaces. I'm glad he indicated a minimum room size, but these would overwhelm a 12 ft x 20 ft room IMO (especially if WAF was included).

The overwhelming problem with large speakers is that they can visually dominate a small space.

The problem with that is that small spaces often sound better with speakers that throw a narrower pattern in the midrange and treble, because such speakers will allow a greater ratio of direct sound to reflected sound in a small space. The wider the speaker's pattern, the lower the ratio of direct-to-reflected sound will be. (Basically, that's just a paraphrase/extension of what AJinFLA wrote above.)

The problem with that is...the only way to get a narrower mid/treble pattern is a wider (and thus generally more visually dominating) waveguide, and thus a wider speaker.

Quote from: JohnR on 30 Oct 2012, 10:54 am

Hm, everything is there for a reason, in pursuit of the goal of an accurate dipole speaker. On the other hand, I do wonder why Linkwitz didn't look into planar drivers. Or perhaps he did and just hasn't written it up.

The stated goal answers your question about planars.

Quote from: JohnR on 30 Oct 2012, 02:35 pm

You might need to drop me a bone on that one... I've thought for a while that corner speakers are the best approach in a small room - currently experimenting with/listening to monitors pushed into the corners of my study. The actual size of the speaker should make no difference.... I think... soo.. what is it about the size of a large speaker that would be an advantage in small rooms (instead of merely irrelevant)?

Depends on the speaker. If it's competently designed, directivity. But many/most large speakers, like many/most small speakers, are incompetently designed.

If you can fit wider narrower-directivity speakers in the corners of a small room, that would likely be a good bet.