• 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!

Ascilab C8C Active Speaker Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 7 2.2%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 54 17.1%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 254 80.4%

  • Total voters
    316
What I think you are trying to say is that it may be a close semblance of what was heard in the studio.
No, that's not what I'm trying to say at all.
I'm saying what I'm trying to say: accurate home hi-fi equipment reproduces the recordings you play on it as accurately as possible. I have no idea what anyone in the studio heard, the speakers they used, the rooms they were in, their own hearing ability/age/tinnitus, etc., and it's irrelevant to the job of home hi-fi (high fidelity) equipment.
 
No, that's not what I'm trying to say at all.
I'm saying what I'm trying to say: accurate home hi-fi equipment reproduces the recordings you play on it as accurately as possible. I have no idea what anyone in the studio heard, the speakers they used, the rooms they were in, their own hearing ability/age/tinnitus, etc., and it's irrelevant to the job of home hi-fi (high fidelity) equipment.

Okay, I understand what you are saying, but if we take it a step further...

What makes it so important for you to reproduce the recorded information as accurately as possible, when most of the audio recordings will be highly dependent on the exact things you already know you have no idea about, such as what anyone in the studio heard, the speakers they used, the rooms they were in, their own hearing ability/age/tinnitus, etc.

I think the main goal should be to reproduce most recordings to sound as balanced and natural to your ears as possible, whatever deviations from measurable accuracy might be needed to achieve that. I don't see anything “holy” about reproducing the recorded information itself as accurately as possible. As we can assume, most audio engineers have likely aimed for a balanced-sounding production, so that should be our main goal as well, which leads us to the actual goal of achieving a sound that closely resembles what was heard in the studio. ;)
 
‘Hi-Fi’ sort of says it all!
Keith

The goal of “high fidelity” is debatable.
I think the original meaning and goal of the term “high fidelity” were an accurate reproduction of the real-life sound of the music that’s being recorded, and not necessarily stops at the recorded information itself. I think @Sigberg Audio has come to the conclusion that it’s more to achieve when the goal is real-life sounds.

All this is probably better suited for another thread.:)
 
There can only ever be fidelity to the only artefact we possess, the recording.
Keith
 
What makes it so important for you to reproduce the recorded information as accurately as possible
Sir this is a hi fi site

hifi = high fidelity = high faithfulness (accuracy)

I think the main goal should be to reproduce most recordings to sound as balanced and natural to your ears as possible, whatever deviations from measurable accuracy might be needed to achieve that.

That's not an unreasonable opinion, but it's still best to start with flat, neutral equipment and EQ/DSP to taste (and "balanced and natural" are very definitely matters of taste).
 
Last edited:
Sir this is a hi fi site

hifi = high fidelity = high faithfulness (accuracy)



That's not an unreasonable opinion, but it's still best to start with flat, neutral equipment and EQ/DSP to taste (and "balanced and natural" are very definitely matters of taste).
That's how I've been approaching it. I am streaming to the C8C from a Wiim Ultra so there are lots of options. Listen with no correction, use room correction, use the beta room correction, use an EQ profile that is built in to the Wiim or if you are adventurous, use room correction then apply some EQ to that.

I have primarily settled on using the basic room correction as that profile seems to give the best sound for the widest variety of music in my library. The beta room correction is interesting and in some ways can sound better on certain tracks but overall it gives significantly more bass than the standard room correction profile. I recently attended a live performance from Apollo's Fire, a baroque ensemble, and returning home I listen to some of their recorded performances from the show. It was striking how over boosted the base was with the wiim beta room correction. The standard room correction got much closer to the live sound. But that boosted bass on certain Rock tracks can sound lovely even if perhaps it's a little more than what was originally intended.

I haven't had the desire or energy to try to apply EQ to one of the room correction profiles but maybe that's something for the future.
 
That's not an unreasonable opinion, but it's still best to start with flat, neutral equipment and EQ/DSP to taste (and "balanced and natural" are very definitely matters of taste).
Completely agree. Otherwise you might get lost in the "circle of confusion" forever...
 
I just ordered a pair of C8C in white. Feels like being a kid on Christmas morning again. Do you have any stand recommendations for the C8C? I've been using Gravity SP 3202 stands with my Amphion Two18s, but they were never the most stable, so I'd rather not reuse them for the C8Cs. Would the K&M 26722 be a good choice?
 
Last edited:
My Ascilab C8C arrived today and honestly, wow. I'm no expert, but wanted to share my first impressions here anyway. I already had high expectations going in, mostly from what I'd read in this thread, but they've been exceeded regardless.

A bit of background: I bought these as an upgrade to my Amphion Two18s, which I've been using daily for mixing and mastering. I ran the Amphions for about a year and a half and was fairly happy with them overall, aside from some missing low end and a couple of other minor issues. Last week I tested the HEDD Type 20 MK2, solid monitors for the price, but coming from the Amphions I'd gotten spoiled and I found myself missing some of the midrange detail the Amphions have. So I sent those back and, based on this thread, ordered the C8C instead.

First thing worth mentioning: the packaging. They arrived extremely well protected, no complaints there at all.
Setup was smooth too, I was able to run the Hypex Filter Design software on my Mac through UTM without any issues, in case anyone else here is on Mac.

