-
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
After seeing so many comments here bullshiting some reviewers and as i experienced very bad responses from the forum's users before, i didnt even bother to publish my meassurements.. it is simply a great, pair of studio monitors.. dot.. not missing the focal solos..
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2024
- Messages
- 2,745
- Likes
- 4,179
At least we know you aren't using AI.
There was a company called BEAG (Budapesti Elektro-Akusztikai Gyár) in Hungary which produced (passive) cardioid loudspeakers back in the late 1960's and 70's. Also, see Gradient Revolution in 1993 (Jorma Salmi, Finland), Amphion Xenon and Krypton in 1999/2000 (Antti Louhivaara, Finland), all featuring cardioid/hypercardioid radiation patterns. Various configurations of slots, holes etc on the sides of the enclosure has been used to shape the radiation patterns. With that regard, Kii Audio, Dutch&Dutch, Palmer and others are very late when it comes to developing loudspeakers with such qualities.
Last edited:
respice finem
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 3,705
- Likes
- 7,145
Hungary
BEAG - Budapesti Elektroakusztikai Gyár; Budapest manufactur | Radiomuseum.org
BEAG - Budapesti Elektroakusztikai Gyár; Budapest manufacturer in H, Model types from Hungary, 338 radios, 1909 pictures, 452 schematics, tubes, radio
www.radiomuseum.org
I use speech to text.. forgot to check after..
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2024
- Messages
- 45
- Likes
- 119
For Geithain, you’re either citing partial measurements that don’t assess the speaker’s directivity at all, or directly referencing Geithain’s own unpublished papers, which of course haven’t been verified by anyone. Since nobody has managed to achieve true cardioid behavior in the low frequencies (below 100–150 Hz) outside of live sound reinforcement as mentionned by Ratterbass too, I have a hard time believing that Geithain—who doesn’t publish any standardized measurements—could somehow perform miracles with a 32 Hz cardioid design using a purely passive system. So yes, for me, until proven otherwise, it still looks like snake oil.
"The rear attenuation caused by the bass cardioid is 6-8 dB and corresponds to the information in the datasheet."Sound & Recording (Anselm Goertz) has measured the 944K1:
Key quote:
ME Geithain RL 944K1: Kompakter 3-Wege-Nahfeldmonitor mit koaxialem Aufbau im Test
Im kommenden Jahr wird man bei ME Geithain (Musikelectronic Geithain) das 60-jährige Firmenjubiläum feiern. Viele Firmen mit einer so langen Tradition gibt es in der Audio Branche nicht. Bedenkt man dann noch die äußerst wechselhafte Geschichte des Unternehmens aus dem kleinen Städtchen...web.archive.org
"Anselm Goertz teaches in the field of audio communication at TU Berlin and as a guest lecturer at TH Aachen. In addition to his teaching activities, he focuses at the Institute for Acoustics and Audio Technology (IFAA) primarily on acoustic measurement technology and the planning of sound systems of all types and sizes. ..."
Anselm Goertz | IFAA
Publikationsliste Anselm Goertz Publikationen ab 2009 als PDF-Download: Tagungsbeiträge Goertz A, Leckschat D (1990) Entzerrung von Lautsprechern mit einem Signalprozessorsystem in Echtzeit. Fortschritte der Akustik, DAGA 1990 Goertz A, Leckschat D (1990) Digitale Lautsprecherentzerrung. 16...
ifaa-akustik.de
KR
Once again, this doesn’t mean anything. The measurement is done in an anechoic room up to 100 Hz, and not below that. The attenuation measurement is very modest (6 dB is really not much), and we don’t know at what distance from the speaker it was taken. (Right behind a subwoofer, if it is well damped, you generally get around ten decibels of attenuation compared to the front.) So, once again, maybe they do have real results, but as things stand, I consider it far more likely that the claims are mostly marketing.
I've got kind of a conundrum about the Orbit at the moment.
I ordered a set of them back in early February, right after this thread started. I liked the technologies it uses and the measurements looked (and still look) good to me. I liked the (slightly) wider horizontal coverage, the 2 octave lower directivity control compared to the Ascilab C6Bs that I have now, and the use of active crossover. And the cast aluminum cabinet.
But Palmer has shipped zero units of the first production run to the USA, other than to reviewers (not that I can blame them, really, given the random whimsically determined trade situation this country has presented to non-US producers). But that has given me time to rethink.
I'm certain they would work fine for me. I don't play at testosterone-fueled bassy high live sound levels or from across large rooms and know what kind of directivity pattern I like. I think they may work better in my not-great room situation (large glass doors a meter to the left, wide open kitchen to the right) than the C6Bs, reducing lower midrange close reflection from the left. Better vertical pattern to work with the wood floors and high flat untreated ceiling.
Yet when I listen to the he C6Bs (with subs, room correction, and phase flattening dsp), I really can't find anything to complain about. At all. Left-right image imbalance is minimal and might be more from visual than sonic effect -- with closed eyes it sounds pretty balanced.
So buying the Orbits might only be generating a problem for me of having another set of speakers to deal with. Selling and shipping used speakers is a pain, I don't get commercial shipping rates, and my back doesn't appreciate packing up and hauling speakers to the UPS, so I'd have to find someone in driving range of Portland Oregon to sell to. And though I can afford the Orbits along with the C6Bs, it would seem wrong to have either sit stacked down in the garage for my kids to have to someday deal with.
