Palmer Orbit 11 Monitor Review

[Audionaut]

Max SPL is imho the most fudged spec of them all , all manufacturers do this

I don’t know if all manufacturers handle it this way. If they do, it’s a very clear sign to me that there’s a lack of appropriate standardization for the end consumer.

Personally, I’m not a fan of DSP that tries to alter a driver’s “natural” frequency response too drastically—regardless of Palmer, since many manufacturers do this now.
It is still not possible to consider the parameters of sound pressure, low frequency, diaphragm area, and enclosure size separately from one another, even though many would very much like to see that.
If you want to achieve around 25 Hz from an enclosure like Palmer’s, this is only possible with a massive boost of the frequency range via DSP.
Because this contradicts the natural physical behavior of the driver, severe distortion occurs even at very low levels.
That’s not something I’d enjoy, which is why I exclusively use very high-power PA woofers with a very high displacement volume and large diaphragm area in the low-bass range, housed in enclosures that function flawlessly down to 30 Hz even when passively tuned.
In my opinion, this is the only method that works physically cleanly and in which the driver can be perfectly adjusted via DSP within its natural limits. In living spaces ranging from about 40 to 100 square meters, natural frequency responses emerge starting at 20 Hz, and their peaks can now be very effectively reduced via DSP.
I try to avoid boosting the frequency response across all frequency ranges, because in my experience this can lead to unpredictable, often exponential distortion where one would have expected a more linear distortion curve.

So yes, I agree with you, and I would like to see sound level specifications for loudspeakers standardized much better than they are today.
For example, by specifying sound pressure at a certain distance, with a certain level of distortion at a specific frequency.
In my opinion, it would make sense to specify the sound pressure in each octave.

Then you’d see that a speaker only reaches 80 dB of sound pressure at 30 Hz with the desired distortion, and 116 dB at 1 kHz, for example.

The speakers I like can still reproduce 25 Hz at 116 dB from a distance of three meters, but my standards aren’t necessarily in line with industry standards.

 

[illusonic]

You didn't mention the size of your preferred speakers. Maybe this is the point where comparison becomes the end of happiness?
I'm sure most would like the bass from speakers as you described. But the size is prohibitive for many.

The Orbits are not the end of what's possible in their size. Adding some motional/acoustical feedback could reduce distortion and compression.
And there are surely 8" speakers with higher excursion capabilities and more linear motor.
But at this point, price will become prohibitive for many. So everyone needs to choose their set of compromises.

 

[Audionaut]

You didn't mention the size of your preferred speakers. Maybe this is the point where comparison becomes the end of happiness?

Showed them in this thread here

Palmer Orbit 11 Monitor Review

https://gss-audio.com/technology/ Edit: Nobody needs to defeat Hoffmans law. We just don't care too much about low sensitivity anymore. Sensitivity translates with actives to SPL handling, basically.

www.audiosciencereview.com

I positioned the subwoofer so that it isn't visually noticeable in the living room.

I listen to all kinds of music, except for German folk music—from mainstream pop to metal and techno to classical—and I need speakers that can reproduce all of it equally well at its near original volume.

By the way, this isn’t a criticism of the Palmer speakers, which the manufacturer explicitly markets as near-field monitors. They’re certainly suitable and perform well in that context.

You wrote that your living room isn’t a club—mine is one from time to time.

 

[Oboreal]

There is now a standardized way to measure a meaningful maximum SPL : AES75.https://aes.org/news/aes-publishes-aes75-2023/

It uses M-noise that simulate better live music dynamic than pink noise and add criteria for distance, max distorsion, thermal compression etc...)

Several pro‑audio manufacturers have already adopted it. (Meyer, L acoustics...)

It might be a useful measurement to include in ASR reviews ?

