Palmer Orbit 11 Monitor Review

[illusonic]

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.

Why should anyone "justify a use case". It rather seems to me that youre not willing to give your permission. But people will anyways use these as it suits them.

I guess you also saw this review/conclusion:

Palmer Orbit 11 vs Neumann KH120a

In this thread, I would like to compare the Palmer Orbit 11 with the Neumann KH120a. I will also compare a near-field setup (1.1m) with a mid-field setup (2.5m). Furthermore, I would like to test pair matching in the near field and address other matters. But actually, they were supposed to...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Sokel]

I guess you also saw this review/conclusion:

Palmer Orbit 11 vs Neumann KH120a

In this thread, I would like to compare the Palmer Orbit 11 with the Neumann KH120a. I will also compare a near-field setup (1.1m) with a mid-field setup (2.5m). Furthermore, I would like to test pair matching in the near field and address other matters. But actually, they were supposed to...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Review???

All I see is a 75dB range sweep (a 50dB one as we usually show would look even worst), and not a flattering one to be honest.
The response we see suggests a honky mid, shouty sound and hopefully is a result of bad placement, etc.

Reviews is about data around here.

 

[illusonic]

Review???

All I see is a 75dB range sweep (a 50dB one as we usually show would look even worst), and not a flattering one to be honest.
The response we see is suggests a honky mid, shouty sound and hopefully is a result of bad placement, etc.

Reviews is about data around here.

The subjective review

 

[amirm]

The subjective review

There is no detail there to make even that judgement.

 

[illusonic]

There is no detail there to make even that judgement.

Not enough detail to call it a review? You can call it whatever you want. The findings and subjective impressions expressed are comprehensible to me.

 

[CB89]

The response we see suggests a honky mid, shouty sound and hopefully is a result of bad placement, etc.

Don't worry, they sound good. The setup is also fine, close to the wall and in an accurate equilateral triangle. It's just a bit more acoustically challenging because of the cabinets on the right and a nasty room mode at 130Hz.

The problem is the measurement shown. It was just a quick, single left+right measurement, which is what's causing these ripples in the midrange and treble. You don't get that with an averaged multipoint measurement or MMM.

As for assessing distortion, I'm not the right person to ask. I listen at normal room volume, use a 35Hz high-pass filter, and the subwoofer crossover is at 80Hz. I don't expect to have any problems, even if it gets a bit louder. The Orbit speakers are in a different location, 2.5 meters away.

 

[Sokel]

Don't worry, they sound good. The setup is also fine, close to the wall and in an accurate equilateral triangle. It's just a bit more acoustically challenging because of the cabinets on the right and a nasty room mode at 130Hz.

The problem is the measurement shown. It was just a quick, single left+right measurement, which is what's causing these ripples in the midrange and treble. You don't get that with an averaged multipoint measurement or MMM.

As for assessing distortion, I'm not the right person to ask. I listen at normal room volume, use a 35Hz high-pass filter, and the subwoofer crossover is at 80Hz. I don't expect to have any problems, even if it gets a bit louder. The Orbit speakers are in a different location, 2.5 meters away.

I don't worry, anything can sound good with the right music and mood.

Using a sub with them is the right choice, I would probably x-over them at 50's or so with 2 subs and scrap the 35Hz hi-pass so to get stereo bass as well.
Integration wouldn't be trivial though, but totally doable.

 

[illusonic]

Don't worry, they sound good. The setup is also fine, close to the wall and in an accurate equilateral triangle. It's just a bit more acoustically challenging because of the cabinets on the right and a nasty room mode at 130Hz.

The problem is the measurement shown. It was just a quick, single left+right measurement, which is what's causing these ripples in the midrange and treble. You don't get that with an averaged multipoint measurement or MMM.

As for assessing distortion, I'm not the right person to ask. I listen at normal room volume, use a 35Hz high-pass filter, and the subwoofer crossover is at 80Hz. I don't expect to have any problems, even if it gets a bit louder. The Orbit speakers are in a different location, 2.5 meters away.

Are you still using them toed in? I found that the soundstage gets wider when they are set straight.

 

[CB89]

@illusonic
Yes, I always angle the speakers directly towards the listening position. I tried a few different angles some time ago and found this position to be the best.

@Sokel
Here we are again with differing requirements. The 35 Hz high-pass filter has its purpose, but you recommend removing it without knowing the reason. The reason is my neighbors. I want to disturb them as little as possible with my system, and the 35 Hz high-pass filter is the compromise. You seem to take the requirements and needs of other users less seriously, but these should also be respected.

 

[Sokel]

@Sokel
Here we are again with differing requirements. The 35 Hz high-pass filter has its purpose, but you recommend removing it without knowing the reason. The reason is my neighbors. I want to disturb them as little as possible with my system, and the 35 Hz high-pass filter is the compromise. You seem to take the requirements and needs of other users less seriously, but these should also be respected.

I do take them seriously.

