Orelo MK-II mini review

[vrao]

 I have been fortunate to be playing with the Orelo for the last few weeks, and thought I should put in a few words out. I was somewhere mid or late with the Phasure DAC, and always seem a bit behind anyways to participate!

Well I'm fortunate with the speakers 

A complete/comprehensive review might not be possible because these speakers are quite unique with the front end (XXHE) as well as the settings on the speakers making them quite (edit:) "versatile"

I prefer to go into details in each of their specific abilities on separate threads.

Few quick things for completion on this mini review

High frequency: crystal clear, smooth. Best I've heard so far, pleasing to the ears. Not one grain of harshness.
Mid Fq: crystal clear. This and hi-freq will be dealt in detail on the FM thread.
Bass: very interesting, low distortion easily experienced. Open baffle bass  .   A separate bass thread required.
Tonality: perfect!
3D: equal or better than omni and dipoles. Still a working progress with speaker placement, and settings.
Image density: totally convincing playback
Image size: authentic for all types of music I've tried so far!

Interesting points:
1. Easy to detect square waves especially with electronic music.
2. FM curves make these speakers very interesting and unique.
3. Can easily see how the recording artist manipulated the sound for good or bad
4. Finally it is nice to have good bass.
5. Oh yeah, they don't honk. If I placed a curtain, or blind fold anyone and walk them into the room, they will not be able to identify this from real music .... Sheffield drum CD, Chesky test CDs perfectly recreated.

In many ways I would consider these speakers land mark design. Highly recommended IMHO

Fit/finish: 10/10
Communication: 12/10  Peter/Bert --> awesome guys
Well planed design, with future upgrades in mind, kudos guys!!

Few minor things are still a working progress.


Rest to come,

VJ
 Ps if I missed anything specific someone was looking for, please don't hesitate to ask.

Oh yes, I have a very strong set of references, I've heard almost all the typical luxury/High end products on the market, in show conditions and demo rooms. Even though I haven't changed too many speakers, I've had a flurry of amps pass thro my system (some of them product of the year etc), and even though I haven't talked much about the inbuilt active amplification, there is not much to say, that it is perfectly mated to the speakers, it's the best I've heard so far!

Ps(2) as one can see, I've compiled the review somewhat unorthodoxically, since I've taken a lot of things for granted. For example, no head to head comparison with other products, not feasible due to the unavailability of different amps at this point in time, even more a reason -->"not necessary" ). Only reference is pure live music. In many ways the complete "XXHE system" in a different orbit. The whole system just works!!!
I've achieved goals close to this in a couple of my prior systems (a bit different), but none like live!

[manisandher]

Hey VJ, you beat me to it! I won't have mine until I get back home from my current work trip (hopefully it'll be sometime next week, unless I hear otherwise from Bert). I'll post my thoughts here also once I've had a chance to listen to them for a few weeks.

Quick question: are you using a NOS1a? I should receive my upgraded NOS1a at just about the same time that the speakers arrive... assuming Peter can fix his cable supplier woes.

Thanks for the 'mini review'. My mouth is watering more than Pavlov's dogs'.

Cheers, Mani.

[PeterSt]

Hi there VJ,

Super nice to read this all ...

Not one grain of harshness.

You will learn that there still is. You just wait for your new NOS1a and we'll hear about this again. All is relative of course, but ...

What has not been said - at least not to the public - is that I *had* to improve the NOS1 because with this speaker it is now better audible what is "wrong". Once again it seems strange that such a thing can be done (like ask PeterSt and he will improve) but all is often a matter of priorities. So to my ears it really is so that the enormous level of the high frequency output (for me there since I have my own MKIIs) makes audible what's still not 100% (whatever that is). It even is so that it requires a new Arc Prediction Filter in XXHighEnd because with the improved NOS1a now THAT became audible.
Crazy.

Anyway, expect some more ! but really in a quite different part of the whole "spectrum" than you can imagine. Promise.

I prefer to go into details in each of their specific abilities on separate threads.