 

[dfuller]

View attachment 518740View attachment 518741

The comparison doesn't look too bad for the Orbits.
I don't care about THD below 60Hz. But the 100-300Hz range is a bit high.
That's the price they pay for cardioid cancellation.
Stoneeh measured 5dB lower THD in the cardioid range.
As he did ground plane measurements results may be closer to realty.
But I don't know how good his level calibration was.

View attachment 518742

The 310s are not limiting at 96dB. The Orbits are, and quite severely at that. The limiters kick in (per Amir's own measurements and remarks) around 87-88dB.

The Orbits are being asked to do too much from their cabinet volume, and the dual drivers make it worse (all other things equal, you need significantly more cabinet volume with two drivers than one). Distortion goes straight up at 65hz.

There's one other speaker Amir has measured that has a similar architecture, and it has a rather similar problem:

And yet... It's not quite as bad, because it has more cabinet volume to play with. The Footprint01 has about 18L internal volume, minus the mid/tweeter chamber, so probably closer to 16L. I'd guess the Orbits are playing with a little over half that. It's not surprising they run out of steam at low levels at LF.

 

[illusonic]

Whatever KH310 is doing, makes it produce >100% distortion from 30-40Hz.

 

[dfuller]

Whatever KH310 is doing, makes it produce >100% distortion from 30-40Hz.

Not having 5+dB of limiting, that's what.

 

[illusonic]

Not having 5+dB of limiting, that's what.

So one could argue the limiter kicks in too late if distortion is higher than the wanted signal.

 

[illusonic]

Some more remarks on your Barefoot Footprint 01 comparison.

According to Sound On Sound review, the bass doesn't seem an issue of the Footprint 01.
In my view it's not a good idea to tell people, what they like is actually bad, because measurements show it.
This will only discredit measurements. Instead we need to understand correlation of measurements and listening experience.

Barefoot Footprint 01

The Footprint 01 is Barefoot’s most affordable monitor yet. Does it give away much in terms of performance?

www.soundonsound.com

In Germany Footprint 01 costs 5200€ a pair while the Orbit is merely 1600€.
The Orbit has basically the same output + cardioid dispersion + smaller size and better looks.
So you just brought up another example that supports the outstanding value for money of the Orbit.

 

[dfuller]

Some more remarks on your Barefoot Footprint 01 comparison.

According to Sound On Sound review, the bass doesn't seem an issue of the Footprint 01.
In my view it's not a good idea to tell people, what they like is actually bad, because measurements show it.
This will only discredit measurements. Instead we need to understand correlation of measurements and listening experience.

View attachment 518897

Barefoot Footprint 01

The Footprint 01 is Barefoot’s most affordable monitor yet. Does it give away much in terms of performance?

www.soundonsound.com

In Germany Footprint 01 costs 5200€ a pair while the Orbit is merely 1600€.
The Orbit has asically the same output + cardioid dispersion + smaller size and better looks.
So you just brought up another example that supports the outstanding value for money of the Orbit.

It... Doesn't have the same output. The FP01 was a point for comparison because it uses the same design (dual opposed woofers, small sealed box) and has the same problems... Only less, because the box isn't as small!

I'm not saying the Orbit is a bad speaker. I'm saying it is trying to do too much with too little and it is extremely limited in SPL because of it. If it wasn't trying to push down into the bottom audible octave, this would be a non issue. If the F3 was 45hz instead of 28 it would have plenty of headroom.

"But the KH310 distorts!" Yeah, it does, it's not an SPL monster and benefits majorly from adding a couple of subs crossing around 70hz or so. Nobody is debating that. Small box + low bass = low SPL capabilities. You cannot escape physics. The Orbit is this taken to its logical extreme.

 

[illusonic]

It... Doesn't have the same output. The FP01 was a point for comparison because it uses the same design (dual opposed woofers, small sealed box) and has the same problems... Only less, because the box isn't as small!

