I’m a fan of speaker design guru Andrew Jones who makes great sounding speakers at their price point. His new MoFi SourcePoint 10 garnered many very favorable reviews that I’ll likely get a pair even though I don’t have the need. He reportedly sold 80 pairs at the the recent CAF
Coaxials - Reality vs. Experience?
Should say "hype vs. reality" in the headline.
Coaxial speaker design has been around in one way or another for a long time. I often think I’ll be absolutely blown away by them, but in practice traditional vertical layout speakers often have sound as good, or have other features that make them sound better.
Thiel, KEF, Monitor Audio, Tekton, Seas are among the many players attempting such designs, but none has, by the coaxial drivers alone, dominated a segment of the market.
What are your listening experiences? Is it 1 coaxial speaker that won you over, or have you always preferred them?
97 responses Add your response
Some of the most successful implementations of a point source I've heard (which is what coaxial comes down to, being a point source - certainly over a relatively wide frequency span, if not most of it) is the Synergy horn by Tom Danley and TAD's CR1, but I'm also quite fond of the WLM Diva's (10" Eminence coaxial). I've found the Tannoy Dual Concentric iterations a bit too "flavored" or heavy/dark sounding to my ears, albeit with a very easy-going presentation and distinct sense of a coherent "radiation bubble" in front of me - a vital trait to aspire to. What I'd consider the most here is a Synergy horn, but even being large I find they tend to lack a wee bit of upper bass energy that can be more successfully achieved from a dedicated midbass horn. So, instead of going with a 2 or 3-way Synergy horn crossing over to a midbass horn at 3-400Hz and then subs ditto further low I'd rather skip the Synergy horn altogether and go with a larger format MF/HF single-driver horn that takes over from the midbass horn on up. Being careful with timing/delay and maintaining uniform dispersion patterns at the cross-over frequencies a very coherent radiation sphere-of-sound can be achieved, while having more dedicated driver/horn sections to their respective areas. More of a hassle for sure, but to me at least ultimately more rewarding. |
Sure just get a cardboard box and throw a few drivers in there, place them wherever really, what does any of that matter? 😂 |
@prof Prof 100% it is impossible to hear difference between tweeter location in the center of main driver or couple inches from . This is placebo efffect or good marketing point.LOl, Is it also applicable only to 2 way speakers , but a lot audiophile disagree, Keep Enjoy |
I've owned coax speakers (Thiel) and listened to a number of others - e.g KEF, Tannoy, more recently the SourcePoint 10s. I have not found any particular advantage just due to a speaker using a coax design. I don't for instance find the KEF, Tannoys or SP10s "extra coherent" or casting a soundstage unlike I can find elsewhere. In fact I've found a number of speakers, even the old Shun Mook Bella Voce (Shun Mook!!!) speakers to strike me as more coherent than for instance the Tannoys or SP10s or even the KEFs.
That said...I have found the two most recent Thiel speakers I've owned - Jim's last flagship 3.7 and also the 2.7s - to be just about the most coherent multi-driver speakers I've ever heard. Especially the 3.7. I had the Thiel CS6 at my place years ago which had their then-new coax midrange/tweeter. That speaker sounded very coherent with the exception of a slight change in character with listener position, especially vertically a bit as I remember. I think some form of interference was producing a slight "hollow" sound from certain positions. It seems that Thiel finally nailed the coax design with his last version - the tweeter set in the "flat" (corrugated) midrange driver. That speaker's midrange and treble (and bass) was just totally coherent in my home. Same with the 2.7. I can not for the life of me "hear out" the difference in drivers, any transition, cancellation or anything. And it maintains it's character over a very wide area. The sound is very consistent even when I stand up and walk around the room. The other thing with the Thiels is the insane imaging prowess. There is a focus and precision and density to the imaging I have rarely heard before. Even my Joseph Speakers, renowned for imaging, sound slightly diffuse and less tight when directly compared with the Thiels. So ultimately I have no idea how much of this to attribute to the fact it's a coax driver for the mids/highs, or to the first order/phase coherent design, or to any number of other design choices in the Thiels.
|
As far as Tannoy tulip vs. pepperpot waveguide: pepperpot (usually paired with a single alnico magnet which is VERY expensive) is capable of a more vibrant, lifelike and gorgeous midrange with very fast transients and "startle" factor, but on the flipside its top end can get a bit rough and requires careful system matching to keep this in check!
