- Joined
- Jul 12, 2024
- Messages
- 2,720
- Likes
- 4,141
That's a good list. Thanks
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Palmer ORBIT 11 Cardioid Coaxial 3-way studio monitor (MSRP 799€/899$)
- Thread starter kharan
- Start date
Tovarich007
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2021
- Messages
- 429
- Likes
- 667
But we're not comparing omnidirectionnal speakers vs. Orbit11. We try to compare -purely in theory for the moment, in the blue as you say- the Orbit11 vs. other monitor speakers or HIFI normal direct front radiating speakers.
Berween 250 and 800 Hz, frequencies are far from being omnidirectionnal, so my guess is the ratio of 3 times more energy in this frequency range is too strong in this comparison.
Cardioïd pattrerns reduce significantly the amount of room radiated sounds, that's right, but not to such a ratio I think. As I replied a moment ago to Bumblebee, it's not a quasi cancellation as in an anechoic pattern.
Am I wrong or right ? I would appreciate your analysis on this point.
olieb
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2023
- Messages
- 906
- Likes
- 1,684
You are right, 3 is the mathematical ratio of omni versus cardioid sound power. But I did not say that conventional speakers were exactly omni, I said, they were approaching it. At 250 Hz speakers like Genelec 8030, Neumann KH120 or Kef R3 (for coaxial) are pretty close to omnidirectional (DI≈1dB).
This is a big difference (cardioid has DI≈4.8dB) in a frequency range where early reflections and sound power dominate the sound pressure level a listener is perceiving, and this will change the tonal balance significantly, all by reducing the reflected sound in the room. With increasing frequency the effect decreases and at about 800Hz the difference is all but gone.
However, from the manufacturer data it seems as if the Orbit has some extra narrowing around 1.5kHz, so the effect might go up a little bit higher in this case.
So, we are on the same page, I guess.
As for the cancellation when going off axis, I do not exactly understand the geometry of the situation.
In a room there is so much reflection that mids (at least) should be everywhere.
At 90° off axis a cardioid has approximately 6dB level decrease (lower mids, highs will decrease a bit more). So there should still be the full signal, just softer, a bit darker and with bass emphasis as the Orbit's bass is omni.
Where exactly were the ears placed? I cannot say anything about this case.
Shrek6
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
- Messages
- 67
- Likes
- 50
No these are low latency for sure. Anything under 10ms is imperceptible
somebodyelse
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2018
- Messages
- 6,384
- Likes
- 6,243
I've used them where they're useful (dual displays for example) but it's not really going to help with the stated problem - up to 11 outlets to switch, spread around the room.
But they are a good solution to power this 2 speakers.. they deliver the same power..
As it was stated that it will be difficult to cover the dreaded Orang Ring with a 3d printed cover ring, it seems to me that measurements of the orange one need to be very accurate. Posted previously here was shot of a measurement made using a tape measure- but that is about as inaccurate a way to measure as there is. Can anyone with a large caliper or machinist's scale get a more accurate measure, something within maybe a half millimeter?
(Realizing that the common set of mixing engineers or audiophiles AND people with such measuring tools AND have a pair of Orbit 11s might well be nil!).
Thanks
(Realizing that the common set of mixing engineers or audiophiles AND people with such measuring tools AND have a pair of Orbit 11s might well be nil!).
Thanks
That ring is the orbit of this Orbit 11, and if any disturbance will occur to it, the speaker will turn into a black hole and absorb any sound in the room 
You're not actually on the track of after sales , are you?
You're not actually on the track of after sales , are you?
Vinyl wrap.. simple, cheap, easy to install..
Those people don't have a single reliable metric to hang their hat on. Some of my all time favorites at studio monitors. Don't keep repeating that myth without data to back it up.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2025
- Messages
- 243
- Likes
- 342
Then they go and blow it all by using AI to create superfluous images.
I fully agree.
Genelec the Ones, for example (which I really want to like), do not seem to work for everyone when there is a choice to get something like ATC SCM25 or Dutch & Dutch.
If that has to do with the ear being used to frequencies behaving a certain way through a speaker, or not, it's still very much a real thing.
Meaning, you can't measure that phenomenon using a meter. You can only judge by the quality of the work that was done with those speakers and how easy it is for the mixer/producer to find the right sounds.
I would try a black "Sharpie".
No data to back it up?
There are literally tens of thousands of great-sounding reference tracks mixed on loudspeakers that would never score highly in objective measurements. There you have your metrics, and those tracks are most likely among your favorite best-sounding audio productions you have ever heard in your life. And do you want to know why that is? It's because those loudspeakers just happened to work great for those audio engineers mixing those songs.
The burden of proof is actually on anyone certain that objectively better loudspeakers will generally lead to better music mixes. Where are those audio productions that are head and shoulders above the ones made on the awful Yamaha NS-10s or any other similarly "lousy" loudspeakers?
I have been asking this many times now, and no one has ever been able to provide any study or proof that objectively better measuring loudspeakers will lead to better audio mixes. So why on earth are you so certain that that would be the case? Give me something, please.
In China you could get 1 to 10 splitters from the bitcoin miner sellers. I use a 1 to 5 for my hifi just need to make sure they are long enough between
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2025
- Messages
- 243
- Likes
- 342
What you've said is that a good workman may be able to work with bad tools, not that the same person would not be able to do better with better tools.No data to back it up?
There are literally tens of thousands of great-sounding reference tracks mixed on loudspeakers that would never score highly in objective measurements. There you have your metrics, and those tracks are most likely among your favorite best-sounding audio productions you have ever heard in your life. And do you want to know why that is? It's because those loudspeakers just happened to work great for those audio engineers mixing those songs.
The burden of proof is actually on anyone certain that objectively better loudspeakers will generally lead to better music mixes. Where are those audio productions that are head and shoulders above the ones made on the awful Yamaha NS-10s or any other similarly "lousy" loudspeakers?
I have been asking this many times now, and no one has ever been able to provide any study or proof that objectively better measuring loudspeakers will lead to better audio mixes. So why on earth are you so certain that that would be the case? Give me something, please.
kemmler3D
Master Contributor
If I had a set of these I could do the measurements and design the printing file, but you might be right that the current overlap is zero.
To anyone reading at Palmer: I would be more than happy to create a printable orange ring cover if you let me borrow... and keep a pair...
@UffdiePalmeFor my audio related 3D printing credentials, please see the diffuser thread.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/3d-printing-a-qrd-n53-diffuser.54930/I do agree with @levimax and @SUNS that there may be simpler solutions. The problem with sharpie is that it won't be fully opaque. I think vinyl would work, but either you have to cut it in place (might be tricky) or you need access to a vinyl cutter, which is even less common than a 3D printer. I also think affixing a pre-cut adhesive vinyl ring might be tricky. The advantage of a 3D printed part would be rigidity, so aligning by hand it would be easier.
The disadvantage of a 3D printed part would be that it would be somewhat raised above the surface, causing unwanted diffraction, so you might design it to be a bit wider than the ring, with a smoothed profile, to try and mitigate that.
Don't you think there is more nuance to that?
There's definitely a difference in preference between people who produce/mix music in what kind of hardware they like.
There's the typical clash between the analytical, and the more HiFi sounding speakers and that is definitely a thing that divides people.
And also, it's hard to get work done if you don't know your tools. That part is probably the most important.
Similar threads