If you relieve Orbits from 50's and below with subs (properly done, with active x-overs, etc) there's no reason to maintain it at the Orbits, but move it to the subs as these will be the ones to reproduce it.

 

[Zvu]

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.

View attachment 518974

This post should be promoted to sticky/pinned

 

[CB89]

I do take them seriously.

If you relieve Orbits from 50's and below with subs (properly done, with active x-overs, etc) there's no reason to maintain it at the Orbits, but move it to the subs as these will be the ones to reproduce it.

Exactly, the speakers are connected to the subwoofer and are crossed over there at 80 Hz.

 

[Oboreal]

I think some people need to come back down to earth a bit and realize exactly what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about a professional nearfield monitor — meaning a speaker that’s meant to be used at roughly 1 to 1.5 meters, and at sound levels below 85 dB for two reasons :

- One reason I’ve already mentioned is that recommendations tell sound engineers to monitor within the range where human hearing is at its most linear roughly between 80 and 85 dBA and in that zone, this speaker performs without any issue.

-A second point that seems urgently needs to be added, given what I’m reading, is that the maximum safe listening time at 86 dBA is about two hours per day before causing irreversible hearing damage. At 96 dB, you shouldn’t exceed 15 minutes per day.

So sure, if someone wants a speaker that can deliver club‑level sound in a 100‑square‑meter living room, this monitor is obviously not the right choice… But at no point was that part of its design brief, and I honestly don’t understand why people looking for that kind of speaker are even in this thread.

This product is marketed as providing a full‑range, accurate response for professional (or amateur) sound engineers who will be mixing or listening to music for several hours a day at close range and therefore without ever pushing the monitor to its limits, except maybe for very short bursts, just for quick checks.

Even within this design brief, it’s fair to acknowledge that this speaker has limits, and that some of the engineering choices can be seen as debatable for example sacrificing distortion performance to gain extension below 40 Hz, which comes with clear usage constraints: it’s pointless for most acoustic or electric music, and it can introduce acoustic issues that are difficult to manage.That said, it seems quite clear that it compares very favorably not only to its direct competitors at the same price, but also to significantly more expensive monitors. Amirm test simply confirms that it’s a game changer within its product class though probably not beyond that which is already a major achievement.

 

[Mort]

Kinda patronizing but ok.

Erin is going to review these in a few weeks.

 

[Rettica]

I think some people need to come back down to earth a bit and realize exactly what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about a professional nearfield monitor — meaning a speaker that’s meant to be used at roughly 1 to 1.5 meters, and at sound levels below 85 dB for two reasons :

- One reason I’ve already mentioned is that recommendations tell sound engineers to monitor within the range where human hearing is at its most linear roughly between 80 and 85 dBA and in that zone, this speaker performs without any issue.

-A second point that seems urgently needs to be added, given what I’m reading, is that the maximum safe listening time at 86 dBA is about two hours per day before causing irreversible hearing damage. At 96 dB, you shouldn’t exceed 15 minutes per day.

So sure, if someone wants a speaker that can deliver club‑level sound in a 100‑square‑meter living room, this monitor is obviously not the right choice… But at no point was that part of its design brief, and I honestly don’t understand why people looking for that kind of speaker are even in this thread.

This product is marketed as providing a full‑range, accurate response for professional (or amateur) sound engineers who will be mixing or listening to music for several hours a day at close range and therefore without ever pushing the monitor to its limits, except maybe for very short bursts, just for quick checks.

Even within this design brief, it’s fair to acknowledge that this speaker has limits, and that some of the engineering choices can be seen as debatable for example sacrificing distortion performance to gain extension below 40 Hz, which comes with clear usage constraints: it’s pointless for most acoustic or electric music, and it can introduce acoustic issues that are difficult to manage.That said, it seems quite clear that it compares very favorably not only to its direct competitors at the same price, but also to significantly more expensive monitors. Amir’s test simply confirms that it’s a game changer within its product class though probably not beyond that which is already a major achievement.

Raw uncompressed audio recordings (the ones mixing engineers work with) may have more than 20db crest factor

 

[dfuller]

I think some people need to come back down to earth a bit and realize exactly what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about a professional nearfield monitor — meaning a speaker that’s meant to be used at roughly 1 to 1.5 meters, and at sound levels below 85 dB for two reasons :

80-85dB(A) can be massively higher than that in LF, especially when you factor in crest factor, doubly so with uncompressed sources. Might be more like 95-100dB.

Even within this design brief, it’s fair to acknowledge that this speaker has limits, and that some of the engineering choices can be seen as debatable for example sacrificing distortion performance to gain extension below 40 Hz, which comes with clear usage constraints

This is where I'm coming at it from. It was obvious to anyone paying attention it wasn't going to be an SPL monster. What I think most of us didn't expect was just how quick the limiters set in - only being able to do 86-87dB SPL without limiting is a bit of a head scratcher and why I find it a bit confounding they felt the need to push down that low. 40-45hz F3 would've worked reasonably well, it's still quite a bit more LFX than a lot of speakers in this price range, but it would have been way more SPL capable.

