[ctviggen]

I'm thinking of buying some Linkwitz Orions for a change of pace.  Mainly, this would be so that I could put together something, including a few four channel amps.  It would also be fun analyzing the electronic crossovers in the Linkwitz.  I think it would also be interesting comparing a speaker that radiates forward and backward with an excellent box speaker.  Adjusting the room acoustics for a box speaker makes sense to me, so it'd be interesting to compare those ideas with something that eschews the live-end-dead-end, acoustic treatment principles.  

Anyway, anyone compared these speakers in any meaningful way?  

If not, then perhaps I'll be the first to do so.  Although the comparison won't be totally valid, as my RM40s are driven by Jeff Rowland analog amps and Bolder Cable cryogenically treated, top of the line speaker cable.  By contrast, the Linkwitz will be driven most likely with "digital" UcD amps (4 channels per speaker) and relatively junk speaker cable.  Oh yeah, and I'm using a Chris VH power cord on the JR but I'll probably have a junk power cord on my home-brew amps.

[woodsyi]

Bob,

Don't diss the home brew UcD amps. I got a stereo unit Gordy is putting together for me with his neat tricks.  I bet it will be good.    

BTW, how in the world are you going to build a Orion, UcD multichannel amp and get married at the same time?  

[Skynyrd]

Bob,

You building a well-engineered pair of speakers like the Linwitz Orion and then running them with pro-audio amplification and then comparing them to your audiophile tweaked-out speakers and uberexpensive audio salon amplifiers and cables and power cords could really be informative for the rest of us out here!  

Congrats on getting married.  The day I got married was the best day of my life, so far.  It'll be fifteen years on May 18 for us.

My wife lets me buy lots of acoustic foam, too!

Skynyrd

[zybar]

Bob,

Congrats on the wedding!  

In terms of speaker cable, go with the Straley cables or if you can't swing that, try bluejeanscable.

George

[NealH]

I have not listened to the Orion but, have listened to the Beethoven and, Dvorak speakers set up properly and, driven by Jeff Rowland electronics.  These are built largely on the same principles as the Orion, and sound character is reported to be very similar.  I have even heard comments that the Orion betters the Beethoven in a couple areas.  

They produce a stunningly real soundstage with a rich reverberant field that provides a nice "lively" presentation.  Instruments and voices are immediate, with "breathing" body, and placed well within the stage.   From the moment a voice is heard, you feel like you can just reach out and touch the artist.   They are extremely engaging.  Great sounding speakers.

[ka7niq]

I have looked at Linkwits speakers with some curiosity, given his excellent academic credentials.
I have heard the Audio Artistry Dvorak, and found it to be a pleasant enough speaker.
The "problem" I have with all of them is their radiation pattern.
The midrange is dipolar, but the tweeter is!
That means the midrange will have more of a room sound then the tweeter will.
In my opinion, this is like dipping a Vanilla Ice Cream cone only halfway in Chocolate.
It just bugs me.
In my opinion, if you are going to deliberately induce 'distortions' by bouncing the sound all over the back walls, do it with all the radiation pattern.
That way, all the sound will have a similar coloration ?
Perhaps Linkwits should include a true dipolar tweeter in his design ?
Perhaps the Orion has one, but the Audio Artistry Dvorak didnt.
Listening to the upper range of Violins on the Dvorak was an "interesting" experience on the Dvorak.
I found it to totally change the timbre of a violin recording as the instrument went higher in pitch.
Think about it for a minute?
You have more room sound added in the lower range of the instrument then in the upper range.
It cant help but to sound different.

[JoshK]

I have looked at Linkwits speakers with some curiosity, given his excellent academic credentials.
I have heard the Audio Artistry Dvorak, and found it to be a pleasant enough speaker.
The "problem" I have with all of them is their radiation pattern.
The midrange is dipolar, but the tweeter is!
That means the midrange will have more of a room sound then the tweeter will.
In my opinion, this is like dipping a Vanilla Ice Cream cone only halfway in Chocolate.
It just bugs me.
In my opinion, if you are g ...

ka7niq,  I think you need to read a little more about the design.  No disrespect intended but you basically missed the entire point of the design in your post and said a number of things that defy physics.

[ka7niq]

ka7niq,  I think you need to read a little more about the design.  No disrespect intended but you basically missed the entire point of the design in your post and said a number of things that defy physics.

