Orion vs NaO II

[oneoldude]

Has anyone actually heard both the Orion and the NaO II?

If so, would you please give us a comparative review of what each design does well and what each does badly?

[mikec]

would you please give us a comparative review of what each design does well and what each does badly?

What makes you believe either design performs badly? :roll:

[AJINFLA]

The Orion makes you badly want one.

Cheers,

AJ

[Jim85IROC]

I haven't heard the Orion, but I have heard the Phoenix and the Nao 1 and 2. All 3 were in the same room being driven with the same electronics. However, the same music was not played on the Phoenix as the other two, so a direct comparison was impossible (on purpose I expect, but that's another story). The bass equalization on the Phoenix was a very poor match for the listening room, and the owner hadn't trimmed it back during the time I listened, so the overbearing bass on the phoenix made it difficult to do bass comparisons.

But... overall I felt that both designs were outstanding, with very similar qualities. Maybe it's because I'm used to low end junk, but it seems to me the closer you get to a flat response with low distortion drivers, the more they all start to sound the same.

[JonMarsh]

The Orion makes you badly want one.

Cheers,

AJ

That's pretty much the case. There's lots of good reasons why it's better than 99% of the commercially available speakers.

The only drawbacks are somewhat limited SPL, and having to have all those little amplifiers!

And, well, maybe the esthetics, too- doesn't do much for me. But that's a very personal judgement, and I'd be reluctant to say that untile I really have the next gen Arvo looking and Sounding good. That's more along the lines of some guys like curly hair on a lady, and some like straight.

I haven't heard an NoO, so no comment there.

~Jon

[oneoldude]

What makes you believe either design performs badly? :roll:

I do not think either design performs badly per se. But I am sure each design does some things better than others. However, I know there is no such thing as a perfect loudspeaker. Both designs may be state-of-the-art but they are not perfect.

You will note that no speaker manufacturer, designer or reviewer posts a 20 - 20k Hz frequency sweep at 110 db SPL that shows distortion products below the generated curve (like some driver manufacturers do at lower levels). There is a real good reason for that. No one would like the results.

I doubt either speaker will handle 20 - 20 kHz flat in room at 110 db SPL across the board without audible strain in the low bass, lower midbass and lower tweeter range where the woofers, mids and tweeters run out of Xmax.

I know that my dipole designs have had weakness in those areas and wanted to know how these two designs fared in those difficult frequencies. Indeed, I believe that Jon's Arvo Part design is a beefed up attempt to overcome the inability of other dipole designs to play loud and clean when stressed with high SPL. And the Arvos will sound cleaner at lower levels because of it too.

BTW I am not a headbanger. But when listening to complex music, like classical crescendos, many speakers tend to fall apart on complex high level transient peaks that do not occur in simpler voice, jazz or solo instrumental stuff. That is why many use simple music to review speakers.

Then there is HT. Some of that stuff is VERY taxing. Believe me, I enjoy having an emotional reaction of horror, fear, disgust etc. from a movie. But I want it to come from the work of art not from unintended high level distortion.

Let's face it, no one would be installing a manifold with a bunch of IB woofers if either of these two designs had the field covered. Why even SL has proposed the Thor subwoofer to take the very low end away from the Orion's woofers in demanding situations.

So, having only heard my designs, I wanted to hear about how well the gurus handled the problems I have faced.

This enquiring mind wants to know.

[mikec]

I do not think either design performs badly per se. But I am sure each design does some things better than others.

I can't speak for the NaO (since I haven't heard it) but IME the Orion does lots of things very well.

[ThomasW]

I've never hear either the Orions or John K's speaker. But the current version of the Arvo plays loud enough to drive me out of the room.

That said I've never hear a so-called fullrange loudspeaker that didn't benefit from the addition of dedicated subwoofer

[JonMarsh]

I do not think either design performs badly per se. But I am sure each design does some things better than others. However, I know there is no such thing as a perfect loudspeaker. Both designs may be state-of-the-art but they are not perfect.

You will note that no speaker manufacturer, designer or reviewer posts a 20 - 20k Hz frequency sweep at 110 db SPL that shows distortion products below the generated curve (like some driver manufacturers do at lower levels). There is a real good reason for that. No one would like the results.

I doubt either speaker will handle 20 - 20 kHz flat in room at 110 db SPL across the board without audible strain in the low bass, lower midbass and lower tweeter range where the woofers, mids and tweeters run out of Xmax.

I know that my dipole designs have had weakness in those areas and wanted to know how these two designs fared in those difficult frequencies. Indeed, I believe that Jon's Arvo Part design is a beefed up attempt to overcome the inability of other dipole designs to play loud and clean when stressed with high SPL. And the Arvos will sound cleaner at lower levels because of it too.

BTW I am not a headbanger. But when listening to complex music, like classical crescendos, many speakers tend to fall apart on complex high level transient peaks that do not occur in simpler voice, jazz or solo instrumental stuff. That is why many use simple music to review speakers.

Then there is HT. Some of that stuff is VERY taxing. Believe me, I enjoy having an emotional reaction of horror, fear, disgust etc. from a movie. But I want it to come from the work of art not from unintended high level distortion.

