Well that's why they say this is a free country.

You're free to have your own opinion and I'm free to have mine. I've
made my judgements based upon what I'm listening to.


I said I was glad you liked them.


Hmpfff... Obviously you and Linkwitz are of different opinions. Not that
this is any kind of surprise really.

Linkwitz is entititled to his opinion and to publishing it - having it and
publishing it just doesn't make those opinions any righter.

Audio Engineering still has a lot of
art in it, as much as people would like to think that it's all scientific.
If engineering were as clearly defined as we'd like to think, then there
wouldn't be so many different attempts at producing hi-end audio. We'd
all know what worked and what didn't.

Sure there is art in audio engineering - the art of applying good
engineering. Unfortunately far too many "audio engineers" know far too
little to apply good engineering. Competent speaker design requires an
understanding of physics, acoustics, physcoacoustics, electrical, mechnical,
chemical and materials engineering to name but a few. It is way beyond the
capabilities of one person to be an expert in all these fields. Simple
computer models seem to encourage poor application of the "art" too.

Since you think the Orions are such inaccurate loudspeakers, perhaps
you'd like to share with us your own design of what an accurate
loudspeaker would be?

I am far too humble to think I could design an accurate loudspeaker. Floyd
Toole, Sean Olive and others through the NRC in Canada and Harman
International have conducted many decades of comprehesive research into what
are the important charateristics for speakers and I don't think that the
Orions would stack up well by the scientifically established criterion. But
nor would many so call High End designs irrespective of price. I'm also a
reader of the papers of David Griesinger who I feel knows close to as much
as the rest of the world put together about the physcoacoustics of spacial
sound reproduction and perception. His papers give a physcoacoustical basis
to the empirical findings of Toole et al.

I am glad you enjoy your system, but that does not equate to accuracy or
correctness or even my definition of high fidelity let alone high end -
just because it plays some things well or sounds nice to you.

I thought that was the criteria that we each use in making a purchase.
We each listen to equipment and choose what seems to us to be what
we want.

Of course people are free to make whatever choices they like for whatever
reason. It gets up my nose (as you can no doubt tell) when someone becomes
evangelistical about a personal experience. I find the notion of "like the
sound of" and "don't like the sound of" in audio engineering sailing just a
bit too close to the fashion industry - but I guess that is what high
fidelity industry has become - fashion.

I've listened to a *LOT* of gear over the years and have a
pretty good idea of what sounds natural and accurate to me.

And it's not just from listening to records either. I've been playing
trumpet for over 40 years, in just about any kind of ensemble or group
you could imagine. Everything from orchestral to brass ensemble to
big band swing to Chinese funeral band. My wife is a professional
violinist who plays both modern and baroque violin. She's recorded
with the Philharmonia Baroque Orchesta and San Francisco Bach Soloists.
I listen to her practice both instruments all the time and know what
sounds like what.

I think I know something about what natural sound is.

Well, I have a little experience too. I have conducted research into speaker
design with John Dunlavey (independently using his facilities - not as an
employee); I've run a performing arts centre sound department managing a
staff of up to 25 audio engineers at times; I've been involved in my local
section of the Audio Engineering Society for more than 20 years and have
presented many meetings on the various facets of audio engineering including
speaker design criteria for "accuracy" in reproduction and blind evaluations
of professional speakers which left some proponents of particular brands
decidedly red faced; I've been a technical writer for a national journal in
professional sound engineering; I designed quite a few professional and
consumer loudspeakers; I have designed sound reinforcement systems for
dozens of local and national touring musicals and opera; I've worked as a
sound designer with many symphony orchestras and opera companies; and I have
worked as a consulting engineer in electo-acoustics for a national
acoustical consultancy. Over a couple of decades I have collected scores of
letters and published reviews praising the quality of sound of my designs -
many for operas - and never had a bad review published to my knowledge. I've
collected about 40 reviews on just one show published in papers and journals
on three continents - all praising the quality of sound (it was an opera
with 80% of the audience from overseas - so I think it had a critical
audience too). So I too feel I have an incling about natural sound.

All of my experience has lead to believe that the human auditory experience
is incredibly fickle, hence the "so many different attempts at producing
hi-end audio". That and misguided beliefs and just plain financial greed.

I can also claim to be part of the germination of the choice of methodology
behind the recent extensive double blind evaluation of dozens of
professional monitors by the BBC in London recently. This is probably the
single most extensive and bias controlled evaluation of speaker
"naturalness" ever undertaken anywhere. The results of that evaluation was
the recommendation across the board to use an appropriate sized model of
Dynaudio speakers for all monitoring applications at BBC Radio and BBC
Music. I assure you that Dynaudio are a brand of speakers which do rate well
against the aforementioned criteria and the outcome of the BBC's research
just reinforces my opinions. By the way I am not saying that any model of
Dynaudio is the "best speaker in the world" as there are far too many
criteria to measure "best" by.

So you don't like the Linkwitz Orions, and I presume you've told
your friend his aren't accurate or correct either. What was his
response? Is he planning to sell them now that you've told him
they didn't measure up? And then one might ask why he didn't
ask you first before wasting his money on them?!

My colleague who has built the Orisons is also a member of the local Audio
Engineering Society too. He gets a lot of enjoyment form playing around as
an amateur engineer, but he hasn't had the benefit of the kind of experience
I have had. If he had talked to me before undertaking the project, he most
likely wouldn't have. But he didn't - just as I don't consult with him on
everything I intend to do. To be honest I am disheartened that so much
effort goes into producing such (to my ear) blatantly unrealistic results.
We have had an extensive string of "tinkerengineering" speaker projects
presented at AES meetings over the years. In almost every case the owner of
the project thinks he is on the cusp of the next best speaker in the world.
One gets a bit jaded after a while. Some of these projects have produced
enchanting results on certain pieces of music if you are in the right
position etc, etc. That just doesn't make them right - just pleasant to some
ears under some conditions.

You posted a reply to my admittedly churlish reply to your original post,
but are you interested in the basis of the four claims I made about the
Orions performance? I think the four claims are (relatively) easily
demonstrable and irrefutable (excepting for an over-riding bias on the part
of the reader - truth like beauty may be in the eye, or ear, of the
beholder), but since you did not ask I have not attempted to address them
here.

Kind regards,

John Matheson