Agreed. The occasionally sharp treble sting of my Tannoy Berkeley’s was reduced by 2 things. The first was the use of isolation under the 4 feet, especially the front pair which carried most of the speaker’s considerable weight. And secondly by gently loosening the 4 drive unit bolts to hand tightness. Otherwise, I don’t know if even all of their alnico midrange glory would have been enough for me to stay with them for so long. |
Definitely, nobody is claiming coax or DC to be a perfect scheme, and in particular Tannoys do not look good in measurements. Fortunately I enjoy music, not measurements! The Tannoys with a 15" DC (like my Canterbury) are probably pushing that woofer a bit far, asking it to do 1,100 Hz at crossover. They are technically "beaming" at that point but the dispersion of the horn tweeter helps cover for it, somewhat. Within Tannoy fandom you’ll find fans specifically of certain driver sizes, or of the tulip vs. pepperpot wave guides. I love both the 10" and 15", and both in tulip and pepperpot, but they certainly do different things. For some reason I haven’t been enamored by a 12" DC yet; you’d think that would be the good compromise. As far as Tannoy tulip vs. pepperpot waveguide: pepperpot (usually paired with a single alnico magnet which is VERY expensive) is capable of a more vibrant, lifelike and gorgeous midrange with very fast transients and "startle" factor, but on the flipside its top end can get a bit rough and requires careful system matching to keep this in check! Tulip (dual barium ferrite magnets - this makes the drivers MUCH cheaper) is more even keeled and a great all-around performer, but can’t quite get the midrange exactly as lovely as a good pepperpot. |
Hard to beat the imaging of some of the KEFs and Tannoys IME. Otherwise there is nothing particularly remarkable about the scheme. I owned the previous Spatial Audio M series which consisted of Eminence woofer with a coaxially mounted compression driver at its center. The imaging was not nearly as good as I expected from such a design but I chalk that up to the size of the woofer. |
@johnah5 and @nationalbar, it was interesting to see your comments on the Hsu speakers. In my elder years I'm looking at simplifying and downsizing my system and the CCB-8 is on my list. A few years ago Dr. Hsu gave a demo to our audio group with an earlier model of smaller stand mounts with a single sub. He made a point of using a very modest system including a low-powered AV receiver, inexpensive CD player, and literally zip cord. That offered amazing sonics and musical satisfaction for such a modest system. It left me wondering how good it might have sounded with better components? Then a couple of weeks ago I saw the video you posted. I've been to his house and while I didn't hear his Hsu system, I can appreciate the particular care he exercises in component selection, BTW, his comments on Hsu begin about 10:35 for those not wanting to search through the whole video. But I've not heard the CCB-8 yet myself so both of your comments are appreciated. |
I was really thinking about my Dad's coax driver from the mid sixties 😁....I'm not knocking coaxial drivers, I just said they aren't the ONLY way to go, or at least that was what I was suggesting. I do have a pair of KEF LS-50s in my garage, so there is that.... |
Running altec 604-8G coaxials in 9 cu ft cabinets with phase aligned crossovers. Really lovely to listen to, and have heard nothing comparable. Best to give a listen to a good coaxial implementation and make up your own mind. Different people have different ears, different perspectives, and different objectives. |
I own some older small KEFs I use as nearfield studio monitors (and have owned some nice largeer KEFs) and they sound great. Also, I don’t think anybody should equate a single driver/whizzer cone with a true coax. I used old Altec coax stuff years ago in studios and they were superb, heard Tannoys sound great, and although I haven’t heard the new Andrew Jones MoFi speakers they’re certainly getting great reviews, and his explanation of the design is interesting. 10" speaker moves very little providing some serious loading to the tweeter. |
@tomcy6 For me: Coherent, natural sound with solid & sharp imaging, because the tweeter and mid/woofer covering the critical midrange crossover point act more like a single point source rather than a tweeter and woofer barking at you from different locations.