(people may think that I already heard all through email, but this is not so)

Tonality: perfect!

Now I am really honoured. Well, all of course starts with the (Bert's) design and how that allows for this, but if you'd know what all can be set (and had to be) for internal now fixed values and what million possibitilies in the DSP exist and that this all had to be done in a room not taking the room into account because your room is a different one and where no correction should be needed to my firm belief ...

3D: equal or better than omni and dipoles.

This is a nice one with more value to me than can be read without context. So ... I am always thinking this but a subject it is never and I can't compare either (would need dipoles to be dragged into my room). Next it is generally accepted that horns are horns and thus few "3D" to be expected. But again, it is no subject ever so all is taken for granted and I don't even think about it (any more).
Now *I* can tell you that this is a fairly expllicit subject of VJ who out of all went from explicitly chosen pure omnis to ... horns. I myself at this moment won't be able to compare the virtues of the one to the virtues of the other, but I know VJ can and did that, with anxiously waiting for the result. OK ... but this does not readily tell that the result on "3D" not even turns out for the worse. So I am surprised but still with the notice that I don't lack anything regarding this myself.
VJ, if you have anything to add or elaborate (technicalities) at least I will love to read it.

If I placed a curtain, or blind fold anyone and walk them into the room, they will not be able to identify this from real music ....

Jajajajaja. This goes quite far you know.
OK ... I did not say it myself yet, but I dare claim the same by now. One difference ... NOS1a.
But at least I am open mouthed each next evening, finding that automatically SQ improved because of my new NOS1a still breaking in (but at day 45 or so). With "open mouthed" I mean seriously that.

Thank you VJ. I really hope to read more of it. But especially for others that is a good thing because I can only relate to my own previous situation and all goes quite graduately. And otherwise it will be tough if people can listen to me only.

Peter

[vrao]

Hi Mani,

As I mentioned I was fortunate to get these Orleo's. Maybe I harassed them more than you?

You will find these speakers have a learning curve, small but (indefinitely) extended learning curve because of its versatility.

I have the NOS-1 , again I'm still a bit behind on the DAC arena.

Peter,
Final word on imaging may take a bit of time. Placement is different, the omnis were along the long wall, further apart, and the Orelo on the short wall. Even though both are big speakers, Orelo is much larger, so I need to play with placement. Again with more of the music I've heard, there is a similar sense of imaging.

Cheers,
VJ

[vrao]

So I thought I will post a long term "mini" review.

So called reviews one sees on the magazines is just the flavor of the months, till the next best thing overtakes it in every 6? Weeks 

So after owning the "complete" Phasure system for more than a year all I can say is that this HAS been the best purchase I've ever made in my audio history. I look around occasionally at the market, and then laugh at the same old "sling with a new bling"

No ground breaking technology has made it to the market in the last 5 years. Even if it has, it's not in the realm of acceptance into my audio domain.

I recently visited THE Show @ Newport Beach. Contrary to the "joke is at the bottom of my foot" in terms or performance, there were many which did portray "some" promise .... But variables such as music genre definitely played a role. Many with the special effects CDs. But where they in par? No quite, far behind ....

Most missing the most important parts of the Phasure system, solid imaging!! The SNR of the Phasure system is incredible. Also the adaptability of the FM curves for the ear brain to quickly get acclimatized to a particular album for intense interpretation! I recently added vibration dampness to the server and the DAC, made an interesting difference. Now I was confident that I could add Clarixia back into the system, the Aqvox seemed a bit dull and slow. I'm now on all Orange in the FM curves, can play with all greems(flat) now, but I think it's the room that's responsible for present the FM settings.

