Ascilab C8C V1.1 Measurement Update

[daniboun]

Wow! Is this the finest measuring speaker you've had on the NFS, @amirm ?
Great work by Ascilab.
@Purité Audio have you got Sound On Sound lined up to review these?

Checkout with a filter / High Quality Measurments / Price

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

www.spinorama.org

Of course, this needs to be put into perspective depending on the price... The Orbit 11, for example, are in the top 10 and are 2.5 times cheaper per pair..

 

[delta76]

@AsciLab, nice update, but with all the built-in DSP capabilities these loudspeakers have, why wasn't this addressed already from the start? Do you see a trade-off in the design, that made you leave it in the first place?

Not Ascilab, but speaking from experience, there are something that engineering will not detect/see, or think it's not important. Customers however are the ultimate validation.
There is no such perfected product from release - that is why feedback and iterations are important. Given how quickly (and I'd say effortlessly) this is "fixed", I'd praise how Ascilab designed it to be (able to be) retroactively improved, not questioning why it was not addressed from the start.

 

[pat355]

@AsciLab, nice update, but with all the built-in DSP capabilities these loudspeakers have, why wasn't this addressed already from the start? Do you see a trade-off in the design, that made you leave it in the first place?

Isn’t this akin to asking why an app developer didn’t deliver an absolutely perfect UI or UX the first time?
Sometimes you make tradeoffs before the release of a product and then you tweak it based on customer feedback. Exactly as is the case here. And the tweaks are just that, tweaks.

 

[Darkatomz]

One of the several advantages of active DSP vs. passive speakers, impressive!

 

[goat76]

I definetely agree with you, Delta.
Of course, Ascilab is a super new good brand, but it's not killing anything else.

First, I hate this kind of expression (kill, killer... ). We're not a war ! It's only audio tech.
Second, there are several ways of designing very good speakers, a large wave guide with a tweeter cut low is a good option when it's well done, but not the only one.
Third, there are different needs and tastes too.

At present, Genelec and Neumann keep an advantage in SPL, integration, and client service (especially in european markets). All this, and particularly the client service, is very important.
And, IMHO, the Genelec coax which starts at around 500 hz can handle more power and provide a rather larger sweet spot than the Ascilab tweeter which starts at 1000 hz, which is super low for a tweeter, as good as it can be.

If I search for a brand new pair of speaker around 1000/1500€, i would choose Ascilab, but if I were for a 4000/5000€ pair, I would go for Genelec or Neumann.

Yes, it’s very childish to use the word “killer” in a situation like this. Genelec has a very good track record of making high-quality studio monitors. No one will kill that off just by releasing a speaker that happens to measure on par or slightly better. If we can still use the C8C in a music studio in 20 years from now, and if the price is still at the relative level compared to Genelec, then we can talk.

 

[Mort]

It's apples and pears. Genelec are made like tanks. They are mountable. GLM and some of the tools are tops or near tops in the market. Support and service are unreal.

Oh yeah and they make monitors and subs, pretty good ones too.

One pays for that though. Genelec have been getting a lot more expensive in the US especially, not entirely because of tariffs. (See my graph in the lounge. ).

It's why I almost exclusively buy used.

I'm fine with 'killer' for what it's worth. It's just an exaggeration.

C8C look great.

 

[AsciLab]

As a beginner in the market, it’s appreciate enough to be compared to industry standards like Genelec, Neumann, KEF or etc.

Still it’s just a one step or two and there are so many other steps we have to go so that we finally achieve to being called “standard”.

Thanks for all your encouraging. We’ll do our best to keep the motto.

“Best performance in its price range, lowest price for its performance.”

 

[goat76]

Isn’t this akin to asking why an app developer didn’t deliver an absolutely perfect UI or UX the first time?
Sometimes you make tradeoffs before the release of a product and then you tweak it based on customer feedback. Exactly as is the case here. And the tweaks are just that, tweaks.

I’m sure I’m not alone at this forum, thinking one of the main advantages of active DSP-driven loudspeakers, is the ability to iron out obvious frequency response deviations. In the case of the C8C, there have been many people questioning why AsciLab left that bump without addressing it, and especially when it is in such a sensitive frequency area (presence area), which can easily make it sound a bit too harsh and a little bit too forward-sounding.

That's why I‘m asking @AsciLab if they see a trade-off of some sort in addressing that specific frequency area.
Aren't the other of you interested in knowing why they decided to leave that as is?

 

[AsciLab]

I’m sure I’m not alone at this forum, thinking one of the main advantages of active DSP-driven loudspeakers, is the ability to iron out obvious frequency response deviations. In the case of the C8C, there have been many people questioning why AsciLab left that bump without addressing it, and especially when it is in such a sensitive frequency area (presence area), which can easily make it sound a bit too harsh and a little bit too forward-sounding.

That's why I‘m asking @AsciLab if they see a trade-off of some sort in addressing that specific frequency area.

We focused on the flat LW more cause we thought most people would listen the speaker at off axis. But after Amir’s review changed our thought to it might be okay to be flatten, the boost can be heard easily than slight dip at off axis.

However it was just a 1dB change at small range and also could be adjusted by user with EQ feature. The main improvement of this update is less lobbing from the side to rear radiation at midrange. It helps the placement and absorption even more easy without any interaction around the midrange.

