Linkwitz Orion Honeymoon

[davidtwotrees]

Hello. I haven't had much time since I was married last June. While researching speakers last year, the Linkwitz Lab site listed a honeymoon cottage where you could also audition these speakers that are pictured here. Well, the honeymoon cottage was right on our itinerary, and the place was amazing.........and so were the speakers.
The speakers were active and the sources were not exotic. A pioneer DV5xx series dvd player and as I recall a NAD preamplifier.
I don't think the room was the best for critical listening, (wood floors and glass everywhere) and I did not bring any of my personal music for serious listening.
I'd never heard or seen an open baffle design. They sounded nice and smooth. They stayed clean at high levels.
I did not spend a lot of time with them, however.
I must say, that Ms. Linkwitz was super nice, and even invited my bride and I to visit their home in SF to audition more speakers there!!! All in all it was a wonderful honeymoon in Northern California. David

 

[GranteedEV]

I don't think the room was the best for critical listening, (wood floors and glass everywhere) and I did not bring any of my personal music for serious listening.

The orion is designed to be used in reflective rooms. Linkwitz doesn't believe in room treatments

 

[bellevegasj]

I'd love to check that out sometime.

Given all the above, how do you think they sound compared to others you've listened to or is too unfair a question?

It's interesting that they didn't use the super high end gear to power them.

 

[TLS Guy]

The orion is designed to be used in reflective rooms. Linkwitz doesn't believe in room treatments

It is not that he does not believe in them, it is that he maintains, and so do I, that a lot of room treatments make matters worse and cause other problems. There are few rooms that are real dogs and benefit.

The fact is good speakers are not particularly fussy about their environment, and in fact shine in a lot of quite ambient spaces. Most speakers over fussy about rooms and placement have serious problems.

In fact when I have a speaker under development that is fussy in these matters, it is a tip to dig deep for the problem in the speaker.

Now here I'm talking about treatments beyond dealing with bass additions and cancellations due to room dimensions. Even in this area however speakers aggravate these problems by being over resonant with Qt too high. It is amazing how low Qt speakers just don't over excite these room modes excessively.

Linkwitz presented a classic paper to AES with a lot of good data on just this issue. His approach will be by design non resonant.

By the way to implement his speaker concept properly an active speaker is mandatory. You just can not implement this type of design with passive crossovers. Some will try and argue the point and have on these forums, but they a just plain wrong.

 

[JerryLove]

It is not that he does not believe in them, it is that he maintains, and so do I, that a lot of room treatments make matters worse and cause other problems. There are few rooms that are real dogs and benefit.

The designs of yours I have seen do indeed have cabinets.

If "speakers stuck in a board" actually works: I would think it would be the DIY favorite. Certainly it's far easier to program a single active crossover than all this cabinet design and building non-sense?

 

[TLS Guy]

The designs of yours I have seen do indeed have cabinets.

If "speakers stuck in a board" actually works: I would think it would be the DIY favorite. Certainly it's far easier to program a single active crossover than all this cabinet design and building non-sense?

Yes, my speakers do indeed have cabinets!

That is not the point.

As regards open backed speakers being an easy DIY build, nothing could be further from the truth!

The design is highly complex because of the effect of the baffle. This results in a general low pass filter. However because of the baffle there are frequencies where the frontal wave and rear wave reinforce and frequencies where they cancel. This makes for very difficult active crossover design.

So what on the surface seems simple is actually very complex. However if there is a guy equal to the task it is Siegfried Linkwitz. His papers contain pages of complex math beyond my educational grade.

 

[JerryLove]

The design is highly complex because of the effect of the baffle. This results in a general low pass filter. However because of the baffle there are frequencies where the frontal wave and rear wave reinforce and frequencies where they cancel. This makes for very difficult active crossover design.

Mathematically perhaps: Why is it difficult experimentally?

Build the thing and the measure where the baffle is reinforcing vs canceling?

 

[jostenmeat]

Build the thing and the measure where the baffle is reinforcing vs canceling?

How many times are you willing to rebuild new baffles?

edit: BTW, the Orions are probably my #1 regret in terms of missed auditions when hunting down a dream stereo system. That said, the concept and implementation was waaaay beyond me at the time, if it still isn't now.

 

[JerryLove]

How many times are you willing to rebuild new baffles?

Zero: but do I have to build new baffles.

The baffles in the pictures *look* very haphazard. I read TLS's comment to be that crossover design was a tremendous problem because of baffle effects. I'm willing to reprogram my electronic crossover a bunch (though my skill at actually getting good results from that is, at present, poor.

 

[TLS Guy]

Zero: but do I have to build new baffles.