It was an educational experience to go back and listen to tube amps at the show (prior owner of OTL amps). I spend a considerable amount of time with the WaVaC, the 833 tubes are indeed sexy to look at, but they are the "best worst amplifiers" as someone prevoiusly mentioned, kind of sterile, with a very precise sound. 211 are quite interesting, Bernings did play well, but they were demoeing some bass EQ device, and the music was quite bass heavy. The music was loud enough to disorient me multiple times during the demo!  Those tube have some interesting under harmonics, that one can/should persue further (if looking for tube amps). I believe that amp did have plenty of vib dampening tech inbuilt. They did have a SNR which rivaled the Oreleos. The 6C33C-B tubes did a lot of things correctly, in spite of their faults, one being lower resolution. Tone and timber are quite thick and flushed. 300Bs are quite colored, at least in the topology I heard them in. One offs like the AA62B of Ayon or the GM100 from NAT are way too colored. EL84s (EAR) could not be evaluated as they were teamed with the wrong technology (ceramic drivers). Quite an educational experience to breeze through so many harmonic manipulators!! I can see why people can get caught in one of these tube traps (not in a negative way).

SS components I'm not going to comment on as there was nothing interesting, after hearing the EMM labs, Esoteric, Bicrasti M28, the MBLs. 

Or even the hybrid amps like Ypsilon or Einstein!

Why am I combining a show review with a speaker review follow up. Only after living with a speaker for more than a year and with more than 2000 hrs in playback, fiddling around with every nook and cranny of the loudspeaker, and the front end I can confidently tell, I'm familiar with these speakers and also the DAC/server. And the sound they create is well beyond what is commercially available.

Do they have drawback, yes, one pressing one for me. First one has to understand that I come from a omni/dipole speaker prior to Oreleos. So soundstage can still be improved. I haven't tried the new 2.01 XXHE as yet. But I feel this part of the process requires a bit more of work.

P.S. Going back and hearing the Omnis or dipoles such as the  MBLs, perfect 8 or the Larsen speakers, was not authentic enough. To faded and dim sound stage. Ofcourse these speakers can be room sensitive. Moreover I'm a classical music fan....

Overall my family and I have enjoyed more music in the last year, Since I can remember!!  Every day I can appreciate the special qualities of the system. interests have changed, now in getting more music. Since last Christmas the music collection is growing rapidly.

**edit**
Forgot to add the DACs, nothing that I heard made me think to change direction at this point of time, may it be Eoteric, MSB, Lampi, EMM, Bicrasti, NADAC etc.

Kudos Peter!! **and Bert!!

VJ

[vrao]

A yearly follow up ....

I've recently updated my Oreleos to the VR edition. B)

Virtual reality edition

Only a few minor changes needed. But the sound now is phenomenal.

[PeterSt]

Does it require Google Glasses ?

[manisandher]

Hey VJ, so what does the VR Edition entail? Is it available for all Orelo owners? If so, make sure you spread the word. (Of course, it no longer applies to me... )

Mani.

[vrao]

Peter,

Yes glasses can be used, but of a different kind

Mani,

Every Oreleo owner can easily upgrade, so can other too. More to follow. Mundane work day will not permit from a detailed explanation right now.

Best,
VJ

[vrao]

So,

Virtual reality edition might be bit of a hyperbole. But....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM

Room is the "elephant" in music reproduction...

I got room treatments (GiK acoustics) and changed the position of the speakers to accommodate them. This is for the fist reflections and bass. And it's not a small change ..... most critical Upgrade imho. The issues with flutter echoes (one will not know how much is present, till it's contained), and bass modes, have been solved to a great part. All of a sudden the SNR is off the roof (which entails retrieval of ultra-low level details a not just John Doe low level). The imaging definition, depth and low level signal linearity, detail is actually appreciable at this point of time. All of a sudden the previously familiar albums, are now playing in virtual reality, as funny as it sounds in equipment reviews.... an entirely new experience. And I would not put it lightly .... . It takes a lot for me to get excited, for me this is a big change..!!

Also appropriately recorded albums can elicit a near surround sound Effect. Ex: Roger Waters- amused to death (p.s. I had to listen to it twice, the previously barely interesting album, yesterday blew my socks away in scale and presence); I Ching; DSOTM. I'm not talking of music barely making it outside the speakers .... but music coming from nearly behind ....  I call it envelopment (  or VR   ), with the proper implementation by the mixing artist.

