New speakers $3000

[illusonic]

Did you actually look at the predicted in-room response curve I referred to? This is no sort of positive. If it can be fixed with built-in EQ then this is a good thing but a better default response would be better.

Are you aware that actual bass in a room changes dramatically with speaker placement? Depending on wall distance you get various levels of room gain. Best way to deal with it, independent of the speaker, is dedicated room EQ. Second best is bass shelving filters as integrated to the Orbits.

Significant bass head-room would absolutely be a good thing but the distortion data clearly shows this isn't the case here. I also don't accept that the distortion shown in the review is a "non-issue" - it's a clear limitation of the speaker. This is why Amir explored and commented on this (both in the measured data and listening test). Listen at low enough volume and particularly in the nearfield and you could certainly be fine of course. The OP is listening in a medium sized-room and I strongly suspect farfield though.

You can of course tell all small sub owners, Kii 3 owners, D&D 8C owners, Neumann KH 310 owners etc. that the bass distortion of their speakers is a serious problem. But the owners of these speakers may not take you too serious if you do.

However, the OP may well be using the high-passed output from their sub as input to their main speakers, in which case the bass response of the mains becomes irrelevant either way.

Did you look at the sub of the OP? Is it so hard to understand that the Orbits deliver similar output that reaches even lower due to closed vs. bass reflex box?

 

[Jonazkur]

Those palmer orbit speakers have too messy polars IMO so not that great.

 

[thewas]

Those palmer orbit speakers have too messy polars IMO so not that great.

Just out of curiosity, what do you find too messy there?



I personally find them quite ok, even more considering their price.

 

[ppierre]

Just out of curiosity, what do you find too messy there?

View attachment 536777View attachment 536778

I personally find them quite ok, even more considering their price.

I think he meant the directivity :

"Lots of directivity variations"

 

[thewas]

Although even the two directivity indexes are not too bad in my opinion, quite flat above 300 Hz where they matter the most.

 

[Jonazkur]

Just out of curiosity, what do you find too messy there?

View attachment 536777View attachment 536778

I personally find them quite ok, even more considering their price.

You can easily see from that they are not that constant or constantly narrowing. They have narrowing at midrange 1.5k and then very wide radiation at 5-6k area which could cause brightness.

 

[thewas]

You can easily see from that they are not that constant or constantly narrowing. They have narrowing at midrange 1.5k and then very wide radiation at 5-6k area which could cause brightness.

The variation of the DI is except the narrow widening around 6 kHz not larger than ±1dB in the main range, on the other hand I don't know any other competitor in that price range that keeps the directivity down to 400 Hz.

 

[Jonazkur]

The variation of the DI is except the narrow widening around 6 kHz not larger than ±1dB in the main range, on the other hand I don't know any other competitor in that price range that keeps the directivity down to 400 Hz.

You can see it in the raw off axis responses too. When listening distance increases they will radiate too much energy in that area and sound bright (depending of the room ofc). Directivity isnt that great imo. Also that 1.5k dip isnt ideal and it makes the treble area even worse.

 

[thewas]

As I wrote above I don't find it great either but also not too bad especially when considering that it keeps the constant directivity in the whole mid region up to upper bass.

 

[Matias]

To be fair the EQ'ed graphs look a lot better, so the EQ really did wonders this time.

Measurements for speaker Palmer Orbit 11

www.spinorama.org

 

[thewas]

To be fair the EQ'ed graphs look a lot better, so the EQ really did wonders this time.

Measurements for speaker Palmer Orbit 11

www.spinorama.org

As you know this happens because its directivity isn't too bad.

 

[illusonic]

You can see it in the raw off axis responses too. When listening distance increases they will radiate too much energy in that area and sound bright (depending of the room ofc). Directivity isnt that great imo. Also that 1.5k dip isnt ideal and it makes the treble area even worse.

If you prefer to trade smoother directivity above 1kHz with less control of directivity below 1kHz, that's a valid choice you typically get between a well engineered 2-way speaker and the Orbits. I just can't see how any of these options is objectively better. Of course we all want smooth and fully controlled directivity at least above 100Hz. But when it comes to spending actual money, most of us seem to care less.

 

[Ultrasonic]

Are you aware that actual bass in a room changes dramatically with speaker placement?

Rest assured I have a solid grasp of room acoustics.

Did you look at the sub of the OP?

Yes, and I suggested above that one upgrade path could be to upgrade it.