Hello Josh!
I assure you that I have read every page of Siegfreid's site, and some of his AES papers as well.
I understand the "point" of his design.
His design is the culmination of his research over 30 years into sound.
I am sure that Richard Vandersteen, Brian Cheyney, Jim Thiel, and some others could claim the same thing.
It dont mean that I have to agree with them.
As a potential consumer, I have the right to question any design, no matter what the designers "credentials" might be.
This isn't my first rodeo.
I have probably owned over 50 really high end speakers over the 30 years I have spent in this hobby.
I have experienced the "genius" of Jim Strickland of Acoustic, Gayle Sanders of Martin Logan, Bruce Thigpen of Eminent Technology, Paul Klipsch, Amar Bose, Bill Watkins, Arnie Nudell, Cary Christie, ... shall I go on ?
There is no misinterpretation of the laws of Physics on my part.
While I have no formal training in Physics, I am a 25 year Ham Radio operator.
I built antennas, Yagi Antennas, for gain contests.
I understand radiation patterns.

Now, if you have a truly dipolar midrange, and a non dipolar tweeter, bingo, there will be a discrepancy in the overall radiation pattern!

Why ?
Because some of the radiation of the Orion speaker array will be reflecting off the back and side walls, in this case, the dipolar midrange driver, and some will be only be reflecting from the side walls, the non dipolar tweeter!
The Orion is only dipolar from 1.4 k down.
That means the non dipolar tweeter is handling all from 1.4 k up.
1.4 K is right in the midrange.
Dont it stand to reason that one will be able to hear this radiation pattern discrepancy ?
I heard it in the Dvorak by Audio Artistry, plain as day.
On a solo violin recording, it was plain as day, at least to me.
I could hear the timber change of the Violin, as well as the acoustic space "change" as the violinist went up the scale.

Imagine this ?
Simply cut out the back of an RM 40 so the ribbons become dipoles ?
You will still be left with non dipolar spiral ribbons.
You might be able to get away with it on a spiral RM 40 because of the high crossover point.
But, from my listening experiences with the Dvorak, no way at 1.4 k crossover point.

In my opinion, either go all dipole, or all non dipole, if you want truth of timbre, and acoustic reality.

[Dr. Krull]

ka7niq, I think you need to read a little more about the design. No disrespect intended but you basically missed the entire point of the design in your post...

I assure you that I have read every page of Siegfreid's site

No disrespect, but I'm afraid JoshK is correct.  Reading doesn't imply understanding.  Your comments are riddled with misconceptions that are likely attributable to a lack of understanding of the design.

The Orion is only dipolar from 1.4 k down.  That means the non dipolar tweeter is handling all from 1.4 k up.  1.4 K is right in the midrange.  Dont it stand to reason that one will be able to hear this radiation pattern discrepancy ?

Case in point.  The Orion is dipolar from 1.44kHz down for a reason.  According to Mr. Linkwitz a tweeter's power response in a full range monopole design will be about 13 dB higher than the woofer's at the crossover frequency.  A rear firing tweeter will only contribute to an imbalance in power response for a design like the Orion.  It would also make them much more room placement critical and also necessitate adding room treatments behind them to "undo" the effects of the rear firing tweeter.

I heard it in the Dvorak by Audio Artistry, plain as day.  On a solo violin recording, it was plain as day, at least to me.   I could hear the timber change of the Violin, as well as the acoustic space "change" as the violinist went up the scale.

You may have heard something plain as day but it likely wasn't due to the lack of the Dvorak's rear high frequency radiation.  Perhaps the room may have been a contributing factor?  A dynamic dipole like the Dvorak or Orion is designed to be used in a room with "typical" acoustics (i.e. RT60 of 400 ms to 700 ms).

Simply cut out the back of an RM 40 so the ribbons become dipoles ?  You will still be left with non dipolar spiral ribbons.
You might be able to get away with it on a spiral RM 40 because of the high crossover point.

How much dipole correction do you think might be required for such a hack?  The woofers might be able to be EQ'd with an electronic crossover to achieve flat response but there's no guarantee that they'd have sufficient Xmax or that they would be "quiet" enough to work in that fashion.  OTOH, the planar mids wouldn't be as forgiving to such a redesign.  The crossover point would need to be raised an octave or two and that would have other consequences.  Perhaps your remark wasn't all that well thought out...

Many audiophile's who have been around the block don't personally like to comment on gear that they have not heard.  Perhaps you should adopt the same philosophy, or at least give Mr. Linkwitz the benefit of your doubts.

-Krull

[NealH]

The idea behind the Orion speaker, as well as most open back dipoles, is that reflections and colorations from a cabinetry are virtually eliminated.  Not that a microphone placed behind the speaker will record a flat frequency response.   Even on a box speaker the magnitude of rear radiation will not be anywhere near the same across the spectrum.  