I'm not saying the Orbit is a bad speaker. I'm saying it is trying to do too much with too little and it is extremely limited in SPL because of it. If it wasn't trying to push down into the bottom audible octave, this would be a non issue. If the F3 was 45hz instead of 28 it would have plenty of headroom.

"But the KH310 distorts!" Yeah, it does, it's not an SPL monster and benefits majorly from adding a couple of subs crossing around 70hz or so. Nobody is debating that. Small box + low bass = low SPL capabilities. You cannot escape physics. The Orbit is this taken to its logical extreme.

Maybe I miss something but I see similar distortion for similar output.
Nothing that really set's them apart in my view.

You say the Orbit tries to do too much. I prefer to listen down to 30Hz at normal listening levels.
My Orbits are dialed down 6dB in bass with their internal EQ to counter room gain.
So +6dB headroom in broadband listening levels over the 86dB that it produces without clipping.
Now I play 2 speakers which gives me another +6dB higher bass level.
Result is that for my listening habits there are no limitations.
Of couse you can go on an tell me the measurements would suggest othwerwise.

Yes, KH310 may not be an SPL monster and the Orbits aren't either.
That's perfectly fine with me, especially for the low cost of the Orbits.

 

[illusonic]

There is now a standardized way to measure a meaningful maximum SPL : AES75.https://aes.org/news/aes-publishes-aes75-2023/

It uses M-noise that simulate better live music dynamic than pink noise and add criteria for distance, max distorsion, thermal compression etc...)

Several pro‑audio manufacturers have already adopted it. (Meyer, L acoustics...)

It might be a useful measurement to include in ASR reviews ?

I would love to see 2-Tone IMD and Multitone Distortion measurements. In my experience these correlate much better to perceived sound quality than HD.

Another interesting measurement is FSAF because it allows to extract and listen to distortion generated during music playback.
So there would be something to experience rather than only graphs to study.

FSAF Measurement

 

[dfuller]

Maybe I miss something but I see similar distortion for similar output.
Nothing that really set's them apart in my view.

The FP01s are a bit lower. They never get as high and the limiter isn't engaging hard at 96dB. But the point was to demonstrate that this is a very typical issue with this kind of design (Linkwitz transform + small box + more driver than the box volume "wants"), and that it lessens some when the box volume increases.

Counterintuitively, in the same cabinet volume a single driver actually extends lower than two drivers of the same size and needs less reinforcement, so there's really very little advantage to two woofers in a small box.

You say the Orbit tries to do too much. I prefer to listen down to 30Hz at normal listening levels.
My Orbits are dialed down 6dB in bass with their internal EQ to counter room gain.
So +6dB headroom in broadband listening levels over the 86dB that it produces without clipping.
Now I play 2 speakers which gives me another +6dB higher bass level.

Yes, yes, common move - back speakers up against wall, shelve bass back, "free" headroom. But let's take average music, right - the average song is mixed (roughly) to a pink noise curve. That means bass levels are higher than treble, by quite a bit. Then take into account crest factor, even modern pop music probably has 8dB or so between peaks and average, so bass can easily be 10+dB louder than treble. So, 86dB average in the midrange is closer to 95-100dB in the low end, generally centered in the 40-50hz area (though depending on genre this can be lower - hip hop and modern Latin music often has electronic basses going in the 20-35hz area).

 

[amirm]

I would love to see 2-Tone IMD and Multitone Distortion measurements. In my experience these correlate much better to perceived sound quality than HD.

Where is the evidence of that?

 

[illusonic]

The FP01s are a bit lower. They never get as high and the limiter isn't engaging hard at 96dB. But the point was to demonstrate that this is a very typical issue with this kind of design (Linkwitz transform + small box + more driver than the box volume "wants"), and that it lessens some when the box volume increases.

Counterintuitively, in the same cabinet volume a single driver actually extends lower than two drivers of the same size and needs less reinforcement, so there's really very little advantage to two woofers in a small box.