This exemplifies what the Orelos are capable of, also the rest of the chain. This setup now for me is going the right direction, exemplifying the systems inherent properties, avoiding any extrinsic anomalies. I can listen at very high volumes and hear more into the music without smearing or distortion.

Reference level performance...

[PeterSt]

[manisandher]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM

Interesting talk. However, I can't help but think that it's overly-focused on the frequency domain, and not enough on the temporal domain too. For example, I've owned a particular pair of speakers in the past that measured very flat and went very low in the LF. However, they achieved this with a pair of downward-firing ports. The bass was there, no doubt about it, but it was slow and sluggish. It seems to me that there's never such thing as a free lunch.

He talked about active speakers as being the golden standard, because you can more easily tune to get a flat FR. But I still can't get my head around how to manipulate the 'natural' (i.e. unadulterated) sound from the speaker whilst avoiding any detrimental side effects, such as driving the drivers too hard in certain areas.  For example, when I played around with my Orelos, I had to boost 50Hz by over 20dB to get a reasonably flat in-room response. Over time I learned that this was producing some very undesirable side effects. I suppose just tweaking slightly should be fine.

But I'm no speaker designer, so what do I know?...

Mani.

[vrao]

Hi Mani,

No free lunch ....

I was aware of Oreleo's performance in my place, adding the acoustic treatments (of course I worked with a acoustic specialist), took its performance waay beyond my expectations. I was under the impression, more the reflections, the better (coming from an omniland), but not entirely so. I can't say this enough ..... the SNR is now something else! Phase manipulation, recording errors, techniques are easily heard.

All I had to do was increase the bass by 1.5dB from the factory setting. Enough to let a jet fly across the room

Also transient detail retrieval.... now indistinguishable from real.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jV5vkOhakM8
Even though most will think its present anyways (guilty myself...  ), not entirely so until reflections are well under control. 


Best,
VJ

[CoenP]

Pff.

Started with the video too. I was annoyed by the slightly arrogant attitude of this speaker. Listening to his story it seemed that audiophile/reviewer bashing was the key motive and perspective on the interpretation of his graphs. I could bear it only to halfway, but already the first few results tell a different story to me.

“ double blind tests are the best way to establish scientifically viable results”. This is one big can of worms. The discerning ability of the test subjects is also under test, so conclusions can only be drawn in a presupposed context. Stereophile’s lovely Michael Fremer once had a 100% correct score in blindly discerning different audio components and was excluded from the test results as a “statistical insignificance”. What are you trying to prove or learn by doing that, that MF isn't a representative person or that differences cannot be heard (-by untrained ears-)? This is as unscientific as it gets. Personally I know my system so well I can hear any change immediately, but I can guess stuff at best with someone else’s system.

“The more channels you add the less people are able to tell te difference, that’s why I use mono”. That points to a serious flaw in your testing methods dude. It also imposes serious limitations on the scope and usability of the tests. What are you trying to learn?

“People are biassed by a visual preference”. Like hell they are. The graphs shown also indicate that the test subjects can reliably discern nicely build sh*t from the real thing when looking at it while they listen. They appreciate good sounding and good-looking good stuff better. That doesn’t mean that it is irrelevant, its another limitation on your scope. It is well known that our senses work together in creating an experience along with our expectations of it. The cooperation makes the experience more intense, that’s why the experience of a live concert can never be reproduced by audio alone. That said, we may be able to get very close to recreating the audio part of it.
Imho reproduced audio is an experience in itself and the visual aesthetic of the gear and expectations of the listener are very much part of it.

Maybe it gets better later on….

regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

Especially for the American readers among us, I'd take the "you" which Coen presents several times, figurative, and not as addressing VJ directly by it. Maybe it reads the same in English/American as how we Dutch bring such things forward, but it easily is not.

And Coen, if it was your intention to address this to VJ after all, you will speak up, right ?