The baffles in the pictures *look* very haphazard. I read TLS's comment to be that crossover design was a tremendous problem because of baffle effects. I'm willing to reprogram my electronic crossover a bunch (though my skill at actually getting good results from that is, at present, poor.

And you won't do it. You really need to read Siegfried's papers they are on his site. With trial and error you are unlikely to get there. If it was as easy as you say, everyone would be doing it. But easy it is not. So you are trying to compete with one of the best and most respected audio engineers alive to day, who has made a boat load of contributions.

 

[JerryLove]

I'm not trying to compete with anyone. I am positing understandings to get responses and gain new understandings (and sometimes just asking in the form of a question).

Looking at the back: there are baffles and reflective surfaces all over the place. Given all the issues with tweeter mountings and the like, where not-flush-mounting can create tremendous issues: it seems impossible that all those magnets, struts, and odd pieces of wood: which give me no impression of having been placed and shaped specifically for acoustics, could not interfere in a manner that would be impossible to correct for with a crossover.

Indeed: if the back end of a cone speaker is a good and accurate emitter of sound, the effort in ribbons and Walsh cones (well, except for their mechanical crossovers) and such would seem to be wasted.

It's difficult for this nigh-layman to reconcile a statement that a speaker with a back looking like the back of that speaker looks doesn't have signifigant problems as a result in a world where all of these other alternative are also a good idea.

Besides: I'm certain that Harmon Kardon has the funds to hire someone who can do the math. To be able to remove the enclosure while simultaneously improving performance would seem well worth (in savings on manufacturing and cost of shipping) the added cost of design.

Or heck: Just steal his design. I doubt there's a patent in the way.

Maybe it's the world's best speaker for reasons I don't understand. Maybe no on in the world could possibly build it but that guy. Maybe there's a reason no one can imitate it. Until I understand those reasons on some level I'm gonna be confused and therefore doubtful.

 

[jostenmeat]

Let us know when you understand! If TLS says the math is beyond him, then I hope you might stand a better chance as I believe you're an engineer.

As for the effort in ribbons, planars, electrostats being wasted, perhaps so. I have electrostats, and it would be nice to have something similar, but with much superior offaxis response. I suppose, at least historically, this tech was not wasted, because Linkwitz himself says that the Quad ESL 63 was his inspiration to begin with. He says on his webpage:

"The Quad ESL-63 electrostatic loudspeaker has been a strong inspiration to me. I loved the neutrality and realism of its sound the first time I heard it. Peter Walker designed it to act as a dipole point source by breaking up the large radiating surface into circular rings which were then driven from a tapped delay line. Besides having exceptionally low non-linear distortion, this is a speakers which has a minimum phase response. This should be of particular interest to audiophiles who consider 'transient perfect response' - as much as that is physically possible in a band-pass system - to be of importance for their music enjoyment.

The ESL-63 has two prime weaknesses: Its tweeter disc is acoustically large which leads to beaming and a tight sweet spot. It has limited low frequency output volume and overall dynamic range. I like to listen at near realistic sound levels and so my goal was to design a speaker that preserves the admirable characteristics of this one and some other planar speakers, but without their shortcomings."

Besides: I'm certain that Harmon Kardon has the funds to hire someone who can do the math. To be able to remove the enclosure while simultaneously improving performance would seem well worth (in savings on manufacturing and cost of shipping) the added cost of design.

Sure, but the real question is do they think it's still* worth it in terms of economics and marketing. I mean, c'mon, having 4 drivers visible from the backside is not exactly sexy. Now, what, do we need no less than 8 amp channels to run just a stereo pair? Or is it 6? With HT taking over the stereo world in market share, big time, then you have economies of scale to deal with. So, on a smaller scale, should they just include 4 pairs of Crown commercial amps? Nah, they need to be consumer amps for the mainstream, and I can tell you that as an owner of a Crown.

Also, I think Sean Olive said at AH about electrostats: you can't squeeze blood from a stone. I bet it has to do with the offaxis response (as Linkwitz was talking about).

Anyways to continue, for these dipoles to work well, they will need ample space from boundaries, and I would say considerably more space than even over 99% of AHers are willing to do, nevermind the mainstream public.

 

[JerryLove]

Trust me: TLS is orders of magnitude more advanced at exactly this sort of thing than I am.

But the underlying mechanics is becoming more and more interesting; and conversations like the one with TLS teach me more every day

 

[jinjuku]

Maybe it's the world's best speaker for reasons I don't understand. Maybe no on in the world could possibly build it but that guy. Maybe there's a reason no one can imitate it. Until I understand those reasons on some level I'm gonna be confused and therefore doubtful.

If I read this right: You wouldn't be able to enjoy a Linkwitz Orion because you don't understand the engineering approach and math behind it?

