I've followed the discussion in this thread and tried to stay out of it, but I can't hold it back any longer. 😉
The Reference MM de Capo loudspeaker is simply one of the worst sounding so called high-end stand-mount loudspeakers I've ever listened to.
When I first listened to them at a Hifi show I actually thought they were broken or something. They just sounded nasal in the mid-range, edgy, colored and with poor imaging and grainy resolution in the highs.
Out of curiosity I did some researched on the net when I came back fron the Hifi show to check if i could find any measurements made on them.
Here are some measurements:
Reference MM de Capo i loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
SoundStageNetwork.com | SoundStage.com | NRC Measurements: Reference 3A MM de Capo BE
The ironic thing is if the the designer actually made a proper cross-over for this loudspeaker it would most likely sound good, but I think they just have made a gimmick of not using a cross-over for the mid-woofer and it just make no sense for such an expensive loudspeaker not to invest a few dollars in cross-over parts for the mid-woofer section of the cross-over.
No offense, but If you say you love this loudspeaker it's ok, but it says more about your listening preferences than anything else.
I agree to most of the things 5th element has said in this thread.
Regards
/Göran
There doesn't seem to be much signal here which is a pity.
Audio Note are a very "audiophile" product and for those with an interest in high fidelity/neutral/accurate or whatever you want to call it sound they will likely illicit a wry smile before moving on. Like the single driver speakers we discussed earlier, there is no need to say anything bad about them because they simply are not products intended for those with an interest in high fidelity sound.
the fact that you didnt like the de capo says more about your taste then anything else also.
Let us say that we agree to disagree! 🙂
It's a poor design which has potential of sounding a lot better with some modification.
Apparently the "Reference 3A" company is a lot better in marketing than loudspeaker design, but it appears that they fill a segment in the market and I'm happy that they can make a business of it.
Peace!
/Göran
Absolutely.
Partially yes. The rule of thumb is that 2 drivers should be spaced within 1/2 the wavelength of their xo frequency. In reality, this often gets stretched to 1 wavelength. The Finalist's low xo point is at 320Hz, which has a 1/2 wavelength of about 21" so you have lots of room to play with there but I would still suggest trying to keep them reasonably close together. So yes you can move them further apart.
However, putting an inch or 2 of space in between the 2 cabs will also change the baffle diffraction in a potentially negative way for this design. The 1st chart below shows the change in baffle diffraction between the original cab (grey) and a new one about 12" high (blue) and the 2nd is the Finalists' FR. Notice how the changes are going to further accentuate the Finalists' peak that already exists at about 1200Hz and then going to also reduce the response further just below the peak. That's probably not going to work well. But separate cabs without much space between them should be fine.
For context, the higher xo point is at about 2300Hz which has a 1/2 wavelength just under 3". Notice that the tweeter/mid spacing is actually closer to 6", so the 1 wavelength distance in this case.
Yes, but the open back mid tube length and diameter need to remain the same. So that means on the mid cabinet, the depth has to stay the same and the curve of the panels can't be so extreme as to result in a back panel width that is less than the tube diameter which is 6". You also do not want the maximum width between the 2 curved side panels to be about 10% larger than the existing cabinet width.
Around the woofer won't matter very much at all but around the mid and the tweeter you are best off asking the designer personally. What I'm seeing is that large edge treatment is actually reducing that 1200Hz peaking on the mid so that would be a good thing but I haven't looked to see how that would affect the tweeter response.
You said you wanted to work with some software so if you want to see for yourself what some of these changes will do try the following:
If you have Excel: Baffle Diffraction Simulator
Or if you don't: The Edge
Or try both, each one does something that the other can't do.
Attachments
I could always recommend people to buy a Porsche,
although I have never driven one and probably never will.
Regarding this product :
Audio Note AN-E Lexus Signature loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com
I would not say the measurements are bad. It's just not worth spending 12k$/pair.
More like 700 $. IMO
Take it easy, youknowyou.
Yet they do sound good to youknowyou although not to gornir. And I think Fatmarley is telling us Audio Notes sound better to him than his boring sounding Dynaudio Contours. I see no reason to disbelieve them.
Do high fidelity/neutral/accurate speakers sound good? I think the answer to that is probably not really. Perhaps they tend to sound normal or ordinary or possibly even a bit boring. Though I must confess that percussion sounding like percussion does sound good to me. And trumpets having that...
Most speakers I hear with complex crossovers sound less dynamic than those with fewer components. Maybe we are hearing more crossover less driver when a complex crossover is present so while these speakers measure well, their sound might not equal their measurements.
Polycones have their limitations too (just like metal cones). Given that I am quite fond of the SEAS Excel cones and prefer their dynamics to the ScanSpeak Illuminator cones.
System7, have you heard a ring radiator? I would hear a commercial speaker with one before investing in one. I did not care for it, but that is MY preference, yours might be different.
Karl, there are many good designs out there. As a first build I would select one that is easy on the carpentry and easy on the crossover. Don't let these guys scare you. 😉
You could even extrapolate the 8+1 into a 2 x 8 + 5 + 1 design (of course the crossover and box would have to change).
A few decades ago I built a 8" 2 way MTM using the Focal 8N515 and Morel MDT33. Later I used the same drivers to build a Watt-Puppy lookalike using the Focal 8N515 and Morel MDT33 with a Audax HM170Z0 in the middle.
I agree. Guys remember this is Karl's thread. Not a place to vent our personal preferences in.
Last edited:
When people say something sounds boring, I do not give it much
thought. It says nothing about speakers performance.
I know some people are having lots of fun driving oldtimers and they
really appreciate the fact that anytime and anywhere on the road they
might end up making an unplanned stop for necessary repairs. For them
it would be no fun to cruise in a brand new modern vehicle.
thought. It says nothing about speakers performance.
I know some people are having lots of fun driving oldtimers and they
really appreciate the fact that anytime and anywhere on the road they
might end up making an unplanned stop for necessary repairs. For them
it would be no fun to cruise in a brand new modern vehicle.
Youknowyou the Reference 3A deCapo measures terribly. This is a fact. That it is a generally well regarded speaker is among the many mysteries of speaker design. I like it too. It must be our hearing is flawed. I know I have preferences for really forward midrange. You must too. But it still measures crap with a huge peak at 800 or so Hz that most competent designers would filter out with a notch filter. And a first order alone on the tweeter? This is like the very first DIY speaker design I did as a teenager. Shameful for the price you pay for a commercial speaker. This is an industry more dishonest or at least more flaky than even the natural supplements industry.
But Karl a kit is the way to go. Years of swapping out coils and capacitors has still not given me the perfect sound I'm after. You will not be happy with a DIY speaker of your own design. Troells Graveson designs or Zaph designs are the way to go. And there is nothing wrong with a sub hidden away from view. A small 2-way is all I can get away with aesthetically in my home.
But Karl a kit is the way to go. Years of swapping out coils and capacitors has still not given me the perfect sound I'm after. You will not be happy with a DIY speaker of your own design. Troells Graveson designs or Zaph designs are the way to go. And there is nothing wrong with a sub hidden away from view. A small 2-way is all I can get away with aesthetically in my home.
Last edited:
Also there was some mention earlier of PMC 24s. What is it with these PMC's? They have a lightness and open transparency about them which is fantastic but zero body to the sound (no frgging bass) and they are way overpriced.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.