Yes, yes, common move - back speakers up against wall, shelve bass back, "free" headroom. But let's take average music, right - the average song is mixed (roughly) to a pink noise curve. That means bass levels are higher than treble, by quite a bit. Then take into account crest factor, even modern pop music probably has 8dB or so between peaks and average, so bass can easily be 10+dB louder than treble. So, 86dB average in the midrange is closer to 95-100dB in the low end, generally centered in the 40-50hz area (though depending on genre this can be lower - hip hop and modern Latin music often has electronic basses going in the 20-35hz area).

Of course a single driver extends lower in terms of box tuning. But maximum SPL will still be double for 2 drivers.

In accordance with IEC 268-1 the peak in average music spectrum is at 60Hz.
If one requires more output, a sub is always an option. I don't need a sub.

 

[illusonic]

Where is the evidence of that?

As I wrote, this is my experience. Speakers for which I measured lower IMD sounded much cleaner when pushed to their maximum output.
Low THD always comes with low IMD. So your are on the save side in such case.

Depending on the distortion mechanism, high THD can cause high IMD or not.
Distortion from BL nonlinearity causes high IMD.

Kms nonlinearity usually comes with high THD in the bass but low IMD.
In this case THD is usually no problem and can even give the impression of more bass output.

 

[dfuller]

Of course a single driver extends lower in terms of box tuning. But maximum SPL will still be double for 2 drivers.

Not as simple as that. You need more excursion, but the air spring in the box is significantly more linear given the same box volume, and so especially with a driver with a smallish motor and relatively low BL is not struggling as hard.

Part of why the KH310 at 86dB (which, coincidentally, has about the same box volume as the FP01) actually has rather similar to slightly better LF distortion behavior.

The Palmer has two drivers with relatively small motors in a very small enclosure with lots of LF EQ boost, pretty much by definition it's not going to get very loud. Is it loud enough for you? Sure, but it may not be for everybody.

 

[illusonic]

Not as simple as that. You need more excursion, but the air spring in the box is significantly more linear given the same box volume, and so especially with a driver with a smallish motor and relatively low BL is not struggling as hard.

Part of why the KH310 at 86dB (which, coincidentally, has about the same box volume as the FP01) actually has rather similar to slightly better LF distortion behavior.

The Palmer has two drivers with relatively small motors in a very small enclosure with lots of LF EQ boost, pretty much by definition it's not going to get very loud. Is it loud enough for you? Sure, but it may not be for everybody.

A the end any air volume displacement that one or two drivers facilitate is done by membrane movement that is largely symmetrical to their rest position. This means the air inside the enclosure has to be compressed to the same degree for the same SPL independent of total membrane area. A larger woofer (or two smaller ones) will simply move less for the same SPL than one smaller woofer.

Youre absolutely right that a larger encloure would be easier on the woofers and result in less distortion. But why does this matter for a product that exhibits size constraints by it's intended use-case (near field monitor, potentially on desk or directly behind it). And obviously there are also a number of cost savings associated with a small enclosure which contribute to the low price. So the Orbit is small for multiple good reasons.

In any case, the Orbit makes the woofers do high excursion. So I doubt a single one of the same woofers could provide the same SPL. And the force cancellation by 2 opposing woofers is also a nice feature, don't you think?

 

[Sokel]

I have a feeling that all this debate is trying to justify a use case that the Orbits are not made for.

No one argues that they should be ok for very nearfield monitoring (even with classical with modest crest factor, not the monster ones, start with 70's and only little clipping or limiting may occur, the ones who don't recognize it will probably won't hear it either) .

But trying to put it 3 meter away for HC duties for example and trying to reproduce "Interstellar Black Hole" to some glory seems like a joke.

 

[illusonic]

Harmonic distortion compared to bigger cardioid speakers. Orbit's HD traced from stoneeh measurement which doesn't suffer from room reflections (ground plane). Armirm THD added for complete picture. Again no bad result for the Orbit.