Dynaudio X14 Speaker Review

[Pearljam5000]

What's the big deal about a waveguide? I mean how hard is it for a company to design one?

 

[ttimer]

It came out in 2014 and has been discontinued. It cost US $1,500 then. I see used ones at almost that price.

Ouch, US prices for Dynaudio are steep! Here in Europe, i have seen them new in shops for 700€/pair. Was probably a bit higher back when they were fresh, but still nowhere near 1.5k. The reverse is true for Revel, which are ridiculously expensive over here.

PS: The design is really nice, i like them as a counterpoint to the flashy high-gloss, curved surface, exotic materials barrage of other hifi speakers.

 

[peanuts]

same here in scandinavia. seen em on sale at €600

 

[ctrl]

What's the big deal about a waveguide? I mean how hard is it for a company to design one?

A well-tuned waveguide, optimized for a certain baffle width is not trivial.

But in the case of the DDC-Lens, the special feature is that lateral (rounded) cuts at the height of the tweeter, which allow to control the distance at which the tweeter reaches the lateral baffle edges (almost independent of the general baffle width), in combination with a waveguide (which primarily controls the vertical dispersion).

 

[detlev24]

They moved forward and now they feel confident confidence about it, calling the new tech "DDC (Dynaudio Directivity Control)"

I once inquired at Dynaudio the reason for the missing wave-guide on the bookshelf 'Confidence 20' and on their top-of-the-line, pro-audio 'Core' series.

Their philosophy in the 'Confidence' series seems to be, that the '20' is typically used at closer listening distances and thus, a ("DDC") wave-guide would be of little benefit. The floor standing '30', '50' and '60' instead would typically be used at farther distances and thus, in an acoustically untreated home listening environment, it would become beneficial to reduce ceiling and floor reflections (by narrowing the vertical dispersion) and to maintain horizontal dispersion, for a potentially wider soundstage.

The powered 'Core' series would typically be used in an acoustically treated professional's work environment and as a result, reduce the need for such a wave-guide. Furthermore, their DSP would control many parameters [Edit: including all the drivers to be properly time-aligned // which is another feature of the "DDC", as it arranges the tweeter behind], which gives a big advantage over their passive end-consumer targeted 'Confidence'.

[I know that driver directly itself "DDI" cannot be DSP "shaped"; but I guess this is not what their representative intended to say.]

As for releasing more measurements out of their semi-anechoic but world-class 'Jupiter' measurement facility, it seems they struggle to find a standard that in their view would comprehensively represent the actual performance. Their engineers are aware of 'CEA 2034-A 2015/R-2020 (ANSI)' but we all know it is not flawless - and finds itself under revision. Anyways, IMHO, not a valid reason to not stick to it until they figured out something that is of more psychoacoustic accuracy.

 

[Matias]

By the way, DDC - Dynaudio Directivity Control existed before the current Confidence models. They used 2 tweeters with different crossover frequencies and they interacted with each other to cancel vertical dispersion while keeping the horizontal dispersion. Is just that after Jupiter and a probably a lot of computer simulations they came with this current single tweeter and different looking wave guide replacing the old DDC.


Previous Confidence DDC below.

 

[Count Arthur]

The Core manual suggests that the acoustic axis is the mid point between the mid woofer and the tweeter, not directly in line with the tweeter:

Would adjusting the measurment position make a significant difference to the results?

 

[Matias]

What's the big deal about a waveguide? I mean how hard is it for a company to design one?

It's not just designing any shape around the tweeter and mid/woofer, but a repetitive process of computer modeling and checking with measurements until the dispersion meets their goals. Some manufacturers want full dispersion in every direction. Dynaudio wants to restrict vertical dispersion (on their higher end models). And some manufacturers want to restrict both vertical and horizontal dispersion. There are topics discussing the pros and cons of each here in ASR.

 

[ctrl]

Previous Confidence DDC below.

With the old model I am a bit skeptical if the resulting vertical radiation was really advantageous.

Besides the usual vertical cancellation caused by the crossover of tweeter and woofer, there are also tweeter-tweeter and woofer-woofer cancellations on this speaker model - more details see here.

In principle, vertical high Q dips ("interdriver interference", cancellations) are hardly noticeable in the frequency response (my experience), but you have to take care that the comb filter effects do not take over and become audible - with double tweeters I have doubts.

I like the new DDC-Lens concept better. Due to the high crossover frequency of 3.7kHz, there are "only" pronounced comb filter effects in the vertical radiation due to the two midrange drivers.
Which, when used correctly, can bring audible advantages (in the median plane). It can lead to that sitting or standing, the auditory impression changes only slightly. Measuring-wise, it will always look like crap, of course.

