• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

AsCi Labs @ Purité Audio

They are all listed in the product line-up document, ‘C’ at the end of the designation stands for cardioid response.

AsciLab_Product_Lineup_2025_3.pdf

drive.google.com drive.google.com
Keith
 
Esprit said:
Read my post better :)
Click to expand...
Maybe Keith is less fluent in Italian than one could believe ;)

1742566498489.png
 
boXem said:
Maybe Keith is less fluent in Italian than one could believe ;)
Click to expand...
Deleted,
when I corrected the product names (ugh, how complicated...) Google thought it was a good idea to translate the post.
 
How to speak Ascilab courtesy of Changyeul,
‘The first letter of the model name indicates the product category, classified by the following tiers:


  • S = Signature model, consisting exclusively of Purifi units
  • A = Purifi Aluminum woofer and a ceramic-aluminum tweeter
  • C = Ceramic-aluminum woofer and a ceramic-aluminum tweeter
  • F = Fiber woofer and an aluminum tweeter

The middle number represents the size of the main woofer (in inches).


The final letter denotes the enclosure type:
  • B = Bookshelf
  • C = Cardioid

    In addition, there are the BX8C and BX10C models, where "BX" stands for "Bass Extend Stand," the number indicates the woofer size, and "C" refers to "Cardioid."’
Keith
 
AsciLab said:
To my ear, Both have different advantages.

For cardioid feature, it produces magical 3D sound imaging that has never heard before.
Comparing to non-cardioid speaker, It sounds like the recording is separated from the room. Room only enhances size of the imaging, but doesn’t smearing or shifting.
Especially depth image is so much improved.
The ambience reverb spreading over the front wall(back of speaker) sounds much more deep.

And for Purifi Tweeter PTT1.3T, it is another league of tweeter. I could hear several hidden sounds from very familiar song. For some of poor recordings, it sounds as it is. But for some of well recorded songs especially by real instruments, the tweeter shows all the details that the song has.

The choice of two products, C6C and S6C can be differed by what you want to listen.
Click to expand...
Is it possible to provide both a cardioid tuning and a standard tuning for the cardioid models?

Mesanovic does something like that for their CDM65 model. https://www.mesanovicmicrophones.com/cdm65
 
j_j said:
So you are arguing a perceived difference. Let's see the DBT's. Measuring, ok, but then we need to know the exact situation the measurements are made in.
Click to expand...

I don’t follow you (maybe because of my not-so-good English). By “arguing a perceived difference” do you refer to Claim 1 or Claim 2?

Claim 1. (MKR):
“Purifi woofer distortions are below human perception threshold (so, they are unnecessary expensive)”

Claim 2. (AsciLab):
“Purifi woofers, both sonically and measurably are better than woofers they tried from other manufacturers”.

I emphasize again that Claims 1 and 2 are referring to two totally different situations, so in my opinion there can not be a “perceived difference” between these two claims.
In which Claim (1. or 2.) the perceived difference is located, to argue?
Further, to correctly establish the arguing: Does it matter which Claim (1. or 2.) was posted first in this thread?

Anyway, I will play “devil's advocate“, so I will add another claim which member @MKR posted in this thread before:
Claim 3. (MKR):
“why would you use such an expensive driver such as the Purifi 10” when there is no audible performance difference between it and a comparable SB acoustics 10”, for example?“

In my opinion, only now (with the introducing of Claim 3) we can argue about the perceived difference, comparing Claim 1 to Claim 3, or comparing Claim 2 to Claim 3.
Now we can ask the burning question: who have to prove his Claim with Double Blind Test? Again - does it matter which Claim was posted first (i.e timeline) in this thread?
 
Vladimir Filevski said:
“why would you use such an expensive driver such as the Purifi 10” when there is no audible performance difference between it and a comparable SB acoustics 10”, for example?“
Click to expand...

It's not a claim, it's demanding evidence. Where's the evidence.
 
Vladimir Filevski said:
I don’t follow you (maybe because of my not-so-good English). By “arguing a perceived difference” do you refer to Claim 1 or Claim 2?

Claim 1. (MKR):
“Purifi woofer distortions are below human perception threshold (so, they are unnecessary expensive)”

Claim 2. (AsciLab):
“Purifi woofers, both sonically and measurably are better than woofers they tried from other manufacturers”.

I emphasize again that Claims 1 and 2 are referring to two totally different situations, so in my opinion there can not be a “perceived difference” between these two claims.
In which Claim (1. or 2.) the perceived difference is located, to argue?
Further, to correctly establish the arguing: Does it matter which Claim (1. or 2.) was posted first in this thread?

Anyway, I will play “devil's advocate“, so I will add another claim which member @MKR posted in this thread before:
Claim 3. (MKR):
“why would you use such an expensive driver such as the Purifi 10” when there is no audible performance difference between it and a comparable SB acoustics 10”, for example?“

In my opinion, only now (with the introducing of Claim 3) we can argue about the perceived difference, comparing Claim 1 to Claim 3, or comparing Claim 2 to Claim 3.
Now we can ask the burning question: who have to prove his Claim with Double Blind Test? Again - does it matter which Claim was posted first (i.e timeline) in this thread?
Click to expand...
I think we need to park this line of debate .

It's become more than a little convoluted and decidedly off topic .

Thanks
 
There are measurements and technical data ((T/S) around in the WWW, that could be interchanged an compared...
 
I am genuinely excited because the first Acoustic Science Laboratory ( Ascilab ) loudspeakers are on their way!
Initially we will have the C6B, F6B, and F6Bs , with the A6B following in short order.
We will in time of course stock the entire range and if you have read the Ascilab ‘road map’,
you will know they have some truly innovative designs in the pipeline.
I will update out Ascilab page with the latest developments.
 
Perhaps ‘innovative’ wasn’t the correct term, ‘refined’ might be more apt.
When the speakers arrive I wouldn’t mind having some other opinions from ASR members, initially U.K. based, it is always constructive to have others opinions.
We also have a ‘News’ page which I update regularly.
www.puriteaudio.co.uk

Purité Audio's NEWS

Purité Audio London, Dutch&Dutch 8C, GGNTKT, KEF ,Eversolo,Ascilab, Mesanovic, Sigberg Audio 'Manta', RME, EVERSOLO , the finest measuring and thus sounding equipment and no bullshit.
www.puriteaudio.co.uk www.puriteaudio.co.uk

In an industry dominated by flim-flam I know Acoustic Science Laboratories will be a breath of fresh air.
Keith
 
Purité Audio said:
When the speakers arrive I wouldn’t mind having some other opinions from ASR members, initially U.K. based, it is always constructive to have others opinions
Click to expand...
I'm interested in a comparison with Genelec... :)
 
The CS versions active with purifi are still very expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Purité Audio
Roon ‘Nucleus’ back in the U.K.!
Replies
1
Views
346
Purité Audio
Purité Audio
Purité Audio
90SE puts the Topping on discretion! @Purité Audio
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
misterdog
misterdog
M
Fosi LC30 VU unit review
Replies
0
Views
2K
MrFardoche
M
Back
Top Bottom