I now will fight my way through the video too, which so far did not work in two attempts, except for the first 2 minutes; Of course I need to know where "we" agree upon. That is, Coen and me - no need to see the video for that. And Coen, may I remind you : even with another one's system you do perfectly well and on that matter I never ever ran into a disagreement while judgement is always a work of seconds and way less. Those who think that excessive ABX is required just don't know what to listen for (and then come up with the wrong judgements after all). Btw, what to listen for can easily be learnt from someone with more experience on that.

Regards,
Peter

[vrao]

CoenP

Thank you ....

Looks like everyone is talking a different idea from it. I would not discount this speaker that easily   .

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/bas/0609/

I've had the opportunity to see MF in action a few times ... and am familiar with how he works ...

VJ

P.s. The truth might be a bit hard to digest. It is what it is straightly put .... untrained ears variable and biased results. Untrained golden ears .... same. Go thro the golden ear training program from HR or Phillips .... there is some standardization there.

[vrao]

So,

Since I was alerted to the nuances of a prior post, a bit of friendly exchange ....  all in good faith 

Someone the other day touted graphenes cables as a good choice for conductors.... the  "fact"  is scientists were only recently able to use graphene for conduction ... I mean in the last few weeks. So where does friction lie?

As a participant in multiple national and international studies .... I value standardized testing, otherwise there is no baseline. Science is built on reproducibility ....

What did I learn ..... plain and simple ..... utilizing scientifically proven technology in my room had a more drastic effect to music reproduction since I can remember ....maybe Oreleo and the Phasure DAC.

Science .... you should try it some time .... it's fantastic 

Kidding aside .... I'm now a proponent for room acoustics...

Best,
VJ

[CoenP]

Especially for the American readers among us, I'd take the "you" which Coen presents several times, figurative, and not as addressing VJ directly by it. Maybe it reads the same in English/American as how we Dutch bring such things forward, but it easily is not.

And Coen, if it was your intention to address this to VJ after all, you will speak up, right ?

No, not at all. This is about my opinion on the content of the video and I'd be gladly confronted with insights that dispute it! The "you/your" should be taken as part of the expression, not addressing a specific person or group.
 
I got triggered into reacting to this thread solely because of the video (actually about the half i've seen) VJ shared here. The interpretations presented in this part were in my view at least disputable if not of low relevance. Please note that I have no problems with the scientific approach at all, but i object to the lack of prudence wrt to the interpretation of the results.

Now, I probably missed the more interesting parts lets spend some time on the second half!

regards, Coen

[CoenP]

P.s. The truth might be a bit hard to digest. It is what it is straightly put .... untrained ears variable and biased results. Untrained golden ears .... same. Go thro the golden ear training program from HR or Phillips .... there is some standardization there.

Agree, I would not expect something else. Standardized training of "ears" is a very interesting concept. Is it possible at all?

Good sound (if such a thing exists) is a pretty tough subject to capture scientifically. And if you were able to capture it, what would that mean in an "average" consumer setting where looks, practicality and price are more important? Ironically the very group that chases the same goal are the despised (untrained) audio fanatics. 

Blind testing is in my opinion somewhat handicapped though it may lead to a wonderful result. Ever tried to eat delicious gourmet food blindfolded or nice food that was purposely colored in an unnatural tint? The same food actually tastes different has scientific research shown.

regards, Coen

[PeterSt]

So ... I just learnt that I must listen to Mono for testing because I am used to that as I am listening to a (television) center speaker always anyway ?!?
I don't even have a center speaker.

The end of it unveils all : when it doesn't sound good, it is the recording. But take a nice pair of H-K speakers first.

[vrao]

Fascinating,

Everyone took a different message from this talk...

For me it was the speaker behavior off axis, power response as he called it. This is most critical, as I've experienced with the addition of acoustic treatments. If the reflections do not replicate the original wave (uneven frequency, temporal, power output), will fail authentication ... as the reflections are not confirming the first/original wave from the speaker (this in addition to a whole other parameters).

Speaker testing .... looks like is still a long way off from being standardized.