Yes, coherent is the word. I'd say it's a little bit like listening to a mono sound source like a single driver kitchen radio. It's a less busy sound, more laid-back and one that's easier to follow, but one that still strangely seems to have plenty of detail. As you said earlier, "Tannoys are not for everyone - you either "get them" or you don’t."
|
Thank you. It's eye opening how good and how not good equipment can sound depending on the synergy of all the components. The guy who sold these to me didn't know they were a coax driver! As I think I said they don't sound good on my DK Design amp with tube preamp in it. They sound crazy good on the other system. This has been the best $300 lesson I ever learned! jh |
Really big improvement, openness, refinement, clarity, tonal specificity. As I said the inside panels got covered in No-Rez. Removed the binding posts and filled the holes with small rubber grommets and ran the wires through to the crossovers. Placement is six feet out from the front wall, about 22 inches from the side walls, and sharp toe-in, so they cross a couple of feet in front of listening position. So, around 15 degrees off-axis. |
We built our own using same values as the stock x-over, but way-upgraded parts quality- Goertz inductors, V-cap ODAMs and Miflex caps, Path audio resistors, we went nuts- would not fit inside the speaker so we mounted it in outboard box. Also lined the inside panels with "No-Rez". Driver is hard-wired to the x-over. It's amazing, a real diamond in the rough! |
@johnah5 Funny that you should mention the Hsu coax speaker, the CCB-8. I modified mine with an upgraded, external crossover, better wiring, internal panel damping, and high passed at 80hz, then going to a Audiokinesis subwoofer swarm. Amps are VTV Purifi mono blocks, Benchmark LA4. Remarkable! Serious definition, clarity, soundstage/imaging, dynamics. Here's a wealthy audiophile with a million dollar system that uses his Hsu CCB-8's to blow people away-
|
@boostedis How can that be the "real purpose" of a coaxial when you can more easily put a separate tweeter behind a wave guide - no complex coaxial required? The real purpose of a coaxial seems to be the advantages (whatever those are) granted by the spatial co-location of the main tweeter and mid-woofer. In Tannoys featuring a single dual-concentric driver, this better estimates a coherent "single point source" driver, but with more extended FR compared to single-cone drivers or the complications of huge electrostat panels.
@ronboco Unfortunately, I have not, yet - but they look amazing! I’ve always admired pics of their builds. @russ69 Did you really start this thread with a "times moved on" argument against coaxials and then admitted to using Ohm Walsh’s, a design from the early 1970s? lol There were many bad coaxials back in the day, where you see tweeters kludgily bolted on in front of a woofer. That's what we've moved on from. Not the excellent Tannoy design (which they got right back in the 1940s and have been refining since then), nor the other sophisticated coaxials we we see in high end audio today. |
Ive owned lots of seakers over the decades from boom boxes to electrostats to Maggies and Accoustats (2+ 2s), by far my favorite. The closest are Emerald Physics 3.4s, open baffle; 12" concentric coaxials with 1" polyester tweeter. As much as I love them, the 2.8s add 2 @ 15" woofers which I can utilize in my large room |
@headphonedreams great call on the Cabasse. A truly remarkable system (fully active, dsp)! Heard it at AXPONA. Suggest for anyone mildly interested in audio engineering marvels/curiosities/design to audition these. You will probably be stunned (as I was) by the quality and quantity of sound from these relatively modest sized orbs. May or may not be your cup of tea, but impressive none the less. |
The real purpose of a coincident source driver is because of the waveguide affect of placing the tweeter in the center of the bass driver. A waveguide to a tweeter extends the frequency response lower allowing a 2 way to utilize a larger driver for more bass extension and volume while not asking it to operate outside its physical abilities thereby introducing distortion. Andrew Jones mentions this in his description of his speaker. Not really anything new though. |
@russ69 I don’t think anyone in this thread has been pitching it as magic tonic for any and all audiophiles. I specifically disclaimer’d my 1st post with "Tannoys are not for everyone". However this IS a good place for coaxial and dual-concentric aficionados to express what they love about ’em. Which I did :) |
I guess class D hybrid and Walsh drivers are as hip as I can get but my point was not the age of the design but that there are successful designs of most all configurations and coax drivers are not a magic tonic. |
@tomcy6 For me: Coherent, natural sound with solid & sharp imaging, because the tweeter and mid/woofer covering the critical midrange crossover point act more like a single point source rather than a tweeter and woofer barking at you from different locations. That said, high tech multi-driver speakers like Magico and Acora are getting better at this and seem to be closing the gap, plus the other benefits all that tech & exotic material offers. Tannoy materials are rather pedestrian by comparison. |