 

[tifune]

We focused on the flat LW more cause we thought most people would listen the speaker at off axis. But after Amir’s review changed our thought to it might be okay to be flatten, the boost can be heard easily than slight dip at off axis.

However it was just a 1dB change at small range and also could be adjusted by user with EQ feature. The main improvement of this update is less lobbing from the side to rear radiation at midrange. It helps the placement and absorption even more easy without any interaction around the midrange.

V1.1 is compatible with BX8C? I assume so because the changes are above bass frequency, but I remember you said BX8C is not a simple crossover

 

[jtwrace]

Certainly an impressive result. I'm curious @amirm , why didn't they have it updated before you tested a pair knowing you have an NFS?

 

[AsciLab]

V1.1 is compatible with BX8C? I assume so because the changes are above bass frequency, but I remember you said BX8C is not a simple crossover

Certainly an impressive result. I'm curious @amirm , why didn't they have it updated before you tested a pair knowing you have an NFS?

View attachment 519745

While finishing BX8C data we found a way to improve the radiation pattern. V1.1 is the update that we apply the new filter. Well, it might be better we found that way earlier .

Only P1 and 2 are changed, but P3(Bass extension mode) is not changed. Integrated mode has already great radiation. So you don’t have to worry about integration with BX8C.

 

[jtwrace]

While finishing BX8C data we found a way to improve the radiation pattern. V1.1 is the update that we apply the new filter. Well, it might be better we found that way earlier .

Only P1 and 2 are changed, but P3(Bass extension mode) is not changed. Integrated mode has already great radiation. So you don’t have to worry about integration with BX8C.

I see. The way I read Amir's post is that he measured it, provided you the data and you then came out with a firmware update. Not that you made a firmware update and then had Amir remeasure the speaker on his NFS. Am I wrong?

 

[kharan]

We focused on the flat LW more cause we thought most people would listen the speaker at off axis. But after Amir’s review changed our thought to it might be okay to be flatten, the boost can be heard easily than slight dip at off axis.

However it was just a 1dB change at small range and also could be adjusted by user with EQ feature. The main improvement of this update is less lobbing from the side to rear radiation at midrange. It helps the placement and absorption even more easy without any interaction around the midrange.

I remember when the speaker was still a prototype (I think it was still called C6C), the shape of the directivity was closer to C8C v1.1, with less lobing but wider directivity in the midrange.

And with C8C 1.0, the speaker had straighter, more narrow directivity in the midrange but more lobing. And now you have gone back to the earlier version. What made you go back and forth regarding the side to rear lobbing with the C8C?

Also, since Amir doesn't listen with side wall interactions in his speaker evaluations, can you tell us how this impacts the sound?

 

[AsciLab]

I see. The way I read Amir's post is that he measured it, provided you the data and you then came out with a firmware update. Not that you made a firmware update and then had Amir remeasure the speaker on his NFS. Am I wrong?

He measured again with the new filter.

 

[jtwrace]

He measured again with the new filter.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

 

[AsciLab]

I remember when the speaker was still a prototype (I think it was still called C6C), the shape of the directivity was closer to C8C v1.1, with less lobing but wider directivity in the midrange.

And with C8C 1.0, the speaker had straighter, more narrow directivity in the midrange but more lobing. And now you have gone back to the earlier version. What made you go back and forth regarding the side to rear lobbing with the C8C?

Also, since Amir doesn't listen with side wall interactions in his speaker evaluations, can you tell us how this impacts the sound?

Amir tests the speaker mono channel like Harman. I think the advantage of cardioid pattern is shown more in stereo listening. My impression is that cardioid pattern makes deeper depth and no smearing at the low midrange.

It’s a slight change. We focused more to reduce lobbing. C6C prototype has different size and driver placement. That makes also different.

 

[Sokel]

The grumpy, sensitive me to this freq range still sees a little bump there, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't mention it, after all the things I have moaned about it all these years here when I see such a bump.

But a great improvement nevertheless, the joys of a DSP controlled speaker.
I's great that the company listens.

Thanks Amir!

(the "giant killer" stories are tattooed to this hobby, no reason to fight it, they will never end)

 

[kharan]

Amir tests the speaker mono channel like Harman. I think the advantage of cardioid pattern is shown more in stereo listening. My impression is that cardioid pattern makes deeper depth and no smearing at the low midrange.

It’s a slight change. We focused more to reduce lobbing. C6C prototype has different size and driver placement. That makes also different.

Sorry, I will be more clear.

How does the directivity of the C8C v1.1 (wider midrange directivity, reduced lobing) compared to v1.0 (narrower midrange directivity, increased lobing) affect the listening experience in a room with side walls and rear walls reflections?

 

[Sokel]

Amir tests the speaker mono channel like Harman. I think the advantage of cardioid pattern is shown more in stereo listening. My impression is that cardioid pattern makes deeper depth and no smearing at the low midrange.

It’s a slight change. We focused more to reduce lobbing. C6C prototype has different size and driver placement. That makes also different.

As you're experts at room acoustics for years, you're probably right about depth with cardioid, maybe not so much as with a treated ceiling, but still.