Best,
VJ

[PeterSt]

Hey VJ,

What I noticed is that this (more and less) off axis response mighty much looks like the F-M curves of the Orelo MKII. Not sure whether it would represent the same, but it may.

Regards,
Peter

[vrao]

Ahaa!!

Yes indeed   

[briefremarks]

VJ,

I have not watched the video, but am somewhat familiar with Toole, and I think Linkwitz more or less follows Toole's design ideas.

What I have understood from Toole/Linkwitz is that they treat reflections as good and necessary BUT only if the reflected sound and direct sound have the same quality, so that as we humans "stream" the two together it creates a realistic auditory scene.

So both Toole/Linkwitz seem to prefer monopole/dipole type configurations with uniform power response (on-axis and off-axis).  This seems very different from designs that stress constant/controlled directivity (like horns), and more direct vs reflected sound.

What you seem to be doing is increasing the direct/reflected ratio, is that correct? Or just minimizing certain problematic reflections?  Wondering if the lack of open space behind you in your room is a unique situation you need to manage.

Also, at least with Linkwitz, there is little discussion of IM distortion (he likes long throw drivers for example), need for high sensitivity, dynamic range needed, and so on.  Not to mention generally ignoring the "front" end!!

[vrao]

Ramesh,

A few steps higher .....

So called uniform response is a unicorn.... in what domain is it? just power ... not enough ...    other variable are indeed required.

I'm putting forward the conclusion ... with what Bert/Peter have achieved .... controlling the reflections will enhance the systems performance well beyond presently possible ... wide/narrow dispersion or otherwise ...... All it requires is to incorporate room treatments 

New acoustic panels and new position of the speakers now have near completely solved room interactions.

If you are visiting LA, round 2 .... 



 

[acg]

Guys, don't be too quick to instantly dismiss Floyd Tooles works.  Without his decades of research and constant access to R&D funds to set up and perform literally thousands of blind tests in pretty much the same controlled environment I think that speaker design would still be in the dark ages...hit and miss. 

As a result of his work we know that controlled directivity and even power response are THE basic things that make or break how a speaker sounds.  His work also tells us what "most" people like to hear, and that is a diffuse sound field (i.e. lots of room reflections) with the reflections being the same frequency spectrum as the direct sound, which is where controlled directivity and power response come in i.e. a speaker sounds exactly the same on and off axis.

Of course one test setup cannot test every variant of speaker design out there, but I really do think that his basic results are indisputable.  It does not mean that he has tested everything that influences sound quality, but he does know the easy way to make a speaker sound "better", and that is the radiation pattern of its sound field.

The Orelo MKII does not have the ideal radiation pattern that Toole promotes because it uses a tractrix horn expansion (not conical or OSWG) but it is a point source and it does control the directivity of the sound above the room frequency.  Funny thing is that most of those that actually "listen" to horns prefer the tractrix expansion to those couple of expansions that are more technically correct.

As for the power response, I have no idea how the Orelo MKII fares, that stuff is difficult to measure so very few actually do it unless you have a facility just for that purpose.

[CoenP]

You can promote a speaker without marginalizing your audience.

In this video the new Beolab 90 fully active speakers technicalities are explained:

https://youtu.be/yC0hjRHCYs0

This speaker is designed in such a way that it is able to manipulate the directivity. The implications of directivity for the perception of location are mentioned as well as the link with the work environment of the sound engineers.

It is a speaker born out of passion for audio and thoroughness. Interesting material and imho relevant results are presented since we all listen to a stereo system and share the objectives.

regards, Coen



 

[vrao]

Beolab

I've had the opportunity to hear these speakers at the pre release party here in Beverly Hills, LA (invite Only  ). I was quite excited about the event, considering it had what I thought ideal parameters for a acoustic transducer. The ability to integrate and manipulate listening window. Granted it was not the most ideal setup. A bit noisy from the busy Rodeo Drive, MP3 only, I did not find it special. Also a sense of DSP failure... too many transducers, the wide dispersion was disappointing (uneven power response)and the narrow mode was decent, but nothing special for the asking price or even less than half of it. The image density was poor. The SNR was as good as a decent car stereo. Again this was with the shortcoming as mentioned.

