What Do You Think . . . and How Does It Work?


While watching vids on YouTube, I came across this pipe speaker design from a Dr. Linkwitz (see below).   The sound of this speaker is said to be impressive.  I was wondering if you know about this, how it works and what you think of this speaker design.  Also, what do you think would be the best room placement for such a speaker, and would you be tempted to build them?

https://www.linkwitzlab.com/Pluto/intro.htm
bob540

Showing 7 responses by cd318

Plenty of people have built the Pluto and most reports suggest it can compete with designs costing multiple times more.

The Pluto might not quite get you to the levels of the LX521 or the Orion, but then, as things stand, not much else will either.

Given time I’d fancy having a go myself as going active seems to be the coming future of high end loudspeaker designs.
alymere

Thanks for the clarification.

Many of us are only familiar with using the 2 channel amplifiers that the advertising branch of high end audio (the press) prefers to talk about.

Habits and all that...

https://homemedialimited.co.uk/product/ati-at6012-12-channel-power-amplifier/
I think it’s generally agreed in the industry that a box is the worst possible shape for a loudspeaker cabinet.

The main reasons why most are built this way seems to be consumer expectations of domestic acceptability and manufacturing convenience.

The following extract is taken from diyaudioandvideo.com


What is the best shape for the box?

Internal reflections in the box combined with the vibration of the box itself can cause spikes in the frequency response of the system.

Different box shapes have different effects, with perfect cubes being the worst and spherical or egg shaped boxes being the best.

Although spheres have advantages, it is very difficult to create a spherical speaker box that is as strong as a typical rectangular box.

One good example of a spherical speaker is the Gallo Nucleus Solo above on the left which is made of rolled steel or brass.

An even better design is the sphere/tube concept by B&W shown on the right.

This design gets the benefits of a spherical design, but also adds a tapered tube at the back to eliminate all internal resonances.

Shape Variation
Cube +-5.0 db
Rectangle +-3.0 db
Cylinder +-2.0 db
Beveled Cube +-1.5 db
Beveled Rectangle +-1.5 db
Sphere +-0.5 db

https://www.diyaudioandvideo.com/Guide/BuildSpeaker/
kenjit,

"Even ATC use box shapes and yet they are regarded as the finest speakers. It is all a hoax."


Be fair kenjit, ATC started introducing curved slightly tapered side panels to their domestic cabinets a few years back. You can be sure they did it for good sonic reasons.

http://atcloudspeakers.co.uk/hi-fi/loudspeakers/entry-series/scm40/


Tapered cabinets must be a nightmare to produce consistently. Others like Sonus Faber have been doing it for decades.

The big exception is Harbeth but then they follow the BBC research which identifed these issues some 50 years ago. To keep the accepted box cabinet they came up with the almost unique concept of carefully constructed thin walled lossy cabinets as an answer.

As far as I know only Harbeth and Spendor currently do this.

kenjit,

Like many of us here you also seem to be searching for definitive answers and ultimate truths when it comes to loudspeaker performance. Unfortunately, there may not be any. 

Whilst it's always advisable to keep an open and inquisitive mind, isn't there also a corresponding danger of falling into the trap of excessive paranoia and suspicion?

From my point of view when a designer has spent decades looking at every facet of loudspeaker performance in as much precise detail as Siegfried Linkwitz obviously did, I feel compelled to pay attention to his words.

You need an example? 

How about this one taken from his website?



N - Mounting a driver to a baffle

"There is yet another potential problem with the driver to baffle interface, even if the baffle is perfectly inert. It is related to the mechanical construction of the driver itself and how it can become a mechanical resonator of its own.

Typically a loudspeaker driver has screw holes in its basket for mounting it to a baffle. Usually a sealing gasket is placed between the driver basket rim and the baffle. The driver becomes in effect stiffly clamped to the baffle. This method sets up a mechanically resonant structure which is formed by the compliance of the basket and the mass of the magnet as seen in figure (A). 


A) Drivers with a stamped metal baskets are prone to exhibit a high Q resonance when tightly clamped to the baffle. The magnet moves relative to the voice coil at the resonance frequency. Energy is stored and also readily transmitted from the moving mass of the cone into the cabinet.