What happened to just enjoying something for enjoyment it brings?

 

[JerryLove]

If I read this right: You wouldn't be able to enjoy a Linkwitz Orion because you don't understand the engineering approach and math behind it?

What happened to just enjoying something for enjoyment it brings?

If I read this right, you don't want me to enjoy learning things I don't know. What happened to the joy of discovery?

Or do you want to know if I can enjoy the sound it makes? That would depend on the sound it made.

 

[walter duque]

If I read this right: You wouldn't be able to enjoy a Linkwitz Orion because you don't understand the engineering approach and math behind it?

What happened to just enjoying something for enjoyment it brings?

Good point. One of the best sounding speakers I have ever owned where Fulton Premiers, no measurments no graphs, build by ear. Friends of mine are still raving about them. Pricy at 8k in 79 picked up demos for 2K.

 

[TLS Guy]

I'm not trying to compete with anyone. I am positing understandings to get responses and gain new understandings (and sometimes just asking in the form of a question).

Looking at the back: there are baffles and reflective surfaces all over the place. Given all the issues with tweeter mountings and the like, where not-flush-mounting can create tremendous issues: it seems impossible that all those magnets, struts, and odd pieces of wood: which give me no impression of having been placed and shaped specifically for acoustics, could not interfere in a manner that would be impossible to correct for with a crossover.

Indeed: if the back end of a cone speaker is a good and accurate emitter of sound, the effort in ribbons and Walsh cones (well, except for their mechanical crossovers) and such would seem to be wasted.

It's difficult for this nigh-layman to reconcile a statement that a speaker with a back looking like the back of that speaker looks doesn't have signifigant problems as a result in a world where all of these other alternative are also a good idea.

Besides: I'm certain that Harmon Kardon has the funds to hire someone who can do the math. To be able to remove the enclosure while simultaneously improving performance would seem well worth (in savings on manufacturing and cost of shipping) the added cost of design.

Or heck: Just steal his design. I doubt there's a patent in the way.

Maybe it's the world's best speaker for reasons I don't understand. Maybe no on in the world could possibly build it but that guy. Maybe there's a reason no one can imitate it. Until I understand those reasons on some level I'm gonna be confused and therefore doubtful.

There does need to be an open box at the back, to control rear back cancellation and make the design manageable. Yes, there likely are some unwanted reflections, but as I always say all good speakers are sum of intelligent compromise.

Now Siegfried Linkwitz has no secrets about his design. It is all here for you to study.

Now his design is not intended to be a mainstream speaker, just as the Quad ESL never was. There are a lot of similarities to the Linkwitz and the Walker approach. They are primarily trying to understand and solve unusual problems. Peter sold every electrostatic speaker at a loss, not one made a profit. However his design has been a very useful reference, and has features that make it ideal for a lot of acoustic research, as well as being a really fine speaker. If it had not been for the original Quad ESL cone time speakers would never have made the advances they did after the first ESL was shown at the Hotel Russel in 1957. It was a massive advance and sent shock waves though the audio industry, as there was no speaker that could even approach it for tonal accuracy and it showed what was possible.

These individuals contribute enormously to the development of audio, as opposed to those who throw speakers together, refuse to provide measurements or informative details and insists speaker choice is akin to selecting dinner from a restaurant menu!

Active speakers need to become the rule. Passive crossovers are at a point where they are out staying their welcome. Speaker and amp need to be designed as a unit for better results.

My front three speaker require 8 amps, six for the left and right and two for the center. There is nothing unusual about that. ACT and PMC both have a large proportion of their speaker models active now. Things are starting to move.

As for your suggestion that an outfit like Harmon Kardon should plagiarize another designers work, that is beyond the pale.

There is a generally lack of probity in the business community these days as it is, and breeches of ethics need no further encouragement.

 

[JerryLove]

As for your suggestion that an outfit like Harmon Kardon should plagiarize another designers work, that is beyond the pale.

Good authors borrow: great authors steal shamelessly. (previous quote stolen from famous author).

I'll resist going down the side-path of "intellectual property" just point out that my statement was not one of morality.

 

[TLS Guy]

Good authors borrow: great authors steal shamelessly. (previous quote stolen from famous author).

I'll resist going down the side-path of "intellectual property" just point out that my statement was not one of morality.

Or heck: Just steal his design. I doubt there's a patent in the way.

No, it's a statement of immorality.

 

[jinjuku]

If I read this right, you don't want me to enjoy learning things I don't know. What happened to the joy of discovery?

Or do you want to know if I can enjoy the sound it makes? That would depend on the sound it made.

Where the heck did I say that? We are all a curious lot here and most of us don't let not understanding something get in the way of enjoying it.

Chill out.