Did you get to audition it? I would be interested in your experience 

Best,
VJ

*Edit* -  forgot, the above was also confirmed by a second pair of ears1, a friend who I had invited. He's heard my old set up...

[vrao]

You can promote a speaker without marginalizing your audience.

Only thing I'm promoting (if this is directed to me), is room treatments ... can't say it enough.

All it takes is a few diffusers for the first reflection. And bass traps (if needed), and maybe corner traps.

It will enhance "any present PHASURE" system well beyond expected. The SNR is so good that "the room" is the BIG limiting factor. A whole set of distortions that you thought didn't exist will disappear.

I would love for others to try it, if they haven't .....

Simple but "most" essential upgrade!

 
VJ

[CoenP]

You can promote a speaker without marginalizing your audience.

... (if this is directed to me)...

No way!

Please be a room treatment evangelist!

I've my share of room problems too. I've never being able to give left and right completely the same balance and have great stereo at the same time.

The merits of room treatments are well advertised, but you rarely encounter a room that has been "treated" for good audio (save for some voodoo patches or curtains on the wall -no wife!-). I never followed up to my plans to make a diffusor, I guess electronics are much more sexy to me.

In the end the acoustical room correctors make a lot of sense in a stereo setting where we aim for identical response. As I learned from the better part of the video speaker placement has a large influence in the sub 300Hz area. No way that is going to be the same for each speaker in a real untreated room.

regards, Coen

[CoenP]

Beolab

I've had the opportunity to hear these speakers at the pre release party here in Beverly Hills, LA (invite Only  ). I was quite excited about the event, considering it had what I thought ideal parameters for a acoustic transducer. The ability to integrate and manipulate listening window. Granted it was not the most ideal setup. A bit noisy from the busy Rodeo Drive, MP3 only, I did not find it special. Also a sense of DSP failure... too many transducers, the wide dispersion was disappointing (uneven power response)and the narrow mode was decent, but nothing special for the asking price or even less than half of it. The image density was poor. The SNR was as good as a decent car stereo. Again this was with the shortcoming as mentioned.

Did you get to audition it? I would be interested in your experience 

Best,
VJ

*Edit* -  forgot, the above was also confirmed by a second pair of ears1, a friend who I had invited. He's heard my old set up...

I've not yet heard them, only watched the video. There is some Youtube material of audioshow demos that could give a faint impression. I've subscribed to a Beolab90 tour demo maillist because I wanted to hear the merits for myself.

To be frank I'm not that surprised by your findings of the demo, theory is one, execution is two. I became worried at the class-d amplifiers part. They are able to make everything sound like MP3 (maybe that's why they choose to demo with MP3).
And the demo itself? A missed opportunity? Different target audience? No room treatment eh?

Though I have great respect for the research and design effort, this never would be a speaker for me. I'm more of a "less is more" kind of guy. This worked for me all the time.

regards, Coen

[vrao]

You can promote a speaker without marginalizing your audience.

... (if this is directed to me)...

No way!

Please be a room treatment evangelist!

I've my share of room problems too. I've never being able to give left and right completely the same balance and have great stereo at the same time.

The merits of room treatments are well advertised, but you rarely encounter a room that has been "treated" for good audio (save for some voodoo patches or curtains on the wall -no wife!-). I never followed up to my plans to make a diffusor, I guess electronics are much more sexy to me.

In the end the acoustical room correctors make a lot of sense in a stereo setting where we aim for identical response. As I learned from the better part of the video speaker placement has a large influence in the sub 300Hz area. No way that is going to be the same for each speaker in a real untreated room.

regards, Coen

The low end is also what I was aiming for. No way I like room treatments... that's why I restrained from it all these years, trying all kinds of tweaks to avoid them. Yes at present it does look imposing, but luckily its a dedicated room, so not much heat from the wife 

There is really nothing sexy or exciting about room treatments. These huge items are suddenly occupying space in the listening room imposing their presence...

