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

[Paffi]

thank you for sharing! one question, at what spl did you measure the distortion?

It's the same measurement as shown above with the spl graph.

 

[Bwaslo]

So, like 78dBSPL equiv at 1m?

Depending on whether the distortion measurement compensates for response, (per Temme's method), the peak at 100Hz might not be meaningful -- there's a big null at 100Hz in the frequency response. Distortion measurement with room reflections tends to be messy, harmonic frequencies aren't affected the same way as fundamental frequencies.

 

[Arindal]

Sound & Recording (Anselm Goertz) has measured the 944K1

Interesting, as it shows the EQ curve applied to compensate for the passive cardioid. Looks like it is working pretty fine down to 120Hz, and subsequently runs into acoustic short circuit at like 12dB per octave, lowering the cardioid effectiveness do -5dB while demanding a maximum boost of +13dB at 40Hz. I take that as a reason why I always found the smaller variants of such speakers (applies to dipole subwoofer as well) dissatisfying in the lower bass.

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.

Have been using one of their cardioid subwoofers named Basis13k in close proximity to a wall many years ago, and can confirm that the cardioid is effective down to like 40Hz. This is proven by third-party measurements of the bigger model:

the grey graph seems to represent -180deg FR, and that is an average -10dB down, all the way to 30Hz in this case. So, I would consider the ´Snake oil´ claim being fully debunked, while I don´t think that any miracles are at play. The 13" variant was noticeably running out of steam below 70Hz, so max SPL was as limited as I knew it from dipole subwoofers of similar diaphragm area and amplifier power.

Palmer did however create an unique (to my knowledge) passive cardioid implementation including top/bottom slots for vertical directivity control.

MEG also have cardioid midrange, at least in some models. Those having a midrange in front of the woofer in some kind of semi-open baffle arrangement with a flow resistor ring. In my understanding, this is basically the same thing that Palmer does, just considerably higher in frequency range.

 

[Paffi]

@Bwaslo Yes of course, that's sbir. In room measurement is never ment to measure the speaker itself, but for in-room response / behaviour. When two speakers are placed identical in the same room, you can compare that.

 

[illusonic]

Could you please post a link to the Orbit's compression measurement at 106dB?

Search youtube for "stoneeh Palmer Orbit" for the videos comprising his measurements.

96dB Compression:

106dB compression:

 

[90sNintendoKid]

I managed to figure out why the nearfield measurements I did on my Orbits in my room few weeks ago were odd.

It was due to the side firing woofers. I was using the moving mic method and the Magic Beans True Target method.

I started at 0.5m nearfield and the bass rolled off steeply at 100hz.

Then I did a RTA and I managed to figure out that due to the side woofers and perhaps the cardioid design, I got better nearfield measurements starting at 0.75m to 1m from the speaker.

I just need to play about with my MLP position which has a null at 100hz and I will then be ready for a A1 Evo Acoustix and Dirac ART calibration.

I’m planning on posting some post EQ measurements to this thread.

The good news is that the target curve for the Orbits is similar to my Kef Q350s in the same room and speaker position in the bass region. So I don’t think there is anything going on with an exaggerated bass rise in my room.

 

[illusonic]

MEG also have cardioid midrange, at least in some models. Those having a midrange in front of the woofer in some kind of semi-open baffle arrangement with a flow resistor ring. In my understanding, this is basically the same thing that Palmer does, just considerably higher in frequency range.

Somewhat similar but not the same thing. At higher frequency the Orbits utilize the midrange cone and extended waveguide shape in the front baffle for dispersion control. When it comes to passive cardioid by rear ventilation slots in the enclosure, I haven't seen top/bottom slots before.

 

[illusonic]

So, like 78dBSPL equiv at 1m?

Depending on whether the distortion measurement compensates for response, (per Temme's method), the peak at 100Hz might not be meaningful -- there's a big null at 100Hz in the frequency response. Distortion measurement with room reflections tends to be messy, harmonic frequencies aren't affected the same way as fundamental frequencies.

For bass the in-room distortion is dominated by cancellation effects.
Every notch in the frequency response has a corresponding peak in THD.
In freefield the speaker THD doesn't show that (and below measurement is w/o -6dB EQ).
With this in mind I regard the stoneeh THD measurements the best available so far.
Hope we will also see unechoic measurements from Erin.

Nevertheless, measured THD is present in-room as would be for any other speaker that is not cardioid below 250Hz.
Potential remedies would be direct wall placement or high distance to the wall.

It's intresting that the sub doesn't have these issues at all.
Probably due to different position. An advantage that subs will have in many cases.

@Paffi What's the distance between the rear of the speaker and the wall?

 

[amirm]

Hope we will also see unechoic measurements from Erin.

