Switching from Genelec 8361A to Palmer Orbit 11?

[illusonic]

The bass was an issue from the very first listen, if you read my posts again I dialled it right back but it just wasn’t right.
A commendable effort but just too compromised as is imho.
Keith

You have come from:

"They aren’t short of bass! [...] Good for parties!"
"I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t use these domestically, EQ is a must though imho."
"The take away for me is that there is nothing to dislike about the Orbits."
"The Orbits are super speakers I don’t believe anyone would be disappointed with them particularly when one considers their price. "

And now you state:

"A commendable effort but just too compromised as is imho."

Sure you commented on too much bass from the start. But as you pointed out : "You can always EQ"
Did you finally measure them? Maybe applied some EQ? What's the result?

Wouldn't surprise me if you simple need to remove some upper bass (120-200Hz range) with a peak filter.
For me the far-wall placement EQ did the job (LS, 150Hz, -6dB), which actually applies higher reduction than the near-wall setting - these seem to be mixed up.
All other bass shelving filters start from 100Hz and may leave too much upper bass.

 

[Purité Audio]

if you are happy it’s them that is great, personally I can’t recommend them in their current form.
Keith

 

[AudioJester]

if you are happy it’s them that is great, personally I can’t recommend them in their current form.
Keith

Wow, you seemed to have changed your tune. Initially you said there was nothing wrong with them?

Edit: probably a good example of the follies of subjective reviews. You seem to have reversed your opinion after Amir's objective review. I hope no one relies on your opinions, particularly as you often seem to change your recommendations based on what your selling....

 

[Purité Audio]

I always said there was an issue, with the bass and would like to see measurements of the speaker.
Keith

 

[TimVG]

Main "problems" are twofold: namely the step in directivity which leads to a bass bloat in the far field - easily rectified by using the onboard shelf (-4dB) and that it has limited output in the lower bass before the limiter kicks in because it's been made flat to 30Hz anechoic - which means even with the shelf filter it will require some manual intervention for most people for it to measure well in a room.

Once you've done that however it is quite a capable loudpeaker.

If/when I have the time I'd like to experiment covering the bottom and or top slot. I have a feeling this could remedy on one hand the sudden transition from constant to omnidirecitonal and aid with the upper midrange off-axis suckout as I'm 90% sure it is a side effect of the damped vents. So you'd trade in some of the cardioid behaviour for a better spinorama - a theory, but I'd have to test that.

 

[Blockader]

You have come from:

"They aren’t short of bass! [...] Good for parties!"
"I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t use these domestically, EQ is a must though imho."
"The take away for me is that there is nothing to dislike about the Orbits."
"The Orbits are super speakers I don’t believe anyone would be disappointed with them particularly when one considers their price. "

And now you state:

"A commendable effort but just too compromised as is imho."

Sure you commented on too much bass from the start. But as you pointed out : "You can always EQ"
Did you finally measure them? Maybe applied some EQ? What's the result?

Wouldn't surprise me if you simple need to remove some upper bass (120-200Hz range) with a peak filter.
For me the far-wall placement EQ did the job (LS, 150Hz, -6dB), which actually applies higher reduction than the near-wall setting - these seem to be mixed up.
All other bass shelving filters start from 100Hz and may leave too much upper bass.

Hot take: that's the problem with the "objectivist" approach: measurements introduce their own set of confirmation biases. "Subjectivists" build theirs from reviews full of fluffy words; we (!) build ours from reading graphs. Strip both groups of their preferred input and most people struggle to form an opinion at all and honestly, who can blame them? Telling apart speakers that all perform reasonably close to a neutral target is genuinely hard. But people aren't ready for that conversation.

 

[thewas]

Also flat anechoic bass needs mainly substractive equalisation in most typical living rooms and placements and this won't be different with other also great loudspeakers like Ascilab. Just the step and amount differs where the directivity changes from monopole to forward radiation.

 

[TimVG]

Also flat anechoic bass needs mainly substractive equalisation in most typical living rooms and placements and this won't be different with other also great loudspeakers like Ascilab. Just the step and amount differs where the directivity changes from monopole to forward radiation.

Also the reason why a good number have an extended bass shelf.

 

[sidechain]

I always said there was an issue, with the bass and would like to see measurements of the speaker.
Keith

To be, or not to be when the measurements contradict me, that is the question.
Pete

 

[illusonic]

Main "problems" are twofold: namely the step in directivity which leads to a bass bloat in the far field - easily rectified by using the onboard shelf (-4dB) and that it has limited output in the lower bass before the limiter kicks in because it's been made flat to 30Hz anechoic - which means even with the shelf filter it will require some manual intervention for most people for it to measure well in a room.

Once you've done that however it is quite a capable loudpeaker.