This post should be promoted to sticky/pinned

It doesn't tell the full story at all. The DD8C, Kii, and the C8C all control directivity 100hz or so lower than the Orbit, and the only one with a comparable architecture is the DD8C.

It is unsurprising that the distortion around ~100-150hz is higher - there is a lot more excursion going on at 100hz than at 250hz.

 

[90sNintendoKid]

I think some people need to come back down to earth a bit and realize exactly what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about a professional nearfield monitor — meaning a speaker that’s meant to be used at roughly 1 to 1.5 meters, and at sound levels below 85 dB for two reasons :

- One reason I’ve already mentioned is that recommendations tell sound engineers to monitor within the range where human hearing is at its most linear roughly between 80 and 85 dBA and in that zone, this speaker performs without any issue.

-A second point that seems urgently needs to be added, given what I’m reading, is that the maximum safe listening time at 86 dBA is about two hours per day before causing irreversible hearing damage. At 96 dB, you shouldn’t exceed 15 minutes per day.

So sure, if someone wants a speaker that can deliver club‑level sound in a 100‑square‑meter living room, this monitor is obviously not the right choice… But at no point was that part of its design brief, and I honestly don’t understand why people looking for that kind of speaker are even in this thread.

This product is marketed as providing a full‑range, accurate response for professional (or amateur) sound engineers who will be mixing or listening to music for several hours a day at close range and therefore without ever pushing the monitor to its limits, except maybe for very short bursts, just for quick checks.

Even within this design brief, it’s fair to acknowledge that this speaker has limits, and that some of the engineering choices can be seen as debatable for example sacrificing distortion performance to gain extension below 40 Hz, which comes with clear usage constraints: it’s pointless for most acoustic or electric music, and it can introduce acoustic issues that are difficult to manage.That said, it seems quite clear that it compares very favorably not only to its direct competitors at the same price, but also to significantly more expensive monitors. Amirm test simply confirms that it’s a game changer within its product class though probably not beyond that which is already a major achievement.

I couldn’t agree more. I was planning on measuring my Orbits and post my experience with EQ and Dirac ART in my 4.4 system but I discovered that my current front speaker position is in a null and I need to figure the best position. Hopefully in the next few weeks.

 

[Audionaut]

So sure, if someone wants a speaker that can deliver club‑level sound in a 100‑square‑meter living room, this monitor is obviously not the right choice… But at no point was that part of its design brief, and I honestly don’t understand why people looking for that kind of speaker are even in this thread.

Since I was the only one who wrote something like that, I’ll pick up on it.

First, in the context of those remarks, I wrote

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.

Second, I already have speakers like that, so I’m not looking for any.

Then why am I posting here and following this thread?
Out of interest in speaker technology, and especially the Palmer Orbit 11.
As I mentioned before: It’s a speaker with a lot of potential, but that potential could be harnessed even better if a little more effort were put into fine-tuning the hardware with the software.

 

[Oboreal]

Dfuller : 80-85dB(A) can be massively higher than that in LF, especially when you factor in crest factor, doubly so with uncompressed sources. Might be more like 95-100dB.

Crest factor argument don't work in real life for a least 3 reasons. First, the distortion‑versus‑volume tests used in spinorama's measurments are based on sweeps, which makes them much closer to an RMS‑type of measurement than a peak measurement meaning that, of course, peak capabilities can go really further. (the attack and reelase seting of a limiter is really important as you know, and a sweep doesn't behave like music in the time domain at all).

Second, I’m referring to dBA for a specific reason : it’s the measurement standard used to evaluate the average listening level in any space for hear safety reasons and to ensure you’re working within the proper monitoring range. And these measurements are taken over time windows ranging from 125 ms to 1 second, which corresponds exactly to the integration times used for dBA readings (FAST = 125 ms, SLOW = 1 s). In other words, we’re talking about an averaged measurement, representative of what the ear actually perceives, not an instantaneous peak.

Third : Music have increasing energy in the lows : yes : but you have almost never big sustained energy under 50 hz. So, something like a 30 hz powerfull sine is such a worst case scenario, that, in real life, it will almost never be a problem.

But : I agree with your last argument. If i was in the design team, i will probably have targeted a KH150 ish frequency response, or, at least, a way to have an embeded low cut at this frequency. But... this is what it is and i kind of understand why they did that from a marketing point of view.

Audionaut : I wasn't targeting anyone. I just find not really fair to blame a product with so call "flaws" that are actually totally fine for his intended use case and you were far from being the only one to do so. Otherwise, i'm totally on the same page than your last post.

 

[dfuller]

Second, I’m referring to dBA for a specific reason : it’s the measurement standard used to evaluate the average listening level in a studio

No, it isn't. We use dB(C) or even unweighted for that.