 

[Jonazkur]

If you prefer to trade smoother directivity above 1kHz with less control of directivity below 1kHz, that's a valid choice you typically get between a well engineered 2-way speaker and the Orbits. I just can't see how any of these options is objectively better. Of course we all want smooth and fully controlled directivity at least above 100Hz. But when it comes to spending actual money, most of us seem to care less.

I would take the smoother directivity above 1k in this situation. Also i would take a smoother rising di from below 1k and not one huge step at 200-400hz.

 

[illusonic]

Rest assured I have a solid grasp of room acoustics.

Then you know that the predicted room response cannot tell you what your actual frequency response in a room will be below Schroeder Frequency.

Yes, and I suggested above that one upgrade path could be to upgrade it.

So you would put large part of the money into sub(s) despite Orbit owners with bigger rooms than the OP expressing their satisfaction with bass output?

 

[thewas]

Also i would take a smoother rising di from below 1k and not one huge step at 200-400hz.

It seems our personal experiences, priorities und possibly use cases differ, since I use EQ I would rather have that low frequency step than a directivity with first increasing slope and than change to constant one around 1kHz as often seen.

 

[illusonic]

I would take the smoother directivity above 1k in this situation. Also i would take a smoother rising di from below 1k and not one huge step at 200-400hz.

Then passive cardioid is simply no good solution for you. Unless you are happy if that step occurrs lower in frequency.

 

[Ultrasonic]

So you would put large part of the money into sub(s) despite Orbit owners with bigger rooms than the OP expressing their satisfaction with bass output?

If improving the bass extension was a priority, yes. Based on the objective data not subjective opinion (as is the point here). The OP didn't respond to my enquiry about this originally though, or the also very relevant question of a means of applying proper EQ to smooth the bass response, so I'm guess neither is actually a priority. I'm also not sure if this is for a studio setup or just for home audio enjoyment (my guess is the latter), which would affect any personal suggestion I might make.

I'm very pleased you're happy with your Orbit11 speakers and I'm not saying they aren't a good option for some. It was purely the suggestion that they were an obvious stand-out backed up by Amir's review that I don't think holds up.

 

[Somafunk]

Pics?

There’s not much to see really, couple of monitors on a desk, subs underneath but here’s one pic - no desire to change as they sound good to me so these will see me out

 

[illusonic]

It was purely the suggestion that they were an obvious stand-out backed up by Amir's review that I don't think holds up.

I actually bought the speakers based on professional measurements from former ASR member stoneeh. You can find Part 1 and Part 2 of his review on youtube if you're interested. Anechoic distortion measurements (HD and IMD) are included that show the actual speaker distortion without room influence (unlike ASR HD measurements tha are done in-room). The ASR review did not bring any new information but some comments that I can't confirm. Most prominent point of criticism is distortion in lower bass. You can see here that the Orbits compare very well to other cardioid speakers.

Then there is the step in predicted room response that we already discussed. It's a result of the passive cardioid implementation that ends with the mid/woofer crossover. The trend lines that Amirm added make it stand out more than it should. Just compare the trend lines at spinorama even without EQ. It makes no sense to apply different standard EQ, like you proposed above, because anechoic response would not be flat on axis. As there are enough EQ filters included, the actual frequency response in user's homes can be compensated well, even without external DSP. Still more flexible room EQ makes sense as with any other speaker. There is no disadvantage for the Orbits.

Another point citicised in the ASR review were directivity variations that have also been discused above. Directivity champions like Genelec 8341/8351B comprise a highly optimized mid/treble coax in an equally optimized baffle shape including a waveguide allowing perfectly smooth directivity. Non coax speakers can't match vertical directivity of these speakers. The Orbit coax and waveguide within the baffle are less refined resulting in aforementioned directivity variations. Still these variations aren't too bad either and below 1khz dispersion control of the Orbits beats the Genelecs due to the passive cardioid feature. Overall, that's no clear win for the Genelecs.

Actually, I find it puzzling how hard it can be to understand the exceptional value these speakers represent. The Orbit's BOM cost is higher than Genelec 8341 and sales price is only 30%, while bass output is closer to 8351B. For the complete package there is simply nothing that comes close even far above their price range. One close competitor would be Kii 7 at more than 4 times the price. Features like 3-way, coax, cardioid, 30Hz bass, aluminium enclosure all bring substantial advantages for the user. Speakers up to 3 times of the Orbit price can't clearly distance themselves from the Orbits. If you disagree, just propose respective speakers.