If/when I have the time I'd like to experiment covering the bottom and or top slot. I have a feeling this could remedy on one hand the sudden transition from constant to omnidirecitonal and aid with the upper midrange off-axis suckout as I'm 90% sure it is a side effect of the damped vents. So you'd trade in some of the cardioid behaviour for a better spinorama - a theory, but I'd have to test that.

I think you would rather have to experiment with the side slots. Look at vertical directivity. The larger distance between midrange and top/bottom slots smoothens the transition to omnidirectional a bit. If they would make the baffle as wide as it is high, directivity would improve, distortion in the lower midrange would be reduced due to less cancellation by the rear slots and increased volume in the housing would make the life of the woofers easier. Additional woofers on top/bottom would become an option, too.

The narrow directivity at 1.5kHz may also be related to beaming of the midrange. At 1.8kHz the tweeter takes over and directivity becomes wider again.
Using the mounting holes on the rear or some specific speaker stand (see Stoneeh review part 2 for inspiration), one could turn the speakers 90° and get the vertical plot for horizontal dispersion. But I don't think it's worth the effort. Maybe as a center speaker for which the Orbits would be perfect.

Looking at the directivity plots of another highly rated speaker, I think the Orbits are just fine. At least they don't loose cardioid control in the lower midrange, have similar variations over frequency and a much better vertical plot.

Now someone really serious about directivity can use the Orbits rotated with a little EQ. And for peace of mind focus on the best looking graph format.

Data may be objective but interpretation is subjective and suffers from to strong visual bias, especially for engineers and others trained at specific visual aspects of certain plots. Same data, different presentation. Now add some positive comment to the right plot and people will react different.

Add a little EQ (same as on the contour plot above) and it looks almost perfect.

Now which plots represent actual acoustic performance? Or is it all just about good looking plots?

 

[TimVG]

I think you would rather have to experiment with the side slots. Look at vertical directivity

The vents function (for the most part) together as a whole regardless of orientation top and bottom are smaller and will have less overall impact which is why I would start there. The suckout is imho not related to beaming of the midrange as its center frequency changes with orientation - I highly suspect the relation to the vents is the culprit, from experience with passive cardioid systems. You are correct in that its behaviour is indeed better in the vertical orientation regardless - mounting it this way would indeed be a great idea.

 

[illusonic]

Looking at the speaker in your profile picture, I'm inclined to trust your assessment.

 

[TimVG]

It's a theory until I can test it, but I'll posts results when I get the chance - and if I'm wrong, we'll know that as well. I said before this was the most enjoyable commercial speaker I've had here, and I stand by that still. Respect their limits and take some care in setting them up and you'll be a happy camper. I can't speak for large rooms.

 

[AudioJester]

I always said there was an issue, with the bass and would like to see measurements of the speaker.
Keith

Fair enough.
Lots of user experience/feedback now. Seems to be quite a few users who share your and Amir's view, also quite a few who enjoy them. The price is ground breaking, the real world performance polarising.
Get a chance to listen this weekend, but in a setup that also includes KH150.

 

[TimVG]

But he did recommend them. Just with a couple of caveats. Like I also said: respect their limits in terms of output vs extension, and use a measurement mic to dial in the low range in your listening position(s).

As is, there is a lot of potential here so I am going to recommend the Palmer Orbit 11. Just be prepared to either use auto-EQ or fair bit of manual tuning. This is not a plug and play solution.

 

[AudioJester]

But he did recommend them. Just with a couple of caveats. Like I also said: respect their limits in terms of output vs extension, and use a measurement mic to dial in the low range in your listening position(s).

My interpretation of Amir's recommendation and yours seems to differ. Thats not just EQ correcting for room/transition, seems like there are major speaker issues here that require attention/correction. Also, lack of headroom in bass capability will limit DSP options somewhat. You want that extra SPL capability so you can correct properly and still get loud. Probably better off with a subwoofer, but then something like a Kali monitor and sub seems appealing, but no cardioid.

Sounds like you have worked out how to make them work for you. My interest is for a desk/nearfield. Will see what they are like, usually I get a very good idea what to expect from meadurements, but this is one speaker I really need to test out.

 

[TimVG]

Thats not just EQ correcting for room/transition, seems like there are major speaker issues here that require attention/correction.

Such as?

 

[AudioJester]

Such as?

Look at the graphs above....

 

[TimVG]

Look at the graphs above....

Trust me that I've taken the nfs measurements and looked at them in full detail, beyond the spinorama as well. So I'd like to know what you consider major issues?

 

[AudioJester]

You may not consider them major, but these days there are so many near perfect speakers- the wonky curves stand out to me. The speaker needs EQ before the room.
Maikys approach looks a good starting point, but you do lose headroom