Obviously the rear radiation becomes more of an issue with dipole speakers the smaller the room.  This is why most vendors of this type speaker recommend more "breathing" room than with enclosed speakers.   The energy radiated from the rear is suppose to merely richen the sound field, not induce significant colorations.  With a room too small, colorations will be a concern.  

In the end personal preference will play the larger role.  That is why it is always highly recommended to audition a speaker in your home.  Just because I typically like dipole speakers certainly does not mean it is the best speaker for everyone else.  I have heard Sound Lab speakers sound simply outstanding and, terrible depending on the room they were in.

[ekovalsky]

From a physics standpoint, bass is the best range for dipole operation because it eliminates / minimizes some room interaction.  But getting deep dipole bass requires either a huge baffle (generally meaning poor WAF) or high levels of EQ.

Dipole midrange may have a positive or negative effect on soundstage base on personal preferences.  One really great thing it accomplishes though is getting the critical midrange drivers out of the box, thus eliminating a lot of nasty resonances and colorations from the cabinet.  Once you get the right driver and right crossover, using an open back midrange can give an incredibly natural sound that is very hard if not impossible to obtain with an enclosure.  

There aren't many advantages to operating a tweeter in dipole.

My speakers have the midrange line in an open dipole baffle, operating about 350hz - 3khz, thus covering most of the vocal range which thankfully it is free of any box speaker coloration.  The tweeters, while also mounted in the same open baffle, are in fact monopoles since the ribbons' rear chamber is sealed.  The woofers in the main channels are acoustic suspension for best transient response, and the subwoofers (run only in bottom two octaves) are ported for maximum extension and power handling.

There are always compromises in speaker design.   I have felt for a long time the speaker with the fewest compromises is the Martin Logan Statement E2 / E2X as it runs full dipole from 50hz - 200hz with open baffle cones, then 200hz and above with electrostatic panel, all this supplemented with bipole (not dipole) corner woofers in the bottom two octaves.  The latter is a great path to subwoofer nirvana but only if you use a room correction system!

[Brian Cheney]

In my experience both dipole woofers and room correction software are not in themselves sufficient to optimize bass response in a given room.

In the former, very large EQ corrections stress the driver and increase distortion dramatically.  I have heard some good sounding IB and open baffle woofers, but they lacked extension and impact.

In the latter the correction only applies to the mic position.  Move the mic or yourself a few inches and you have to re-EQ. Other listeners can forget about the "sweet spot" or acceptable bass quality.

I had occasion yesterday to visit a customer who had the largest all-VMPS HT and music system I have seen.  There were two RM/X (biamped), 3 LRC (including rears), two Larger subs with amps, and two Ribbon Dipoles as side surrounds, all driven by Ampzilla monoblocks from an Anthem processor.  The installation was done by an HT installer who left the user with a bloated, diffuse sound and a loud ground-loop hum he claimed to be unresponible for and made no effort to fix.  The install cost about as much as the equipment.

I was able to eliminate the hum and set the woofer amps to the optimum crossover and output levels.  The untreated listening room was very large and not in need of electronic correction.  Still I was not happy with the overall presentation.

As most readers here know, our Subs and floorstanders are tunable at the passive radiator by adding or removing mass (the infamous putty).  Some audiophiles have expressed disbelief in the efficacy of our tuning method, which requires the PR moving mass being adjusted in very small increments, about 1/100g at a time.  

Yet this methodology was exactly what it took to make the whole system sound right, both on music and HT.  After 1/2hr of tuning I was left with an amount of putty in front of me which I had removed from the PR one fingernail full at a time.  The total amount I took off would require a precision scale to measure; I estimate 1/10g.

The difference in sound quality of the whole system dramatically improved, top to bottom.  Voices stood out, trebles sparkled, bass was subterranean and smacked one around the gut.  Most of this was quite lacking before the putty adjustment.  The owner was both stunned and very pleased.

The VMPS bass system is the best I have found in terms of achieving practical results, which is why I invented it in the first place.  If any other bass method (including electronic EQ) were better, I would use or recommend it. In small rooms EQ will get the worst modes under control, but PR tuning is still required to match the system to its environment and associated equipment.

[ekovalsky]

Well having tried both ways, I can say with certainty that my system & room fare vastly better with digital room correction than 0.1 - 0.01g mass change of the PR, even when it was coated with glue!