The idea was to tame the bass (which was not too bad + 6-8 dB in the upper bass, otherwise flat to 20 Hz), and the acoustic specialist argued his way into the diffusers, and I obliged. And this is where it gets interesting .... ofcourse bass was increased without smear, but more importantly how things changed with the mids/highs. Diffusers add some critical benefit in the frequency, spectral/power and time domain. Any micro/nano inconsistencies with the mids and the highs which affect image localization, temporal resolution, group distortion, timbre recognition, flutter echoes are reduced to a point below threshold. All of a sudden the system is flying. Bugatti on a race track vs a back country road with potholes....

Therefore the proposal for the new finding is as follows:

" Reflections are fine and dandy for non-critical listening, or systems with lower SNR (I don't know the threshold) ... maybe (-)96 dB. For the extreme detail provided by the Phasure DAC, these reflections actually are very detrimental. Adding acoustic treatments --  for the first reflections will greatly decreased room associated noise, not only bass, but also mids and highs. This also allows for listening at much higher volumes before it gets too loud, or loss of musicality"

Evangelized yet?
 

[vrao]

I had a good friend of mine visit for a listen ....

Few of his comments...

"VJ!!! .... these don't sound like anything before (he's visited me several times before)"

"I don't think I've ever heard sound like this from 180deg or beyond"

"You have achieved the absolute purity of sound"

"I hear no glare whatsoever"

"Vertical soundstage ... that's a fist time ... nice"

"No listening fatigue"


So well confirmed....

Next level up without question is acoustic tuning the room. Plan it with the B'ASS 

Hope it helps some ...

VJ

[vrao]

 Another year has passed so quickly   

 I am for the last year/s truly enjoying the Oreleo/phasure experience.

 I have had Grammy winning artists,  Recording engineers/ultra high-end speaker manufacturers, John Doe speaker manufacturers, novices all visit .... with great feedback 

 Although difficult to describe I would put the musical presentation as acoustic virtual reality, the equivalent of visual virtual reality ...

 A picture speaks 1000 words, most speak about the walls disappearing, haven't heard anyone describe the floor and the ceilings are disappearing or something like this  ....

[PeterSt]

haven't heard anyone describe the floor and the ceilings are disappearing or something like this  ....

VJ, big grin here. Put very very nicely.

Proost !
Peter

[vrao]

Thanks to You and the gang, I've discovered/enjoyed more music in the last year, than years before combined.

[vrao]

Happy New Year to one and all

Still enjoying the Oreleos.

Just added the eDelta power bank and running the “entire” setup off the grid B-).

Overall increased energy which is relatively stable across the audioband. So soundstage is more forward and everything louder for the same volume. The imaging is not as wide as before which I suspect is related to increased reflections.

Nonetheless totally enjoyable.

Cheers!

VJ

[vrao]

Following up on the eDelta power bank.

I have the "entire" system  running off the grid    for the few weeks.

Minor hum from the speakers have drastically reduced. Right now there's only minimal fan noise from the XX music server at baseline.

It's s quite incredible that I'm able to run these massive speakers/amplifiers, the music server, and the DAC with the power bank.  Pure battery provides about 5 to 6 hours off music. However right now it is connected in the UPS mode so once in a while the battery automatically recharges.  Although this might be bothersome occasionally during the quieter part of the music passages (fan noise), it is inaudible during playback otherwise.

One thing for sure, the signal to noise ratio has significantly improved. 

[PeterSt]

Ehh ... wow ?

VJ, I hope you realize that you're working with the first XXHighEnd PC "with fan noise". The Mach II (no fans at all) and Mach III are completely silent.
Besides that, you don't want to know the improvement just because of the PC alone. It is more important than a DAC these days. I am serious ...

Best regards,
Peter

[vrao]

Hi Peter,

The battery itself has fans and that's loud when it's charging.

The PC fan noise is only barely audible at baseline. I can see at times the PC activates the battery into recharging .... making me think power surge ...

There are pending upgrades ... I know ... in due course.