That's what is in my review, albeit, in a very large space and with the speaker elevated (almost floated) 5 foot high. So some room effects, but not a ton.

 

[illusonic]

Orbit 11 with crossover to subs at 140hz:

View attachment 520637

Are the grayed-out parts noise dominated? If that's the case, they might improve with higher playback level or a better mic.

Anyways, no bad result when compared to this sub/sat combo:

 

[illusonic]

That's what is in my review, albeit, in a very large space and with the speaker elevated (almost floated) 5 foot high. So some room effects, but not a ton.

Your HD measurements are much cleaner indeed. Still some small peaks are probably room-related.
Edit: Those peaks are exaggerated in the percentage plot due to linear y-axis. Log axis would be a better representation in my view.

Edit: Difference between in-room with low reflection energy (ASR) and largely unechoic (ground plane, stoneeh):

 

[staticV3]

Search youtube for "stoneeh Palmer Orbit" for the videos comprising his measurements.

96dB Compression:
View attachment 520715
106dB compression:
View attachment 520714

Thanks! Though I'd be careful comparing compression results across very different measurement setups and potentially test methodologies.

We'd need at least one speaker model measured by both to see if the compression results are comparable, as the type and length of stimulus can change the compression behavior.

 

[illusonic]

Limiters have a certain release time. If SPL is measured with a quick sweep the limiter may be activated at one frequency and stilll be active at subsequent frequencies due to long release. Slow sweeps or sine burst testing avoid this but the former can cause thermal compression. In any case, the measurement may be worse but usually not better than the actual speaker performance. Will surely be interesting to see Erin's measurements.

 

[Paffi]

It's intresting that the sub doesn't have these issues at all.
Probably due to different position. An advantage that subs will have in many cases.

@Paffi What's the distance between the rear of the speaker and the wall?

The subs don't have the issue, as they are mounted directly at the stonewall, 4 in total (2 in the front, 2 in the back), to avoid sbir. With the LS50 I used the 140 hz crossover for that. The speakers itself have a distance from their backside to the wall of 35-40cm.

 

[illusonic]

The subs don't have the issue, as they are mounted directly at the stonewall, 4 in total (2 in the front, 2 in the back), to avoid sbir. With the LS50 I used the 140 hz crossover for that. The speakers itself have a distance from their backside to the wall of 35-40cm.

Would love to see what happens with the Orbits backside right at the wall. Frequency of the notches will shift upwards and hopefully some notches would be less deep.

 

[Arindal]

If SPL is measured with a quick sweep the limiter may be activated at one frequency and stilll be active at subsequent frequencies due to long release. Slow sweeps or sine burst testing avoid this but the former can cause thermal compression.

The lab I have been working in as part of a previous job, had opted for using reverse sweeps, i.e. decreasing frequency, for dynamic measurements of all kinds. In theory, this might trigger the limiter at frequencies causing maximum excursion (typically around 100Hz for many midwoofers), but for the vast majority of active speakers, it worked pretty well.

 

[KL....]

Thank you, to ask.... how do you all ABX/Level Matching these relative to a Passive Speaker/Amp/Cable combination?

 

[staticV3]

Thank you, to ask.... how do you all ABX/Level Matching these relative to a Passive Speaker/Amp/Cable combination?

Moving Microphone Method

Then in Room EQ Wizard plot the level difference via Trace Arithmetic -> A/B

Zoom in, read the dB offset, then add it to one playback chain to compensate.

Remeasure to see the residual offset, then either readjust or if you're content, note down the remaining offset to give validity to blind test results (if that's your plan).

 

[KL....]

Moving Microphone Method

Then in Room EQ Wizard plot the level difference via Trace Arithmetic -> A/B

Zoom in, read the dB offset, then add it to one playback chain to compensate.

Remeasure to see the residual offset, then either readjust or if you're content, note down the remaining offset to give validity to blind test results (if that's your plan).

Thank you, @staticV3, would you suggest that this method supercedes the Measure or that the Measure is sufficient to derive/interpolate this method. Many will not have the Tools to perform this method (or expertise), will they?

 

[staticV3]

Thank you, @staticV3, would you suggest that this method supercedes the Measure or that the Measure is sufficient to derive/interpolate this method.

I don't understand. What measure?

Many will not have the Tools to perform this method (or expertise), will they?

REW is free and the microphone can be extremely cheap.

As long as you have something without auto gain (which could distort the measured amplitudes), any mic will do. Frequency response doesnt matter, neither does calibration.

An Apple headphone adapter plus any generic earhone with inline remote would do. Probably <$20 in total, I think that's reasonable to expect from owners of $1800 monitors plus an additional passive speaker setup.