Let's face it, no one would be installing a manifold with a bunch of IB woofers if either of these two designs had the field covered. Why even SL has proposed the Thor subwoofer to take the very low end away from the Orion's woofers in demanding situations.

So, having only heard my designs, I wanted to hear about how well the gurus handled the problems I have faced.

This enquiring mind wants to know.

Well, if you really want 110 dB SPL and fairly low distortion, then something more like a Wilson X1 or X2 SLAMM would fill the ticket.

When I was building my X1 Klones, Thomas and I at one point had one sort of finished up (well, it would play music, though it wasn't cosmetic- see pic), and as folks often set the volume control based on that sense of ease (turn it up until the ease "drops" a bit", the first listening session with one speaker using an Aragon 8008 driven straight out of a Sony XA707 (with built in volume control) resulted in "considerable ease" even when turned up quite a bit- just didn't sound like it was turned up, until after a few hours we realized how much the old ears were ringing.

The Arvo's won't do quite those levels on their own full range, not without an Aragon Palladium instead of the 8008, but with any sensible band limiting, they will play much louder but still cleanly than is really sensible for any extended listening. But that was the idea all along, that and dropping the amount of electronics in the signal path.







It's a wonder I didn't lose my lease when these were my main system.

The top modules are still around, and will be updated with Peerless 830883 drivers (on hand) and new crossovers soon. The bottoms will be rebuilt with Dayton RS sub drivers, and the two way electronic crossover will have to be updated slightly.




Now, what in Hades am I going to do with an overgrown set of party speakers?

[JohnL]

Now, what in Hades am I going to do with an overgrown set of party speakers?

Throw a party. arty:


I'll bring the keg and 3 dozen frat guys.

:drinker: :^x

[oneoldude]

Jon,

You ought to have someone to stand next to your X1 clone so we can get an idea of the scale of it.

And I agree, that sort of design is excellent for big headroom and ease of playing. In fact, with today's new drivers, the X1 can surely be improved upon. I am currently giving it a go with RS180's and will be using RS woofers too.

But ever since I read SL's "Development of a Compact Dipole Loudspeaker", 93rd AES Convention, San Francisco, 1992, Preprint 3431, I have been toying with dipoles. They are almost magical in their ability to sound really good. I just don't have the room for them now. So I will be stuck with a mini-X1 clone. Now if I can only get the bass to sound right without a dipole.

[JonMarsh]

Jon,

So I will be stuck with a mini-X1 clone. Now if I can only get the bass to sound right without a dipole.

ah, therein lies the rub. In truth, you can, but it requires the right room placement and setup- check out the Cardas guide online to speaker placement, it's what I've been doing for years. The dipoles don't take any more room- if anything, they're more flexible.

My original X1 clones are the same size as the originals from Wilson- finished version about 6' tall. The update will be a bit smaller, due to the difference in the LF cabinet design with RS HF series woofers. Like the difference between a X1 and a Wilson Maxx.

~Jon

[oneoldude]

Yup, placement can be critical.

I like what can be done with RS subs. Two low Vas 12's can be put into a much smaller box than a large Vas 15 and 12. Wilson did ok with the Maxx by going to a 12 and 11. I am trying to go smaller yet.

[JonMarsh]

Well, I'm going to run the numbers and decide between two 12's, a 10 and a 12, or just two 10's. But there's no sigificant adavantage to the low VAS drivers- other than voice coil power handling- and there is downside, due to the higher inductance and higher inductivity modulation induced distortion. Consider the HF versions instead, unless space is critical and you're willing to use an LT circuit. I'm going with a low tuned ported enclosure again, I think, like the original Wilson design and my Klone- you'll need that to approach 110 dB at 20-25 Hz.

~Jon

[oneoldude]

Jon,

Geez, you and I must be listening to the same muse. I will be doing the same analysis re the RS woofers. But I do not see a good reason to go with a 10 and a 12 together. Do you see any real advantage?

BTW, over the years I have listened to several variants of D'Appolito designed MTMs. They all sounded pretty good and had plenty of headroom for high SPLs but I always heard a little bit of roughness (or confusion) in the upper mid range. I have thought it might be due to the approximate 2kHz crossover he tends to use and its vertical off axis perturbations. Have you noticed that problem and might the lower xover freq you suggest clear it up a bit?

And did your X1 clones suffer any of that congestion? If so, how did you deal with it?

[thadman]

Jon,
BTW, over the years I have listened to several variants of D'Appolito designed MTMs. They all sounded pretty good and had plenty of headroom for high SPLs but I always heard a little bit of roughness (or confusion) in the upper mid range. I have thought it might be due to the approximate 2kHz crossover he tends to use and its vertical off axis perturbations. Have you noticed that problem and might the lower xover freq you suggest clear it up a bit?

And did your X1 clones suffer any of that congestion? If so, how did you deal with it?

Resurrecting an old thread :B How bad is the lobing from an MTM? Can the upper midrange be compensated with a delay?

[ThomasW]

Resurrecting an old thread :B How bad is the lobing from an MTM? Can the upper midrange be compensated with a delay?

Instead of littering the forum using multiple threads to ask dozens of questions, how about one thread with all your questions?