Why wasn't Stig Carlsson's ortho-acoustical approach more widely accepted at the time both concerning commercial products and diy projects ?
Are there a large amount of disadvantages and only a small amount of benefits ?
Some URL's concerning this approach:
https://www.carlssonplanet.com/en/speakers/produced/carlsson-oa-58/
https://www.carlssonplanet.com/en/everything-about-the-carlsson-loudspeakers/
https://www.lbtechreviews.com/news/speakers/stig-carlsson-and-the-listening-room
https://teenage.engineering/products/od-11/carlssonstory
https://minimalissimo.com/moods/sounds-of-stig-carlsson
https://www.stereophile.com/content/larsen-hifi-8-loudspeaker
https://www.stereophile.com/content/larsen-hifi-8-loudspeaker-measurements
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/larsen-speakers-clone.322270/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/carlsson-speaker-sonab-oa14.23681/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...roject-on-ortho-acoustic-design-ideas.231571/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...simple-two-way-unity-corner-waveguide.315446/
https://www.larsen-speakers.de/technologie/
diy-project: posting from 2016-01-23, 17:46:
https://www.faktiskt.io/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=62606&start=240
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...s-of-floor-coupled-up-firing-speakers.121385/
Thanks for comments.
Are there a large amount of disadvantages and only a small amount of benefits ?
Some URL's concerning this approach:
https://www.carlssonplanet.com/en/speakers/produced/carlsson-oa-58/
https://www.carlssonplanet.com/en/everything-about-the-carlsson-loudspeakers/
https://www.lbtechreviews.com/news/speakers/stig-carlsson-and-the-listening-room
https://teenage.engineering/products/od-11/carlssonstory
https://minimalissimo.com/moods/sounds-of-stig-carlsson
https://www.stereophile.com/content/larsen-hifi-8-loudspeaker
https://www.stereophile.com/content/larsen-hifi-8-loudspeaker-measurements
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/larsen-speakers-clone.322270/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/carlsson-speaker-sonab-oa14.23681/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...roject-on-ortho-acoustic-design-ideas.231571/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...simple-two-way-unity-corner-waveguide.315446/
https://www.larsen-speakers.de/technologie/
diy-project: posting from 2016-01-23, 17:46:
https://www.faktiskt.io/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=62606&start=240
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...s-of-floor-coupled-up-firing-speakers.121385/
Thanks for comments.
Attachments
They where the most sold speaker (at the time) in sweden and as such a great success - everybody had them - like a folks-speaker. Now approaching cult status in the more geeky legions. Larsen is present on shows. What the ortho-acoustic concept really is isn't neccesarily easy to grasp and under more or less constant debate. Some regard themselves to have interpretations rights. Stig is dead since a number of years. I think he struggled during more or less his commercial career being manhandled by investors and producers.... He slept during day-time as he performed measurements at night - any visit started at earliest 10 in the evening... 🙂
RIP Mr Carlsson!
//
RIP Mr Carlsson!
//
It was reasonably widely accepted at the time in the sense Sonab speakers were common in hi-fi shops when I was young (in the UK not Sweden) as was Bose 901 and a handful of other speakers with strong off-axis radiation. Good examples of such speakers create an enhanced sense of spaciousness compared to speakers with a conventional radiation pattern but at the price of imaging and tonal balance. It might be preferable when casually listening or, possibly, for those that strongly weight spaciousness over other attributes but I would not expect this to be many people. Mind you large numbers of people seem to like stereo on headphones so what do I know?
It's much more behind his philosophy during the late years of his than meets the eye. And as you can see from tiefbass pic, waveguides were coming up. But the market was not ripe at the time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just marketing jargon.
Different speakers are designed to be used in different ways/rooms.
Some in the corners, some on a wall, some out in the room, etc.
Different speakers are designed to be used in different ways/rooms.
Some in the corners, some on a wall, some out in the room, etc.
The big thing that differs is that Carlsson actually released quite alot of technical information, some even in english:
You might have to cut and paste because faktiskt.io will deny linking from other audio sites.
https://user.faktiskt.io/schmutziger/OA51 FAQ/pdf/oa-51 speaker and listening room.pdf
https://user.faktiskt.io/schmutziger/OA51 FAQ/pdf/carlsson_ortho_design_principles.pdf
Please remember that these documents were written in ~1984
a faq about OA51: https://www.faktiskt.io/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=20120
For LTAS measurements of most Carlsson models, go to www.carlssonkult.se, click "modellerna"
The OA-5 & OA-6 was constructed as mono speakers, OA-12,OA-14, 116, 2212 were inbetween and the OA50, 51 & 52 were stereo speakers with more on axis sound than the previous ones.
I like them because of extreme price/performance ratio and aestethics esp. of OA51 and OA52
You might have to cut and paste because faktiskt.io will deny linking from other audio sites.
https://user.faktiskt.io/schmutziger/OA51 FAQ/pdf/oa-51 speaker and listening room.pdf
https://user.faktiskt.io/schmutziger/OA51 FAQ/pdf/carlsson_ortho_design_principles.pdf
Please remember that these documents were written in ~1984
a faq about OA51: https://www.faktiskt.io/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=20120
For LTAS measurements of most Carlsson models, go to www.carlssonkult.se, click "modellerna"
The OA-5 & OA-6 was constructed as mono speakers, OA-12,OA-14, 116, 2212 were inbetween and the OA50, 51 & 52 were stereo speakers with more on axis sound than the previous ones.
