Palmer Orbit 11 Monitor Review

[sidechain]

Hard to consider this when you have this:

View attachment 517804

View attachment 517803

Unless you want to hear something below 50hz on a 3 way coaxial cardioid design

 

[kemmler3D]

View attachment 517793
View attachment 517794
Top: orbit
Bottom: ki iii
Is orbit off axis terrible?

"Terrible", no, not even close. I think there was some hope that the coax directivity would be super clean ala KEF and it's not *quite* there, IMO the slightly decreasing directivity from 1-6 KHz might make things a touch bright / shouty in room compared to the Kii stuff.

I don't think this speaker is a no-brainer for all nearfield setups but if someone is space constrained, listens at a desk, and doesn't want to add subs or treatment to the room, I think the directivity error could be an easy trade-off to get the bass and cardioid functionality.

 

[Oink-Oinko]

"Terrible", no, not even close. I think there was some hope that the coax directivity would be super clean ala KEF and it's not *quite* there, IMO the slightly decreasing directivity from 1-6 KHz might make things a touch bright / shouty in room compared to the Kii stuff.

I don't think this speaker is a no-brainer for all nearfield setups but if someone is space constrained, listens at a desk, and doesn't want to add subs or treatment to the room, I think the directivity error could be an easy trade-off to get the bass and cardioid functionality.

So ? Would anyone not consider this some sort of a breakthrough in any way shape or form then?

 

[illusonic]

Kii 7 is cardioid down to 150Hz while Palmer stops at about 250Hz.
So Palmer needs to go closer to the rear wall to avoid a notch due to wall reflection.
Less low-frequency extension of cardiod cancellation means lower distortion for Palmer.
Horizontal dispersion contour is slightly better for Kii but vertical much better for Palmer.
Overall, Palmer radiation pattern seems on-par with Kii 7.
For best performance any speaker requires some room EQ.

 

[smile nya]

By the looks of it, it may still be quite dynamically constrained at least in the far field. And in the near field, there's the self noise. And in any case there's the uneven directivity. Not nearly as smooth as a lot of other designs.

This is exactly what my friends and I are worried about, since the Orbit was released as a 'coaxial nearfield monitor.' Still, the fact that it's such an affordable cardioid speaker remains very tempting.

 

[PristineSound]

Unless you want to hear something below 50hz on a 3 way coaxial cardioid design

very true

 

[Mort]

Kii 7 is cardioid down to 150Hz while Palmer stops at about 250Hz.
So Palmer needs to go closer to the rear wall to avoid a notch due to wall reflection.
Less low-frequency extension of cardiod cancellation means lower distortion for Palmer.
Horizontal dispersion contour is slightly better for Kii but vertical much better for Palmer.
Overall, Palmer radiation pattern seems on-par with Kii 7.
For best performance any speaker requires some room EQ.

View attachment 517805

When did the Kii 7 become the reference standard? It's not like that's a beloved or hyped monitor. It's got shortcomings too.

 

[illusonic]

I think there was some hope that the coax directivity would be super clean ala KEF and it's not *quite* there...

Too high hopes and now people don't see what is actually there?
I can't name a speaker with better value for money in the performance range of the Palmer speaker.
Can you?

 

[illusonic]

When did the Kii 7 become the reference standard? It's not like that's a beloved or hyped monitor. It's got shortcomings too.

Kii 7 is a competent speaker that many people would like to own but cannot afford.
Palmer is much more affordable.

 

[Mort]

I can't name a speaker with better value for money.

For a few hundred more I'd take the Philharmonic bmr monitors. There are people who preferred genelec 8030s.

But value for money is not what gets reviewed.

Palmer is much more affordable.

Again, that's not a review criteria.

 

[sidechain]

For a few hundred more I'd take the Philharmonic bmr monitors. There are people who preferred genelec 8030s.

But value for money is not what gets reviewed.

Again, that's not a review criteria.