B) Soft mounting the driver basket to the baffle using rubber grommets reduces the resonance frequency. A 2nd order lowpass filter is formed that reduces the transmission of vibration energy from the moving cone to the baffle and cabinet. The resonance must occur below the operating range of the driver.

C) If the driver is mounted from the magnet and the basket rim touches the baffle only softly, then the magnet-basket resonance cannot occur and the transmission of vibration energy into the baffle is minimized.

The basket-magnet resonance can be measured with an accelerometer that is mounted to the magnet. The drive signal is optimally a shaped toneburst. Its energy is concentrated in a narrow frequency band. When tuned to the right frequency a long decay tail becomes visible on an oscilloscope. Often the resonance can be seen as a small bump in the driver's impedance curve in the few hundred Hz range. It should not be confused with the higher frequency bump due to cone breakup.

An early example of a box loudspeaker where a KEF B110 midrange/woofer driver magnet is clamped to a support structure. The clamp can be tightened from the outside of the box. The basket rim is floating.


Often the effects due to driver mounting are deemed to be of secondary importance to the overall sound quality of a loudspeaker. 

They are usually costly to remedy

They cannot be ignored when the goal is to design a loudspeaker of the highest accuracy."


https://www.linkwitzlab.com/frontiers_2.htm#N


kenjit,

I wasn’t suggesting paranoia, only the dangers of falling into it. As a fellow audiophile, you must know it goes with the territory.

Is the system power supply adequate? Is my amp powerful enough? Or good enough? Should I bi-wire? Do I need better cables? Spikes or isolation? What about Hi-Res?

With no doubt hundreds more silly questions to keep us awake at night. This hobby sure has a way of getting into your blood, doesn’t it?

Isn’t this also why we constantly remind ourselves to enjoy the music instead of listening to the equipment?

I don’t want to comment on other designs here but just to say that Linkwitz’s attention to the minutest detail is certainly impressive in my eyes.

As for your views on the Linkwitz Pluto’s, or mine for that matter, they’re both based on hearsay and initial impressions. Let’s just say somehow we have both arrived at different conclusions.

"The loudspeaker industry has taken us for a ride for long enough and now we must demand evidence.
We deserve it."

Correct. Totally with you on that. If the manufacturers have the evidence on performance, then it could and should be shared with any potential customer.

It’s already starting to happen with Harman products and as you can read on the Linkwitz site, there is almost a lifetime of shared information available there.
kenjit,

You started off with some good points, but what happened after the conspiracy to suppress Harry Olson's research?  


  • The speaker industry has swindled thousands of audiophiles over the last few decades using the same techniques.
  • We have been sold speakers that DONT WORK. They end up being resold because they are not good enough. The used market for ultra high end speakers is just as active as for low end speakers.
  • Measurements are rarely published. When they are, they may be exaggerated or even false.
  • The high end industry is unregulated. If i was in charge, the Kenjit standards (TM) would never be met and i would shut down most of these so called speaker companies.
  • Unemployment would rise within the speaker industry
  • Any claim can be made and is assumed true until proven otherwise
  • Speaker designers have no clue on what the correct method or goal is of speaker design.
  • Speaker designers are not required to be qualified. Its like going to a doctor or dentist who is not qualified.
  • The reviewers are chosen so that MOST speaker reviews are positive. Nobody would want a negative review published. Any negative aspects of a speaker are overlooked or downplayed. Only 5 star reviews accepted!
  • Speakers are tuned to the designers ears, not OURS.
  • CONSPIRACY to suppress OLSONS research (1950s)
  • In the year 2500, speakers are a thing of the past.
  • Music transmitted wirelessly directly into brain. 1hz to 30khz possible.
  • Researchers of acoustics will discover old internet archives from the year 2020.
  • Kenjits ideas and papers are scrutinized by Professors of acoustics
  • Kenjit infinity baffle loading technology is found to be correct
  • Kenjit speaker design is manufactured and tested by engineers and found to work
  •  Kenjit is declared greatest Audiophile champion of all time BAR none.  

Anyway, going by previous experienced accounts (alymere p1, darkstar p2, and ctstereo p2) it seems that the Plutos are well worth tackling for those not yet willing to attempt the more challenging Linkwitz designs, Orion's/ LX521s.

In fact they very could easily rank amongst the greatest of all loudspeaker bargains. Hopefully more of these designs will be built so more of us can get to hear them for ourselves.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_F._Olson