erik, you post some puzzling questions. My guess is that speakers with concentric drivers from different manufacturers can sound as different from one another as speakers with concentric drivers can sound from speakers with each driver mounted separately. I don’t think there is a specific sound that all concentric driver speakers have in common, do you? Maybe you could be more specific about the sound qualities you ascribe to concentric drivers. |
I was thinking that they are becoming more and more popular. I was close to buying Fyne but they jacked up the price just before I decided. In general I assume that coaxial elements are more expensive for a given quality. That may explain why not everyone is using them. The best coaxial I've heard is Cabasse Le Pearl Pelegrina but they are also active and $30k. |
Erik, I’ve had a pair of KEF Reference 5’s for about a year and a half now and have been mostly happy with them. They have a pretty good sound stage and even with having an aluminum tweeter, they are not as bright sounding as I first feared. I’ve been powering them with a Hegel H390, which is a slightly warm sounding A/B amp and I’m thinking that is why. |
Hi I just picked up Hsu coax driver speakers $300 used, and holy smokes they are amazing. The reason is because I found synergy using $15K worth of electronics. I have another amp that cost me $800 but has tubes and the Hsu speakers do NOT sound good. I think the question isn't if this design or that is good but what will work with what. I had to send my main speakers back and needed something but had no idea these would sound this good. Shocked actually. So you could listen to these speakers and conclude they do not sound good because.... This was an eye opener for me. I think horns, coax, single driver, etc all have different compromises so talking about that is great fun but if we keep we want to hear sound/music in amazing ways then focusing on synergy is very fruitful. I love this stuff. jh |
To add clarity, concentric is a subset of coaxial. In other words, all concentric drivers are coaxial but not all coaxial drivers are concentric. @erik_squires Pardon the presumption; you are probably referencing most designs intended for the hifi home user, of which most (if not all) are concentric. I heard a few designs at audio shows as well as listened critically (TAD micro) while evaluating two amplifiers for purchase. Having experienced music through quality concentrics, my opinion is that a quality design well executed in all parameters sounds great.......concentric drivers or not. The theoretical advantages of concentric drivers notwithstanding, there are probably a number of other design variables that bear more weight (at this point) on how a loudspeaker "sounds" to each person.
|
@erik_squires That’s a good question! Thinking on it, I’ve somehow managed to avoid hearing KEFs and most other coaxials. I have heard Thiel CS7.2, which features a coaxial, but there’s a lot more going on there too besides just the coaxial - unlike most Tannoys, which focus primarily on the coaxial driver. I certainly liked the CS7.2, but it didn’t do all the Tannoy things I love :)
@russ69 So much of the audio tech we enjoy today is positively ancient in origin. The moving coil dynamic driver itself is ancient. Maybe you enjoy class D amplification with digital streaming and, I dunno, air blades? Plasma tweeters? Is there any other speaker tech that isn’t ancient? I myself enjoy vacuum tubes, so the fact that something came from the 50s or 60s (or 40s, etc) is of little concern to me. |
Hi @mulveling Thank you so much for contributing. I'm surious, have you heard any other coaxials that you felt did some of the same things right? In your opinion, are they great because they are Tannoy or because they are coaxial? |
Tannoy dual-concentrics blew me away when I first heard them, and basically converted me to a Tannoy owner for life. I presently own 5 pairs! As a young man I actually transitioned over to speakers from high-end headphones; the Tannoy DC’s coherence and musicality, versus multi-driver speakers, is what instantly won me over. I’ve listened to other high-end conventional speakers as the opportunities arise, and they have certainly gotten a LOT better in the past 10 years IMO. I do quite like Magico S series, and all 3 of the Acora Acoustics models. The Von Schweikert VR-55 Aktive and Focal Sopra 3’s are also quite enjoyable, but by the same token the bigger (and very expensive!) models from both of these makers haven’t really impressed me yet. It’s been almost 20 years, and Tannoys have become firmly seated as my audiophile "home base", so I’m not sure there’s much room for that to change anymore. But I also recognize Tannoys are not for everyone - you either "get them" or you don’t. Also Tannoy had a couple of models that really sucked, IMO. Also individual units could be miswired (like a set of used Glenair 10 I bought - good god did they sound like sh!t until I rewired them correctly), or may have had a driver wire knocked loose (they use very cheap clips) - early on, the woofer of one of my Canterbury GR’s became disconnected during loud playback (easy fix with a set of pliers)! So if it sounds bad, it may have been caused by one of these issues rather than the design itself! |
@mitch2 I bet they did! They sounded awesome in my 78 Trans Am back then too! |