Is use case a review criteria for you? You're comparing a mid field passive hi-fi speaker to a near field active studio monitor marketed for mixers and producers with small and less than ideally treated rooms (thats the whole cardioid selling point)

 

[illusonic]

For a few hundred more I'd take the Philharmonic bmr monitors. There are people who preferred genelec 8030s.

But value for money is not what gets reviewed.

Again, that's not a review criteria.

Passive speaker with single 6" bass vs. 2x8" in an active design?
Mini Genelec speaker with 5" bass? These are simply no comparison.
Value for money may be no review criteria but it surely is a big selling point.

 

[Maiky76]

Here is my take on the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

For the score rational your journey starts here
Explanation for the sub score
The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration.
If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 6.3
With Sub: 7.2

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Good LF extension
• Reasonably smooth (not too much "grass")
• Typical Coaxial issue at HF (ON vs Power)
• Xover point probably a it high causing the 1-2K directivity error
• General directivity could be better

Directivity:

Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/15deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range. explanation here

EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable (here).
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
• One can model the EQ with Vituixcad by using the DSP "Generic" setting with 96000Hz sampling rate.

Score no EQ: 6.3
With Sub: 7.2

Score EQ LW: 6.4
with sub: 7.3

Score EQ Score: 7.1
with sub: 8.0

Palmer Orbit 11 APO LW EQ 96000Hz
March152026-121131

Preamp: -2.00 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 50.3 Hz Gain 0.87 dB Q 3.89
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 648.5 Hz Gain -2.43 dB Q 1.56
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 964.0 Hz Gain -1.28 dB Q 6.00
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 825.1 Hz Gain 2.37 dB Q 0.41
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 4526.6 Hz Gain -1.56 dB Q 5.30
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 9099.7 Hz Gain 2.25 dB Q 0.55
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 10148.9 Hz Gain -1.12 dB Q 2.76

Palmer Orbit 11 APO Score EQ 96000Hz
March152026-121131

Preamp: -2.00 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 49.2 Hz Gain 1.15 dB Q 2.11
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 666.5 Hz Gain -3.55 dB Q 1.42
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 961.9 Hz Gain -1.67 dB Q 6.00
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 733.3 Hz Gain 3.25 dB Q 0.56
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 4602.7 Hz Gain -1.92 dB Q 6.00
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 7143.7 Hz Gain 2.52 dB Q 2.26
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8581.7 Hz Gain -1.76 dB Q 3.23

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Score

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Some improvements?

The rest of the plots is attached.

 

[dfuller]

Passive speaker with single 6" bass vs. 2x8" in an active design?
Mini Genelec speaker with 5" bass? These are simply no comparison.
Value for money may be no review criteria but it surely is a big selling point.

I mean given that they start limiting at about 86dB I'm not sure there's much advantage having all that radiating area over the 8030 or Kh120 II. If you HPF it so you have low distortion, you lose the entire LFX advantage.

SPL, LFX, cabinet size. Pick two at the expense of the third. Physics can't be beaten as much as we wish to try.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

I think a question we ought to be asking is how the Palmer's compare with the Mesanovic CDM 65's? Particularly if both can be mated to subs and use dsp?

 

[Bwaslo]

Unless you want to hear something below 50hz on a 3 way coaxial cardioid design

And to have directivity below 1500Hz

 

[dasherzx]

Hard to consider this when you have this:

View attachment 517804

View attachment 517803

if someone in the neighbourhood happens to be letting go a cheap subwoofer, sure this setup is endgame nearfield.
all in all the palmer i guess would still be my go to if my kh310s give up.

 

[90sNintendoKid]

Thank you @amirm for the review, I thought it was excellent.

As an Orbit 11 owner, I will be posting my experience in EQing these and using them mid field (less than 2m) and with Dirac ART in the main Orbit 11 thread.

 

[Mnyb]

This seems like a contender for its intended use case voted fine

However it’s seems highly optimised for its use case , near field monitoring. People seems a bit grumpy that it migth not be a fit for more allround purposes ?

 

[daniboun]

Nice review.
Let's be honest, at €1700 a pair, and if you don't want to bother with a subwoofer, these Palmer speakers have little competition considering their price....

Inside view see attached file