Palmer ORBIT 11 Cardioid Coaxial 3-way studio monitor (MSRP 799€/899$)

[Blockader]

Another parallel is driving a Honda Civic knowing an overwhelming majority of people drives them or worse, creating music is all about translation.

I see your point, however the goal is to use speakers that are statistically better suited for production and reproduction. Nobody is looking for an absolute solution, since there is no standard that all studios are obliged to adhere to. I want to repeat again that I see your point though, there were cases where some cursed recordings sounded better on cursed speakers.

 

[sidechain]

Yet peer reviewed and extensive research proves that is not the case. 50 years of it. It shows that listeners with wildly different backgrounds, age and sex, have remarkably similar preference for a neutral speaker. And we know what a neutral speaker is when it comes to measurements.

If that was the case the vast majority of "listeners" would have fancy cardioid speakers with 5k per centimeter gold foil cables but thats not the case. Sadly most people don't care about sound. The people who care have different preferences, it's like food... salt, pepper, spices. Some like it bright, some like it dark, some like it scooped, some like it forward. The more clients you work with in music the more the illusion of sound consensus disappears.

 

[Tovarich007]

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.

Thanks a lot Olieb for your very precise et scientifically backed up informations.

 

[zequence]

Mr Heinz (Hedd) has some thoughts about measurements on this video. The fact that he is a musician I think does make a difference in how he approaches sound.

 

[TimVG]

Since we're off topic anyway. As someone who does a bit of (orchestral) recording work: I guess a neutral speaker is not a necessity for each and every step in the recording process, although for me personally it makes things a whole lot easier if it is the case. Half of the time I'm listening in mono to small Genelecs (8020), or to headphones because at a location setting, things need to be portable. But when you're setting up €20k worth of microphones, with specific sound profiles, you at least need an honest view of what they're doing, as placement makes or breaks everything to come. As experience grows, workflow improves - but when you often switch venues and ensembles, having a more or less neutral playback system, especially in that critical 200Hz to 8kHz, helps a lot. I guess you could do this part on just about any monitor, but know you probably won't be hearing something close to reality, which I think is a shame, having spent a lot of money on buying mics with specific sound profiles (and polar patterns).

I have found that if it sounds pretty good in mono, on a limited bandwith system, the next step of going to stereo on the mains becomes a whole lot easier. I used to do much more of the process in stereo, on my main system, with varying results, and less consistency. I guess just like listening to one speaker makes assessing it easier, also goes for listening to a mix. Once that part is done however, going to the main system is a necessity to make those final decisions in terms of EQ, panning, compression (dirty word in classical music), etc.

 

[Blockader]

Mr Heinz (Hedd) has some thoughts about measurements on this video. The fact that he is a musician I think does make a difference in how he approaches sound.

The points he makes don't really challenge what Toole and others have established in their research. There is a lot of depth to understanding how measurements relate to how speakers should sound in your room, and with a little knowledge of trigonometry, you can actually get a rough understanding of the early and late reflection response for given listening room dimensions.

It's true that human perception is far more complex than how microphones capture sound: for example, direct sound is perceptually dominant over reflected sound, and the way our brain registers direct sound versus reflected sound is a time-sliced event where each slice shows different perceptual behaviors. However, these phenomena are well documented in Toole's book. We encourage people to read the book as a whole before making judgements based on measurements, but we can't really police everyone. There are plenty of people(in ASR) who jump to conclusions based on a single graph and if you only focus on the bad sides of ASR, you won't get the most benefit from what's offered here.

We've been hearing about the importance of the time domain from German manufacturers for decades, yet without sources to back it up. And even if they did, FIR filters and modern DSP equipment ensure phase coherency quite easily. So what exactly are we getting anxious about here? Genelec did a research on audibility of group delay around the crossover frequency regions, people couldn't even hear group delay equal to 8th order crossover filters around 2000-3000hz with headphones

 

[amirm]

The people who care have different preferences, it's like food

They do? Here I thought everyone likes ice cream. Or Hamburger. Or dislikes Dorian fruit (although I am a bit of an exception in liking them a bit!).

Please don't keep repeating this myth and intuition. It simply is not true. Many of us will dislike too much bass, or treble. Or absence of midrange. And this is key from research: we have an intuition that guides us away from coloration. Absence of error, as Dr. Toole would say, is what appeals to us.

 

[amirm]

Mr Heinz (Hedd) has some thoughts about measurements on this video. The fact that he is a musician I think does make a difference in how he approaches sound.

You should know that he and his company are strong supporters of what we do at ASR. And have sent me products for review.

 

[sidechain]

They do? Here I thought everyone likes ice cream. Or Hamburger. Or dislikes Dorian fruit (although I am a bit of an exception in liking them a bit!).