 

[hardisj]

The tiny step around the tweeter is the waveguide according to Dynaudio.

View attachment 93844

That's a bevel. Not a waveguide.

 

[Count Arthur]

Oh yes it is, see at 9:45:

 

[tvih]

A bit sad to see my favorite speaker brand review poorly, but I can see why one woould not recommend them today if $1400 is what you'd have to pay for them, especially used. Here in Europe the new prices were not and used prices are not that bad, as some others have said. Just the other day I saw its little brother, X12, used for 350€ with Dynaudio's own stands included here in Finland. Only downside (other than colors, which is subjective) being that apparently they had been wall-mounted at some point, due to two screw holes in the back of each speaker. Honestly still very tempting. A pristine pair without stands and in a nicer color is currently available for 400€. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see X14 for 600€ (~$710), quite possibly even with stands included - but X14 doesn't seem as common, usually people go for the lowest model or further up the quality chain, I suppose. Anyway, at those kind of prices, I reckon it's not that easy to find better.

For "disclosure" I've not heard any of the Excite speakers personally, but I have two pairs of speakers from Dynaudio and am very happy with them - Audience 42, the smallest speaker from the entry-level line that Excite replaced, outwardly quite similar. I bought them in 2003. And the original Confidence C1, bought in 2011. I don't have vast experience with other brands, certainly not at the C1s price range, but always was very happy with both of these. Don't let the review scare you away from the brand

 

[Matias]

And the original Confidence C1, bought in 2011. I don't have vast experience with other brands, certainly not at the C1s price range, but always was very happy with both of these. Don't let the review scare you away from the brand

A friend of mine upgraded from the Confidence C1 to the new Confidence C20 and was quite satisfied with the improvements, so if you like Dynaudio and their bookshelf speakers, the new C20 are worth it.

 

[TimVG]

Oh yes it is, see at 9:45:

With this logic any faceplate or baffle can be called a waveguide. As we can see from the measurements though this particular 'waveguide' isn't doing a good job.

 

[tvih]

A friend of mine upgraded from the Confidence C1 to the new Confidence C20 and was quite satisfied with the improvements, so if you like Dynaudio and their bookshelf speakers, the new C20 are worth it.

I appreciate the suggestion, but unfortunately I don't really have much of a budget to work with these days. Even these I was only able to buy back then with a loan and them being a discounted demo pair, despite having a better financial outlook at the time. I took the risk to skip directly to the endgame from the Audience 42s when the opportunity arose. Any upgrade to them would cost crazy amounts. New Confidence 20 pair? Triple what I paid for C1+stands Also C1 > C20 looks-wise, subjectively. Luckily for my ears the C1 is quite enough, especially given the non-analytical way that I listen to music, and they're already "limited" by the crappy apartment I have to live in, too.

 

[hardisj]

The Core manual suggests that the acoustic axis is the mid point between the mid woofer and the tweeter, not directly in line with the tweeter:

View attachment 93887

Would adjusting the measurment position make a significant difference to the results?

good to know.

Oh yes it is, see at 9:45:

I don't know if you're kidding or not. I'm hoping you are. But in the event you are taking their side here...

I don't want to get drawn in to a semantics debate. For all intents and purposes, that's a bevel.

What's the size of that bevel? 1/8"? So, it's effective far above the frequencies that we can hear.

 

[Count Arthur]

I don't know if you're kidding or not.

I'm always kidding, or am I?

 

[andreasmaaan]

And the original Confidence C1, bought in 2011. I don't have vast experience with other brands, certainly not at the C1s price range, but always was very happy with both of these. Don't let the review scare you away from the brand

I agree that the C1 was a good speaker (measurements here and here). I also heard it and liked it quite a lot. It was expensive for what it was, though.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Oh yes it is, see at 9:45:

I don't know if you're kidding or not. I'm hoping you are. But in the event you are taking their side here...

I don't want to get drawn in to a semantics debate. For all intents and purposes, that's a bevel.

I posit that it's in fact a HORN.

 

[Matias]

I don't know if you're kidding or not. I'm hoping you are. But in the event you are taking their side here...

I don't want to get drawn in to a semantics debate. For all intents and purposes, that's a bevel.

What's the size of that bevel? 1/8"? So, it's effective far above the frequencies that we can hear.

I really want to know, why do you disagree with them saying this is not a waveguide? We all agree it is short for one, but they say it still has acoustic principles.