I like them because of extreme price/performance ratio and aestethics esp. of OA51 and OA52
Last edited by a moderator:
As someone interested in putting together a secondary system with a spacious sound of the kind I used to hear with Sonab speakers in the 70s but hopefully without the overly strong top end I have looked for that philosophy but without much success. Lots of waffle and marketing but little acoustics in a form I would recognise. Any pointers gratefully received. I have been disappointed listening to Larsen speakers at an audio show although the very large room they were in seemed to me to be the opposite of what would be required to create a spacious sound.
Thanks for this URL's - this speaker under
https://web.archive.org/web/20150428090819/http://www.carlssonplanet.com/oa5ii.php
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/sonab.htm
are of interest for a friend, who planning an autark audio chain only for MONO
I have owned several older Sonab models and still use OA-12 in my "lab". Fitted with modern replacement tweeters it sounds great and much bigger than it looks and it also works reasonably well with tube amps. But it is not suited for large rooms.
Swedes like their Sonabs. We Finns like Genelecs and Gradients 🙂
Swedes like their Sonabs. We Finns like Genelecs and Gradients 🙂
PS (the forum software won't let me append to my post) Following some of the links in schmutziger's post I have found a bit more technical information. Many thanks. Not enough (for me) to form a fully coherent "OA" theory but more of an idea with gaps. Remain to be convinced about the radiation pattern but that could be addressed by some room simulations. Good to see some measurements lining up with my recollection of sounds from the 70s (I am old enough to no longer fully trust my memory!).
Is directing a large proportion of midrange sound towards the ceiling beneficial? Or is it more a case of accepting some negatives to gain some positives?
Is directing a large proportion of midrange sound towards the ceiling beneficial? Or is it more a case of accepting some negatives to gain some positives?
Attached, for this who may not be familiar, is a condensed paper on the basics of Stig’s loudspeaker design principles.
Plus, a link to Larsen loudspeakers, which are currently in production implementations of Stig's design principles.
Larsen Loudspeakers.
Top of the line Larsen 9
Plus, a link to Larsen loudspeakers, which are currently in production implementations of Stig's design principles.
Larsen Loudspeakers.
Top of the line Larsen 9
Last edited:
For pure aestethics i strongly urge you to force your friend to build something inspired by "Kolboxen" instead 🙂
https://www.bukowskis.com/sv/lots/1379439-stig-carlsson-kolboxen-hogtalare-ett-par-1959-62
Oa-12 is a gem!
Do you use the satori woofer and T22 tweeters?
http://www.carlssonkult.se/satori.aspx
As long as the speakers are scandinavian, they are of course excellent speakers 🙂
Not me...well, my first pair of speakers were Allison Four, bought used in 1986. Very similar concept...Mr Allison wrote something about it 😒
The upfiring woofer and the two tweeters...what a strange beast; I enjoyed them a lot for three years, then bought Infinity RS 4001 and after...end of game! Which was the start of another game...still playing! ( well, no, almost finished...🤔)
But, speakers pointing in different directions other than where the listener is located, makes me think about how the content of the disc must be projected ( sprayed ) in the room: if the caption is taken ...hmmmm...orthogonally, it's got to be repeated the same way.
Play-Replay...
The closest way of simplicity in reproducing a lifelike stereo image in a room is with well designed 2 way speakers ie. LS3/5 BBC style monitors. They still are a very good design by today's standards, especially with all the newer refinements in drivers and crossover design.
I'll say this again until I'm in my grave - rear firing tweeters create a fake illusion of spaciousness and exaggerated image. The bose concept is just a gimmick and it always will be. Using multiple tweeters only works if they're arrayed properly. A dipole system with front and rear tweeters needs to have both like drivers emminatiing sound from the same point source on both sides in order to mimick an omni sound source with correct timing of the HF wavefront. Ideally it should be 2 fullrange drivers radiating in phase from the same point.
People in favor of rear radiating HF drivers tend to argue that a recorded instrument radiates sound in all directions. While that is true in theory, the actual radiated sound has different frequency and loudness balance at varying angles all around the instrument(s) not the identical sound at every angle as heard from the front of the instrument. This means you can't accurately reproduce the instruments in a live performance in the original acoustical space by simply replicating the front radiated playback signal with a rear firing driver. Depending on which micing technique is used to capture the performance, the acoustical space and its signature is already accounted for and included in the recording. Throwing the sound in various directions in a new acoustical listening space isn't going to faithfully recreate the original performance. Theres no such thing as a perfect reproduction of a live performance, but the closest you'll get is with a decent pair of traditional midfield monitors sitting in the sweet spot of the stereo triangle.
I'll say this again until I'm in my grave - rear firing tweeters create a fake illusion of spaciousness and exaggerated image. The bose concept is just a gimmick and it always will be. Using multiple tweeters only works if they're arrayed properly. A dipole system with front and rear tweeters needs to have both like drivers emminatiing sound from the same point source on both sides in order to mimick an omni sound source with correct timing of the HF wavefront. Ideally it should be 2 fullrange drivers radiating in phase from the same point.
People in favor of rear radiating HF drivers tend to argue that a recorded instrument radiates sound in all directions. While that is true in theory, the actual radiated sound has different frequency and loudness balance at varying angles all around the instrument(s) not the identical sound at every angle as heard from the front of the instrument. This means you can't accurately reproduce the instruments in a live performance in the original acoustical space by simply replicating the front radiated playback signal with a rear firing driver. Depending on which micing technique is used to capture the performance, the acoustical space and its signature is already accounted for and included in the recording. Throwing the sound in various directions in a new acoustical listening space isn't going to faithfully recreate the original performance. Theres no such thing as a perfect reproduction of a live performance, but the closest you'll get is with a decent pair of traditional midfield monitors sitting in the sweet spot of the stereo triangle.
OTOH ALL stereo is fake and it's just lucky our brains can work things out. If someone likes spaciousness above everything else then why not? (talking home entertainment here, not monitoring duties)