I set them up right next to the Amphions for a direct comparison and was impressed from the very first second. They sound like a different tier entirely, even though the Amphions are the more expensive monitor. The first thing that jumps out is the extended low end, it's like hearing the Amphions with a sub added. Right after that, I noticed the midrange detail is at least on par with the Amphions, if not slightly better and I actually prefer the top end as well. With the Amphions I occasionally struggled to hear sibilance clearly, which isn't an issue here.
The transient response is something I really value about the Amphions and I'm not missing it at all with the C8C.
Stereo imaging is excellent too and I can pick out reverb tails just as clearly as I could on the Amphions, which for me is also one of the indicators of a really good speaker.
What really impresses me is that despite being this precise, they're still genuinely enjoyable to listen to music on. That's something that always bugged me about the Amphions, they just sound very "dry" and "clinical" and it's just not fun listening to music on them. The C8C somehow manage to combine both.

What stood out next was how much less of my room I'm hearing through the C8C. My room is treated, but not perfectly and in direct comparison the C8C sound way cleaner in my problem range around 130-400 Hz, almost as if room correction were already applied. When I measured both with REW, the peak at 150 Hz comes in around 6 dB lower with the C8C than with the Amphions. I guess that comes down to the cardioid pattern.
I've always run my Amphions through ARC Studio for room correction and I'm curious now whether that's even still necessary with the C8C, or if the PEQ in the Hypex software will be enough on its own.

One more thing that's stood out very positively is the noise floor. I'm extremely sensitive to self-noise in monitors and it was something I noticed right away with the HEDDs. With the C8C it's genuinely minimal, you have to listen very closely to even notice it and it doesn't bother me at all.

Aside from the sound, they also just look really impressive. My studio is mostly white and beige and the white C8C fit perfectly.

Overall, after the first listening I'm more than happy with this decision and I'm hoping to add the BX8C down the line as well. For me, the C8C are without question an upgrade over the Amphion Two18. Looking forward to putting them through their paces over the next few days, including mixing actual projects.
Happy to answer any questions in the meantime.
 
Do you have any stand recommendations for the C8C?

The best and only dedicated stand is the BX8C!
I used Genelec stands (for 8361a) with my C8C initially. Very stable and has a nice cable management system.

Nice to hear your enjoying your set, they only get bettet as you dial them in.
 
My Ascilab C8C arrived today and honestly, wow. I'm no expert, but wanted to share my first impressions here anyway. I already had high expectations going in, mostly from what I'd read in this thread, but they've been exceeded regardless.

A bit of background: I bought these as an upgrade to my Amphion Two18s, which I've been using daily for mixing and mastering. I ran the Amphions for about a year and a half and was fairly happy with them overall, aside from some missing low end and a couple of other minor issues. Last week I tested the HEDD Type 20 MK2, solid monitors for the price, but coming from the Amphions I'd gotten spoiled and I found myself missing some of the midrange detail the Amphions have. So I sent those back and, based on this thread, ordered the C8C instead.

First thing worth mentioning: the packaging. They arrived extremely well protected, no complaints there at all.
Setup was smooth too, I was able to run the Hypex Filter Design software on my Mac through UTM without any issues, in case anyone else here is on Mac.

I set them up right next to the Amphions for a direct comparison and was impressed from the very first second. They sound like a different tier entirely, even though the Amphions are the more expensive monitor. The first thing that jumps out is the extended low end, it's like hearing the Amphions with a sub added. Right after that, I noticed the midrange detail is at least on par with the Amphions, if not slightly better and I actually prefer the top end as well. With the Amphions I occasionally struggled to hear sibilance clearly, which isn't an issue here.
The transient response is something I really value about the Amphions and I'm not missing it at all with the C8C.
Stereo imaging is excellent too and I can pick out reverb tails just as clearly as I could on the Amphions, which for me is also one of the indicators of a really good speaker.
What really impresses me is that despite being this precise, they're still genuinely enjoyable to listen to music on. That's something that always bugged me about the Amphions, they just sound very "dry" and "clinical" and it's just not fun listening to music on them. The C8C somehow manage to combine both.

What stood out next was how much less of my room I'm hearing through the C8C. My room is treated, but not perfectly and in direct comparison the C8C sound way cleaner in my problem range around 130-400 Hz, almost as if room correction were already applied. When I measured both with REW, the peak at 150 Hz comes in around 6 dB lower with the C8C than with the Amphions. I guess that comes down to the cardioid pattern.
I've always run my Amphions through ARC Studio for room correction and I'm curious now whether that's even still necessary with the C8C, or if the PEQ in the Hypex software will be enough on its own.

One more thing that's stood out very positively is the noise floor. I'm extremely sensitive to self-noise in monitors and it was something I noticed right away with the HEDDs. With the C8C it's genuinely minimal, you have to listen very closely to even notice it and it doesn't bother me at all.

Aside from the sound, they also just look really impressive. My studio is mostly white and beige and the white C8C fit perfectly.

Overall, after the first listening I'm more than happy with this decision and I'm hoping to add the BX8C down the line as well. For me, the C8C are without question an upgrade over the Amphion Two18. Looking forward to putting them through their paces over the next few days, including mixing actual projects.
Happy to answer any questions in the meantime.
I listened to the Amphion One25A in a studio, and while they were very convincing in that (specially treated) environment, I am now very happy with the considerably less expensive C8C and BX8Cs - in my untreated living room.

Cardioid works.

I guess you are running your C8C linearphase (P2 setting) and with v1.1 firmware?
 
@markstein , how did you get the v1.1 firmware? I am still waiting for it. Rather unhappy about this issue I ight add.

Where's @AsciLab when you need them....
Ascilab was so kind and installed it during a remote session upon my request. It is a rather complicated update process. Took about 30 minutes if I remember correctly.
 
I guess you are running your C8C linearphase (P2 setting) and with v1.1 firmware?
Yes I'm using P2 and if I'm not mistaken, they already came with the v1.1 firmware installed.

1785965527785.png
 
Back
Top Bottom