Please don't keep repeating this myth and intuition. It simply is not true. Many of us will dislike too much bass, or treble. Or absence of midrange. And this is key from research: we have an intuition that guides us away from coloration. Absence of error, as Dr. Toole would say, is what appeals to us.

Durian is a fruit, dorian is a musical mode

 

[amirm]

Oops. Damn spelling AI doesn't know the difference!

 

[goat76]

So? How do you know they wouldn't be even better with proper studio monitors? Or produced faster.

I said reference mixes, they are already considered the best mixes out there compared to other mixes because there is not much more to do to them to make them better. These mixes are used over and over by other mixing engineers, no matter how objectively good their studio monitors are.

Who says they are "best sounding?" Based on what comparison in what controlled testing?

There is no need for any controlled testing as this is an art form we are talking about, and most of us already agree on what music albums can be considered reference material in different music genres. Just look at all the discussions that have already taken place in all the time of recorded music, and you will know what the best sounding reference music is. It's not harder than that.

That is not why they are, i.e. the speakers. You have no idea or testing as to what role those speakers played or didn't play in such mixes.

This is all bunch of suppositions, never put to testing in a controlled environment to determine the role of the monitors used. This makes what you claim folklore.

You have to do the investigation on that, and based on your certainty that objectively better measuring loudspeaker will always in general give the best mixing result, I suppose you have already done the research. If not, there are simply no facts to base your beliefs on.

As objectively better measuring loudspeakers are now more common in the studio world, do find music mixes sound way better nowadays, than say 20-40 years back in time?

 

[sidechain]

I said reference mixes, they are already considered the best mixes out there compared to other mixes because there is not much more to do to them to make them better. These mixes are used over and over by other mixing engineers, no matter how objectively good their studio monitors are.

Agreed, but having said that some people hate how Aja, Thriller, Rumours, Sea Change etc sounds. Thats the whole point, the worst sounding record and the most cursed music on earth can be someone’s holy grail, art is the worst enemy of scientific data.

 

[Chr1]

As objectively better measuring loudspeakers are now more common in the studio world, do find music mixes sound way better nowadays, than say 20-40 years back in time?

I do personally.

And I suspect a lot of the love for NS10s and other such speakers, comes from folks who's musical tastes are primarily from 20-40 years ago.

Hence they prefer the mixes done on them.
ie We are conflating the music, with it's mixing.

 

[amirm]

I said reference mixes, they are already considered the best mixes out there compared to other mixes because there is not much more to do to them to make them better.

How do you know? Where such recordings produced with different monitors and rated by an independent panel to prove they are the best?

I have reference recordings a mile long, half of which you likely have never heard of. So where does that leave you with your list?

 

[amirm]

There is no need for any controlled testing as this is an art form we are talking about, and most of us already agree on what music albums can be considered reference material in different music genres.

The art is originated by the talent. The amount of "art" a mix engineer creates better be far smaller than what the talent brings. Or else the talent is no good.

That aside, no, we don't agree on such a list or albums. There is no metric for them. No formal study either.

Once again, if you want to make a case that monitor measurements don't matter, you need to come back with data. In controlled testing. Just like we have done in sound reproduction. Where the same assumptions were made prior to research.

Neumann, Genelec and to fair extent, JBL follow that research for their professional monitors. You think they don't understand the needs of their customers and you do? That they could produce colored monitors and get as much or more business?

 

[amirm]

You have to do the investigation on that, and based on your certainty that objectively better measuring loudspeaker will always in general give the best mixing result, I suppose you have already done the research. If not, there are simply no facts to base your beliefs on.

The only belief are those stated by you. We have a ton of data that shows neutrality is desired by listeners. Those with music background and without.

A standard must exist for proper reproduction of what was produced. That alone calls for the same measurements in both domains.

Stop writing and deliver reliable facts. That is what we do at ASR. Pure intuition and subjective remarks have little value here.

 

[amirm]

As objectively better measuring loudspeakers are now more common in the studio world, do find music mixes sound way better nowadays, than say 20-40 years back in time?

Absolutely. The good recordings of the past were "good for their time." But don't hold a candle to many modern recordings. I remember back in those times that we had so few "reference" recordings. You know, the Eagles, Michael Jackson, etc. And even later with Diana Krall, Patricia Barber and such. Now, there is an explosion of artists and with it, great recordings through smaller labels. I listen to Roon automatic suggestions from Tidal and it only takes 10 to 15 minutes before I land on a recording that makes me add that track to my reference list.

 

[Liftro]

So, to get back to the original topic . @Purité Audio , I understand you already have your pair of Orbit 11 and have done some listening tests? What are your impressions? Thanks.

 

[nbot]

So, to get back to the original topic . @Purité Audio , I understand you already have your pair of Orbit 11 and have done some listening tests? What are your impressions? Thanks.

Super curious too, especially PA has some other nice speakers to compare to

 

[Audionaut]

What are your impressions?

Keith has already shared his impressions in this thread.