sfdoddsy

That's the cool thing about dynamic dipoles. They have the same radiation pattern as big panel speakers like electrostats and ribbons, but with the dynamics of normal speakers. My previous speakers were Martin-Logans CLS and then Wilson Watt/Puppies. Dynamic dipoles like the Orions combine the best of both. It's just a shame that there is really only one commercially available model (Jamo 909) and semi-commercial like the Orions and Emerald Physics.

Here's a couple of not very good pics of the perspex speakers with cables attached.

Depending on the amp, either one would work. You just need a splitter to the power amp channels for the former.

You only need six channels unless you want to integrate stereo subs. You can simply plit split the bass output if you use an 8 channel amp. Even easier is to use an amp that parallels the output for you, as my QSC does. I have a mono sub kicking in at 40Hz and use the subout in my prepro for that. I'll try and take shot of Bobette with wires.

Ah. I'd forgotten about the recent price hike. The good news is that the Orions are gaining traction as shown by the positive reviews on the site I linked to. The bad news is that audiophiles who previously dismissed them as being too cheap or 'DIY' are for some reason much more interested now that they have doubled in price. In spite of Seigfried Linkwitz's skepticism about amps, cables etc, he has found that unless he offers them with audiophile approved ancillaries they won't be taken seriously. Having said that, the best news is that if you put in a bit of effort you can get them for under $5K. The woodwork is easy. Especially when you get someone else to do it. I have zero woodworking skills and even less desire to develop them. I found a local kitchen cabinet maker with a CNC machine, gave him the files and had him cut everything. My speakers are a tad different from true Orions so I gave him a custom design, but if you go stock the plans come with CNC cutting instructions. Bolting them together is easy. The only tricky part is the finish. Mine are done with with crappy truck liner and I keep meaning to redo the panels to something sexier but have never got round to to it. I didn't feel confident about building the crossover, and still don't now. You can have one built for you, but I went with a digital crossover. There is much debate about the merits of this amongst Orion cognoscenti, but the huge advantage (aside from avoiding solder burns) is that you can easily change the settings. Since I first built mine, the Orions have gone through eight or so tweaks, each of which requires changing components in the crossover. To me this is the design's only real weakness. A multi-channel DAC and software crossover is very feasible. I've thought about doing it myself, but I have other sources and have had no sonic issues with the Behringer DCX2496 I use. I just wish it wasn't as flaky. I've used quite a few amps over years. I'm no longer a massive believer in amp differences compared to speaker differences so now I use an 8 channel QSC pro amp. It is easier to integrate to the Behringer crossover's XLR outputs and it is handy to have pro features like attenuators. But (IMHO) any decent 6-8 channel amp or combination of amps will be fine. Just make sure they have the same gain or the ability to adjust gain. As for the bedroom speakers, once again I took the easy way out and had the baffles made for me. I found a place that makes perspex signs around the corner from me and gave them the plans. The cost was about $150. As you've noted I have a modernist house with Starck stuff and this was the best way to get great sounding speakers that looked cool. You will have seen from my site that I had some pretty good speakers over the years, and changed them often. It's getting close to ten years now that I have owned my version of the Orions and nothing I've heard makes me itchy. The cost was $150 for the plans, $2K or so for the drivers, less than $500 for the panels, $250 for the crossover, and $600 for the amp (used). If I can build them, you can.

I'd suggest a pair of Linkwitz Orions. You can build them yourself (it is easy) or have them made for you. http://www.theorionspeakers.com/

I used to have a set. To be honest, I wasn't that impressed although I was using them as farfield bedroom speakers rather than nearfield office ones. I ended up selling them and building my own.

I have my speakers on castors, which is supposed to be a no no. However, they certainly vibrate my suspended wooden floor much less, and the ease of being able to pull them in and out of the room for serious listening is a godsend.

Yes, but I was testing loading times on my Macbook Air. BTW, I've tested the NAS using Windows and had the same result.

Yep. I don't have an issue with network speed as things are fine using Home Sharing. It's the time it takes the NAS to load up the library.

I have a 2011 Mac Mini I use as a dedicated music server and (a few Lion issues aside), it works very well. I back it up via cloning to an external firewire drive, and via Timemachine to an external USB drive, plus every week or so I take the firewire drive to work and back that up to my computer there. However, being the paranoid type I've also been playing with a couple of low end NAS drives. The intention is to back up the music files to it as well, and if necessary use its iTunes Server functionality via iTunes Sharing if for whatever reason the Mini is down. The two I have tried are the Synology USB Station 2, and the WD My Book World Edition (White Light). They were connected via the latest Airport Extreme and Wifi. I realise these aren't the most powerful NAS machines out there, but both have been incredibly slow to load the library in iTunes and I am wondering if this is typical of all NAS drives. After clicking on them via iTunes Sharing from my 2011 Macbook Air, it takes about five minutes for the library to load. In contrast, my main library on the Mini loads in about ten seconds via Home Sharing. Once the iTunes Server library from the NAS loads, it plays just fine without dropouts, so it would seem the issue is with loading or creating the initial playlist. The libraries are quite large, with 30,000 or so tracks in a mix of ALAC, AAC and MP3. So, is this typical? I'm not going to use the functionality all that often, but if it takes five minutes plus I'll use it even less.

Depending on how much you are planning on spending, I'd say your speakers are the weak link. I'd certainly upgrade them before looking at your amp/DAC.

I sent a DTS CD stream. If it is not bit-perfect it will not decode properly.

Yes it does.

The original rule about small speakers for a small room was because of bass modes. The smaller the room, the higher and trickier these modes. So the convention was to use speakers with such anaemic bass that they didn't excite the modes. This theory is somewhat less popular due to the advent of sub/sat systems and room EQ. If you can EQ your bass, you can use any size speaker. Maggies, however, are IMHO easier to place. As dipoles, they radiate less from the sides than normal speakers. So they can be placed closer to side walls. Contrary to popular belief, this does not mean that they should be placed further from a rear wall than regular speakers. All speakers should be 3-4 from the back unless designed otherwise. As to your specific question about the MG12 versus the 1.7, the 1.7 should be better in all areas. I would be amazed if the MG12 sounded better in any size room, let alone yours. Whatever position sounds best with the MG12s should be fine for the 1.7s. As mentioned above, dipoles are more room friendly than other types of speakers in the bass, and room-wise that is the biggest difference between the two. This is also why the propagation rate mentioned above does not apply. Regular speakers have multiple drivers. Each driver is a point source of sound, and you can get comb filtering and other nasties from a badly designed one. Although that's very rare these days. Maggies, however, do not have separate vertical drive units. They have one tall driver, with an equally tall ribbon. So they act as line sources and are inherently coherent. This means they can, and perhaps should be, listened to closer than some other types. The only real no-no is to have your ears too high. If they are not below the top of the speaker you'll lose your treble. I've owned numerous dipole speakers in all sorts of rooms. All have been easier to place than their monopole brethren. All have sounded better too. http://doddsy.net/steve6_009.htm