Has anybody had experience with the Orions?


Surfing through the net, I found this site of Siegfried Linkwitz (Linkwitz Lab). Yes he is the same Linkwitz famous for the Linkwitz-Riley crossover formulas. I was wondering if anyone has listened, or better yet, owns these speakers, which are Sigfried's best design to date. They appear to embody fascinating concepts in acoustical science. To name a few, dipole radiation, excellent sub-bass response within an open box, and a very slender and elegant cabinet. According to some, they are the closest thing to live music available, regardless of price. I'd appreciate any comments or observations. Thank you.
jmaldonado

Showing 3 responses by ojgalli

I've built a pair and will be adding the rear tweeter to them in the next 2-3 weeks. I've auditioned numerous other speakers upto 18K—not in my price range, but I did it to find out what 10-20K can get you.

The Orion has the cleanest most detailed bass I've heard. (In my room, it's flat at 20 hz. I reduce the bass usually 4 dB on most jazz and pop recordings, but leave it flat on classical.)

Cleanest, fullest, most transparent midrange I've heard.

Clean, crisp, treble—the best I've heard overall—almost, but not quite as fast as a good ribbon, such as the Piega.

Soundstage, imaging, and transparency throughout the entire audible bandwidth is superlative.

Never thought I'd spend so much on speakers—but these have taught me there's no need to dump megabucks in amplification, cables, and other money pits to get state-of-the-art home audio reproduction.
Just finished installing the rear tweeters to my Orions a couple of days ago. At first, I wasn't sure of what difference they make, yet in a short time the most apparent difference is the soundstage, more dimensional, voluminous, with a greater sense of space. I started with the pots on the ASP turned down 1 dB as recommended, then 1.5. The balance seemed better at 1.5. I may still do some futzing with the pot setting, but I suspect the -1.5 dB may be the settling point.

Other observations were, greater presence, more enveloping (wraparound), and a higher soundstage. Without the rear tweeter, it was like “looking” down slightly at the stage. Now the stage is directly straight in front. The clarity and separation of instruments seems better and the center image stronger—imaging in general seems more stable. I've found that I'm setting the volume 3 dB lower with my standard set of audition CDs.

I've not done an A/B comparison. It's not easy to disconnect the rear tweeter without removing it. That would reliably reveal the differences. I've only listened for a few hours, and it may take several more to really fully assess the changes. So far I'm pleased with the upgrade. Nothing has diminished, and there are certainly some notable improvements.
Jmaldonado:

1) Mine are 1 meter from the front wall, a bit less than recommended. Without the rear tweeter I don't believe those few inches are critical, with the rear tweeter is may be more so. After several hours of more listening and some octave band pink noise tests, the -1.5 dB ASP setting seems optimal. I am going to try moving the speakers out some to compare and retest. The extra front wall space could prove beneficial. I'm still impressed by the sence of space. It seems to enhance detail/separation of instruments.

2) Yes, there is a large rear projection HDTV between the speakers. The toe-in helps keep the screen reflection down, but a blanket over the screen may be best for critical listening. The room is irregular. Left side wall is about 1.5m, and the right side is open. The left speaker balance is set -1dB to compensate. (Plaster walls/wood studs/w-t-w carpet over wood joist.) Component rack is low and to the left side, the amp is on the floor between the speakers.