Audio First Designs Cadentia 3

[Markie Warkie]

Just finished building mine up… Took me a while as I wanted to veneer them. This took me the longest time as I’d never done it before and chose to work with raw veneer, which is a bit more difficult to work with over paper veneer (apparently).

All in all, the build was pretty easy if you have basic woodworking skills. Maybe you don’t even need the skills, but I would recommend doing another build before this one… A cheaper one!

My only negative so far is the black baffle marks SUPER easily, so go careful there.

Harry‘s instructions were great. Very easy to follow.

I haven’t listened to them yet as I’m waiting for my stands to be fabricated. Should have them early next week.

Looking forward to firing them up!

Damn these look stunning ! shame he does not make a matching centre id love to have a pair of these in my theatre

 

[WillBrink]

Erin has just tested them, but results are on his patreon page for now. I hope they sound as good as they look.

 

[PGansz]

Erin has just tested them, but results are on his patreon page for now. I hope they sound as good as they look.

Results are up for Erin. He likes them a lot but has a couple minor quibbles; one with tonality, which could be a bit subjective.

The data looks about as advertised, but needs more low frequency extension IMO.

 

[jhaider]

Damn these look stunning ! shame he does not make a matching centre id love to have a pair of these in my theatre

The only “matching” center would be a third speaker. Are these only sold in pairs?

 

[TubeNoob]

Just finished building mine up… Took me a while as I wanted to veneer them. This took me the longest time as I’d never done it before and chose to work with raw veneer, which is a bit more difficult to work with over paper veneer (apparently).

All in all, the build was pretty easy if you have basic woodworking skills. Maybe you don’t even need the skills, but I would recommend doing another build before this one… A cheaper one!

My only negative so far is the black baffle marks SUPER easily, so go careful there.

Harry‘s instructions were great. Very easy to follow.

I haven’t listened to them yet as I’m waiting for my stands to be fabricated. Should have them early next week.

Looking forward to firing them up!

Could I send you a dm to ask a few questions about your veneering process?

 

[WillBrink]

Results are up for Erin. He likes them a lot but has a couple minor quibbles; one with tonality, which could be a bit subjective.

The data looks about as advertised, but needs more low frequency extension IMO.

That mid base dip seems a very common design in so many speakers and I don't get why they do it. If anything, for a "house sound" I prefer a slight upper mid base bump. Those will obviously respond to a little EQ, so I'd try them for sure if I was in the market for new stand mounts. For me, 10/10 looks and that adds a lot too. Cost approaching 6k, they'd have to really blow me away to justify that price. There's a handful of excellent 3 way stand mounts for less to far less $.

 

[beagleman]

Really curious what 9" woofer they use??

 

[Ktacos]

There's a handful of excellent 3 way stand mounts for less to far less $.

Not really aware of any that come close to this speakers performance.

 

[TubeNoob]

Really curious what 9" woofer they use??

SB acoustics satori

 

[WillBrink]

Not really aware of any that come close to this speakers performance.

What are the major performance differences between that and say the BMR Monitor or the Arendal 1528? If I had the patience and confidence not to screw it up, I'd for that DIY kit for sure. I currently have Monitor Audio old 100 6g, but not seen measurements on them from Erin or related.

 

[beagleman]

What are the major performance differences between that and say the BMR Monitor or the Arendal 1528? If I had the patience and confidence not to screw it up, I'd for that DIY kit for sure. I currently have Monitor Audio old 100 6g, but not seen measurements on them from Erin or related.

I think with the BMR, it is lacking more in overall output without compression ((a good bit)) and a bit distortion.

The arendal, a bit rougher response, but great output and low distortion, maybe price would come into play, especially compared to they DIY Cadentia.

 

[Ktacos]

What are the major performance differences between that and say the BMR Monitor or the Arendal 1528? If I had the patience and confidence not to screw it up, I'd for that DIY kit for sure. I currently have Monitor Audio old 100 6g, but not seen measurements on them from Erin or related.

I'd argue the Cadentia is better in pretty much every metric, though the Arendal does keep up with it in terms of SPL capability. Neither speaker really comes close to the Cadentia's dispersion and diffraction control.

 

[Milt]

Just fired off my deposit to Harry Y for the Cadentia 3s in rosewood.
Also upgrading the woofer to a TPCD driver & getting purpose-built stands.

I did months of research before deciding.
Speakers considered:
Arendal, Perlisten, KEF, D&D, Ascilab and a couple more.

 

[ThELiZ]

Finally got round to making some proper stands for them!

Loving listening to these!

 

[IngMishael]

looks tremendous

Finally got round to making some proper stands for them!

