"John Matheson" wrote in message
...

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

What, if anything makes them wrong?

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.

And you've done a survey of audio engineeers and therefore know they can't
properly apply good engineering, or is this just an unsupported assertion.

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.

And you're positive that Linkwitz has not consulted other experts in those
fields or is unable to benefit from their teachings, or is this an
unsupported assertion.

Simple
computer models seem to encourage poor application of the "art" too.

Did Linkwitz rely on simple computer models?

I am far too humble to think I could design an accurate loudspeaker.

Then it seems you might not be qualified to critique them, unless you have
some actual measurements on the Orions.

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.

Based on what?

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.


Is it perhaps possible, that Linkwitz is familiar with them as well?

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.

Then what criteria should one use? Do you pick ones that don't sound nice
on what you like to listen too?


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.

With all do respect, you seem to be doing that same thing.


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.

Bingo. How else do you explain things like the Silver Rock Signature Knob
$480.00



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'd keep that quiet if I were you, the whole DBT thing is kinda touchy
around here. :-)

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.

The idea of what Hi-Fi is all about seems to have gotten lost a long time
ago.
Faithfullness to the original master. These days people want to design
signature sounding gear of all kind. If there's a lot of different
signatures, I'm betting a lot of the concept of faithfulness to the orignial
master is lost.


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.

Again with the DBT talk! You must have a death wish. :-)

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.

Well, the Evidence Temtation might be a contender.


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.

Welcome to the HIGH end.

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.

Are there any kits or DIY projects that you believe to be accurate?

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.

Can you support your assertions with any sort of measured data?
Since you are the only person I've heard criticize them, I'd be interested
in what data you use to prove your case.

I have heard what I think are some very good DIY kits from Dynaudio,
designed by Joe D'Appolito and from SEAS also designed by him.

They sounded very accurate to my ears and gave a very good performance of
any kind of music I threw at them.