[ka7niq]

I not only read Siegfried's site, I understand what he is doing.
He can give ten thousand reasons for what he is doing, but that still dont change things.
Bottom line, he is deliberately bouncing some of the sound off the black wall, and some he is not.
If you like your sound deliberately altered, fine, that's your prerogative.
As for actually hearing the Orions, I haven't.
But, I have heard the Audio Artistry Dvorak, another Linkwitz design.
I basically see the Orion as a souped up Dvorak with Seas drivers instead of Tifa's.
It's crossover points are similar, as are it's non uniform polar radiation patterns in a 360 degree plane
It is dipole in part of the midrange, monopole the rest of the way up.
This aint new my man.
Those of us who were around years ago remember the ESS Transtatic.
It used a KEF dipole midrange cone driver mounted in an open backed  tube, and an array of RTR Electrostatics radiating monopole.
It aint like Siegfried  re invented the wheel ??
The Dahlquist DQ 10 also did this.
Nothing new.

I was merely joking about cutting the back out of an RM 40.'
Just trying to make a point.

Now, I want you to think long and hard on this.
How can you possibly have accuracy when you bring both the rear and side walls to the party for part of the frequency range, then eliminate the rear wall reflection for the rest ?
Especially when that "party" I speak of is smack dab in the middle of the midrange ?

This type of radiation pattern may well cause "incredible imaging" as the extra ambiance of the dipolar driver is combined with the point source tweeter.
Bose 901's can "image" too.
The big ESS Transtatics "imaged" well, as did the Dahlquists, by using psychoacoustic trickery.
I enjoyed my Dahlquists, and my ESS Transtatics, but I never kidded myself.
I always knew there were some psychoacoustic shennagans going on.

Like John Casler says, what ever you like is what you like.
I like a speaker that takes the room out of the equation as much as possible.
YMMV

[Brian Cheney]

Eric, in your 14x17' room I don't doubt electronic correction helped out.  Had you combined it with proper PR tuning you would have achieved better results than you did when you were a VMPS owner.

[Dr. Krull]

I not only read Siegfried's site, I understand what he is doing.

It does not appear so.

Bottom line, he is deliberately bouncing some of the sound off the black wall, and some he is not.  If you like your sound deliberately altered, fine, that's your prerogative.

Although I already answered this for you in my prior post, let me ask you why you think "he's bouncing sound off the back wall" and why only up to a certain point?  Hint: It has something to do with 4.6dB and the chart shown below.

As for actually hearing the Orions, I haven't.  But, I have heard the Audio Artistry Dvorak, another Linkwitz design.  I basically see the Orion as a souped up Dvorak with Seas d ...

Close but no cigar.  The Dvorak uses completely different drivers than the Orion, it's an MTM design and is uses a passive crossover for the main panels.  There are also many other differences that you might or might not be aware of.

In any event I personally find it difficult to criticize a product that I've never heard, even if I've often heard other "similar" ones.  That said, I have personally heard both the Orion and the RM40 at various venues and I'll bet you can guess which one I prefer.



NOTE: I will not contribute further to this thread as it's not appropriate given this is a VMPS forum.

-Krull

[ka7niq]

Krull, dont leave now, you have been a lot of fun!
I have really enjoyed debating with you, and while I dont agree, I respect your opinions, and your right to them.

You wrote "" Although I already answered this for you in my prior post, let me ask you why you think "he's bouncing sound off the back wall" and why only up to a certain point? Hint: It has something to do with 4.6dB and the chart shown below. "'

Here is my answer, he is bouncing sound off the back wall with his open backed dipolar midrange driver, and only up to a certain point because his crossover is at a very low 1.4 K.
Since his tweeter is not open backed, his deliberate rearward radiation must stop there.
He can rationalize and justify it all he wants.

It dont mean it is right.
Just as Bose can present all the "MIT Research" it wants to justify" their design, it dont make it "right" in everyones eyes.
I am sorry, but a 1/2 dipole, 1/2 monopole is wrong, for me.
It may be pleasant, you may like it, but it is a flawed design, at least to me.

Then, there is another matter!
The very low 1.4 K crossover point caused by using such a large diameter midrange driver.
In my opinion, that asking a whole lot from that, or any tweeter ?

My purpose is not to "dog" the Orion, just to point out what I perceive as it's flaws.
The opinions expressed here are my own, from my own observations and experience with building and owning many speakers.
YMMV

[philipp]

There's a rule on political forums that the first person to use Adolph Hitler as a metaphor automatically loses the debate.

ka7niq, I too was enjoying the arguement since my (very) short list of desired speakers includes both the Orions and RM30s. But WTF are you doing???

[Davey]

There's a rule on political forums that the first person to use Adolph Hitler as a metaphor automatically loses the debate.

I think the debate was lost well before that.

My goodness.  

Davey.

[Brian Cheney]

I am not about to criticize the work of my friend Siegfried Linkwitz.  He has a different approach to speaker design than I do, for which I am grateful.

Why not listen for yourself, and decide for yourself?