Loving listening to these!

 

[Maiky76]

Data scanned from https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/audio_first_cadentia3/
All credits to Erin.
Since the data is scanned one cannot directly compare the scores although the estimated Score should be pretty close to the real thing.

@totti1965

Here is my take on the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

For the score rational your journey starts here
Explanation for the sub score
The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration.
If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 7.4
With Sub: 8.7

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Very nice
• Optimized for PIR/ER (in room) performance
• Nice LF
• Smooth
• HF could be better?
• Minor Directivity error
• HF beaming?

EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable (here).
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
• One can model the EQ with Vituixcad by using the DSP "Generic" setting with 96000Hz sampling rate.

Score EQ LW: 7.5
with sub: 8.7

Score EQ Score: 7.7
with sub: 8.9

Audio First Cadentia 3 APO LW EQ 96000Hz
March122026-124950

Preamp: -3.00 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 31.8 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 1.40
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 64.2 Hz Gain -2.33 dB Q 1.71
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 557.3 Hz Gain -1.20 dB Q 1.38
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2741.3 Hz Gain 1.16 dB Q 1.07
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5540.7 Hz Gain -0.67 dB Q 2.67
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 18650.7 Hz Gain 2.97 dB Q 1.04

Audio First Cadentia 3 APO Score EQ 96000Hz
March122026-124950

Preamp: -3.00 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 31.1 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 1.37
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 64.9 Hz Gain -1.81 dB Q 2.04
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 623.7 Hz Gain -0.92 dB Q 1.25
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 3124.6 Hz Gain 1.25 dB Q 0.62
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5685.1 Hz Gain -1.06 dB Q 1.89
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 16988.7 Hz Gain 2.76 dB Q 2.09
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3346.2 Hz Gain -0.54 dB Q 0.97

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Score

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal

Radar no EQ vs EQ score

No improvements?

 

[totti1965]

Data scanned from https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/audio_first_cadentia3/
All credits to Erin.
Since the data is scanned one cannot directly compare the scores although the estimated Score should be pretty close to the real thing.

@totti1965

Here is my take on the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

For the score rational your journey starts here
Explanation for the sub score
The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration.
If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 7.4
With Sub: 8.7

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Very nice
• Optimized for PIR/ER (in room) performance
• Nice LF
• Smooth
• HF could be better?
• Minor Directivity error
• HF beaming?

View attachment 517019


EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable (here).
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
• One can model the EQ with Vituixcad by using the DSP "Generic" setting with 96000Hz sampling rate.

Score EQ LW: 7.5
with sub: 8.7

Score EQ Score: 7.7
with sub: 8.9

Audio First Cadentia 3 APO LW EQ 96000Hz
March122026-124950

Preamp: -3.00 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 31.8 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 1.40
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 64.2 Hz Gain -2.33 dB Q 1.71
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 557.3 Hz Gain -1.20 dB Q 1.38
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2741.3 Hz Gain 1.16 dB Q 1.07
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5540.7 Hz Gain -0.67 dB Q 2.67
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 18650.7 Hz Gain 2.97 dB Q 1.04

Audio First Cadentia 3 APO Score EQ 96000Hz
March122026-124950

Preamp: -3.00 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 31.1 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 1.37
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 64.9 Hz Gain -1.81 dB Q 2.04
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 623.7 Hz Gain -0.92 dB Q 1.25
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 3124.6 Hz Gain 1.25 dB Q 0.62
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5685.1 Hz Gain -1.06 dB Q 1.89
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 16988.7 Hz Gain 2.76 dB Q 2.09
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3346.2 Hz Gain -0.54 dB Q 0.97

View attachment 517025
Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 517020

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 517021

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 517024

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 517023

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
View attachment 517022

No improvements?

Thank you so much! I will inform you per p.m. whether Erin is perhaps willing to send you the raw data directly via e-Mail after such a test in the future (after his youtube video is out not only for patreons).
I assume he does this often with @pierre if he dont forget.

 

[dfuller]

An active version of this would be killer. Maybe a Hypex Fusion plate amp. Could maybe eke some more low end out of it given the super low distortion.

 

[Soniclife]

An active version of this would be killer. Maybe a Hypex Fusion plate amp. Could maybe eke some more low end out of it given the super low distortion.

Isn't that just called the KH 420 ?

Being serious there is a lot in common in the results.

 

[dfuller]

Isn't that just called the KH 420 ?

Being serious there is a lot in common in the results.

More or less, lol.

But this looks considerably nicer than the 420 (which is an excellent speaker, but really not a looker...)