I"d like to play with the Orbits, cross to my subs, FIR eq the phase reaponse flat (just because I can) but maybe it's a lot of additional incidental work and trouble to be able do that. So I'm debating cancelling my order. Any thoughts?
I ordered a set of them back in early February, right after this thread started. I liked the technologies it uses and the measurements looked (and still look) good to me. I liked the (slightly) wider horizontal coverage, the 2 octave lower directivity control compared to the Ascilab C6Bs that I have now, and the use of active crossover. And the cast aluminum cabinet.
But Palmer has shipped zero units of the first production run to the USA, other than to reviewers (not that I can blame them, really, given the random whimsically determined trade situation this country has presented to non-US producers). But that has given me time to rethink.
I'm certain they would work fine for me. I don't play at testosterone-fueled bassy high live sound levels or from across large rooms and know what kind of directivity pattern I like. I think they may work better in my not-great room situation (large glass doors a meter to the left, wide open kitchen to the right) than the C6Bs, reducing lower midrange close reflection from the left. Better vertical pattern to work with the wood floors and high flat untreated ceiling.
Yet when I listen to the he C6Bs (with subs, room correction, and phase flattening dsp), I really can't find anything to complain about. At all. Left-right image imbalance is minimal and might be more from visual than sonic effect -- with closed eyes it sounds pretty balanced.
So buying the Orbits might only be generating a problem for me of having another set of speakers to deal with. Selling and shipping used speakers is a pain, I don't get commercial shipping rates, and my back doesn't appreciate packing up and hauling speakers to the UPS, so I'd have to find someone in driving range of Portland Oregon to sell to. And though I can afford the Orbits along with the C6Bs, it would seem wrong to have either sit stacked down in the garage for my kids to have to someday deal with.
I"d like to play with the Orbits, cross to my subs, FIR eq the phase reaponse flat (just because I can) but maybe it's a lot of additional incidental work and trouble to be able do that. So I'm debating cancelling my order. Any thoughts?
Last edited:
ernestcarl
Major Contributor
Shouldn't there be a return policy anyhows? Listen to them when they arrive with various positioning and try applying your EQs... after a week or two living with them and you find them unnecessary or not to your liking, then just return them.
*FIRs to linearize the LF will certainly add quite a bit more latency. Anywhere between 10 - 20+ ms -- most probably.
The Orbits play very well in my room, which happens to have glass doors on the left and an 40% open wall on the right towards the kitchen. However, in my case the wall is in place at the point of first lateral reflection and opens at the listening position. If that's not the case for your rooms, the Orbits may help to get a little better L/R balance. Maybe also somewhat better imaging in the far field if that matters in your situation.
The Orbits are sitting on top of my other speakers, which puts their acoustic center at 125cm height. Thanks to the coax they still sound balanced when sitting on the sofa and also when standing. Symmetrical and even vertical dispersion is an advantage if one finds a good way to position the speakers somewhere between seated and standing height.
Erin's measurments suggest that the Orbits can also play a bit louder than the C6B which showed 2dB compression above 100Hz at 102dB SPL while the Orbits play at least 106dB in that range. Overall, I wouldn't expect big sound improvements from the Orbits compared to your current setup which is already high quality. Nevertheless, there may be some relevant improvements.
Since you’re reading this forum, you’re probably interested in the technology, and the Orbits are by far the most accessible option to experience cardioid + coax speakers at home. Thanks to their compact size, they’re relatively easy to handle despite their hefty weight. So you’ll have to decide whether it’s worth the effort to satisfy your curiosity.
staticV3
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
- Messages
- 14,853
- Likes
- 25,960
Could you please post a link to the Orbit's compression measurement at 106dB?
If someone is interested in in-Room measurements, at the listening position approx. 2,5 meters distance, in comparison with the KEF LS50 meta at the exact same position, here you go. The Orbit 11 is set to -6db at the PAD for bass in the below measurement, which makes it pretty comparable to the LS50 meta in regards of spl. Green is LS50 meta and purple the Orbit 11, left channel only, no fdw, var smoothing. The Orbit is slightly brighter then the KEF.
And as someone asked before for distortion, when crossed over with a sub, here:
LS50 meta:
Orbit 11 without sub and -6db in bass:
Orbit 11 with crossover to subs at 80hz
Orbit 11 with crossover to subs at 140hz:
And as someone asked before for distortion, when crossed over with a sub, here:
LS50 meta:
Orbit 11 without sub and -6db in bass:
Orbit 11 with crossover to subs at 80hz
Orbit 11 with crossover to subs at 140hz:
Sokel
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2021
- Messages
- 11,413
- Likes
- 12,531
Good post!
At distortion measurements, it would maybe be better to use dBr units, as various levels are involved (natural for an in-room measurement) .
It would be also very interesting to compare them using the FASF method (if you use a UMIC-2 or an XLR mic, UMIC-1 is not suitable) with PN and 20Hz-20kHz bandwidth.
Only UMIK-1, sorry. Distortion with dBr:
LS50meta
Orbit 11, Full Range, Bass -6db
Orbit 11 with crossover to subs at 80hz
Orbit 11 with crossover to subs at 140hz:
thank you for sharing! one question, at what spl did you measure the distortion?
Similar threads
