It ties in the horizontal plane, vertically not so much
View attachment 487241 View attachment 487242
Indeed, and that's a good point. We can see that the Fidelia model from the same designer stand out in this respect. Check attached file
-
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!
Cadentia 3 Product Development thread / Audio First Designs
- Thread starter Audiofirstdesigns_Harry
- Start date
Indeed, and that's a good point. We can see that the Fidelia model from the same designer stand out in this respect. Check attached file
It's cleaner downward though, I guess it's a speaker that you want to place fairly high up (or upside down haha)It ties in the horizontal plane, vertically not so much
View attachment 487241 View attachment 487242
Keep in mind that the Cadentia and Kef Blade 2 are passive speakers and the Genelec are active monitors.
Here is a link to a predefined filter that allows you to consistently compare several models within the same category :
A collection of loudspeakers measurements
www.spinorama.org
staticV3
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
- Messages
- 14,442
- Likes
- 24,981
Here's the paper:
AES Convention Papers Forum » A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements: Part I - Listening Test Results
The AES Forum is where our members get to interact with each other in between conferences and section meetings.
AES Convention Papers Forum » A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements: Part II - Development of the Model
The AES Forum is where our members get to interact with each other in between conferences and section meetings.
I don't understand enough about multiple regression models to give a confident answer, but it's all in the papers if you're so inclined.
I'd hazard a guess that the Blade's dip at 300Hz may be the culprit:
What I can tell you with confidence though is that it is ill-advised (even according to the authors) to read much in to the preference scores.
A 1.0 difference in preference score does not say much and differences smaller than that are basically meaningless.
Keep in mind as well that the preference score only describes frequency response and no other aspect of loudspeaker performance.
It is feasible for a speaker to get a perfect preference score, but only at 50dB SPL and in practice that speaker just breaks apart at higher SPLs, resulting in an awful listening experience.
Last edited:
totti1965
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Keep in mind that the Cadentia and Kef Blade 2 are passive speakers and the Genelec are active monitors.
Here is a link to a predefined filter that allows you to consistently compare several models within the same category :
A collection of loudspeakers measurements
Thanks! But normally imho the fact, if a speaker is active or passive should not have to do anything with this special quality of a speaker! Or?
Because the „perfect“ Subwoofer with his „perfect“ room fitting and his distortionfree 14 Hz is more a kind of thought experiment, it is clear that this woofer would of course be active and the speaker we want to compare (meaningless if passive or active) would be perfect digital filtered with 300 dB/octave at let’s say 80 Hz or 50 Hz.
So: why is Genelec here slightly better than, let’s say Neumann?
Why are large speakers worse in this discipline?
Why is the Audio First Design Cadentia 3, although quite big, so incredibly good in „woofer fitting“?
totti1965
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Here's the paper:
AES Convention Papers Forum » A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements: Part I - Listening Test Results
The AES Forum is where our members get to interact with each other in between conferences and section meetings.secure.aes.org
AES Convention Papers Forum » A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements: Part II - Development of the Model
The AES Forum is where our members get to interact with each other in between conferences and section meetings.
I don't understand enough about multiple regression models to give a confident answer, but it's all in the papers if you're so inclined.
I'd hazard a guess that the Blade's dip at 300Hz may be the culprit:
View attachment 487253
What I can tell you with confidence though is that it is ill-advised (even according to the authors) to read much in to the preference scores.
A 1.0 difference in preference score does not say much and differences smaller than that are basically meaningless.
Keep in mind as well that the preference score only describes frequency response and no other aspect of loudspeaker performance.
It is feasible for a speaker to get a perfect preference score, but only at 50dB SPL and in practice that speaker just breaks apart at higher SPLs, resulting in an awful listening experience.
Oh, you was faster than I was typing my last answer to @daniboun! Thank you so much!
totti1965
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Of course, this is why I watch every video of interest from Erin until the end….
Perfect example is the KEF LS60 wireless which has ultra high score but struggles even at 86 dB.
It’s more a Sonos Play:One kind of lifestyle speaker.
Not 50dB SPL but let’s say 76 dB. But I don’t know anyone who would be satisfied with clean 76db SPL.
That is, why I prefere my passive 2-way speakers with much less compression……
And without interference from various electronic gadgets which are killing bass frequencies much to early.
I agree with you on that point. But for the sake of consistency, I would tend to compare passive speakers with each other. I'm not knowledgeable enough to explain the differences in Spinorama scores, but I imagine we first need to determine the underlying cause of each score.
In this example.
For "The Pitt & Giblin Superwax Mini" speakers we observe that their excellent score is based on only 4 fundamental graphs
Measurements for speaker Pitt & Giblin Superwax Mini
www.spinorama.org
Tonality (Preference) Score is 7.64 and would be 8.66 with a perfect subwoofer.
Price: 4200
Tonality: 7.6
Bass extension: 24 Hz
Flatness: ±1.2 dB
- Joined
- May 31, 2020
- Messages
- 891
- Likes
- 1,602
Wow, very impressive build and front baffle.
Why didn’t you use the same sort of speaker for the woofer like the midrange? Or a purifi mid and woofer?
Why didn’t you use the same sort of speaker for the woofer like the midrange? Or a purifi mid and woofer?
totti1965
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I agree with you on that point. But for the sake of consistency, I would tend to compare passive speakers with each other. I'm not knowledgeable enough to explain the differences in Spinorama scores, but I imagine we first need to determine the underlying cause of each score.
In this example.
For "The Pitt & Giblin Superwax Mini" speakers we observe that their excellent score is based on only 4 fundamental graphs
Measurements for speaker Pitt & Giblin Superwax Mini
Tonality (Preference) Score is 7.64 and would be 8.66 with a perfect subwoofer.
Price: 4200
Tonality: 7.6
Bass extension: 24 Hz
Flatness: ±1.2 dB
But I filtered this kind of measurements out before comparing:
Pitt & Giblin:
- Quality of the measurement data is low.
totti1965
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Perhaps cost efficiency and diminishing returns: Minus 50dB for a speaker is by far clean enough and very very very good, as the threshold of hearing these distortions is about minus 30 dB.
Compare it with Erin’s „reference“ the Blade 2 Meta @96dB:
Audio First Design Cadentia 3
Last edited:
My bad just saw it is an active speaker
So here's a double filter with occurrences by score / speaker type and measurement quality
For bookshelves. Passive/Active
A collection of loudspeakers measurements
www.spinorama.org
For Floorstanders Passive/Active
A collection of loudspeakers measurements
www.spinorama.org
Last edited:
totti1965
Addicted to Fun and Learning
My bad just saw it is an active speaker
So here's a double filter with occurrences by score / speaker type and measurement quality
For bookshelves. Passive/Active
A collection of loudspeakers measurements
For Floorstanders Passive/Active
A collection of loudspeakers measurements
This is a very nice overview - especially for spinorama.org beginners and lazy people! Thanks!
I recommend for everyone who is seriously interested in buying a new speaker, to watch the complete video at Erin’s audiocorner / or reading the complete article at Erin’s / or here at ASR if @amirm has tested it.
So you can find out, how loud the speaker is able to play without distortions or if there are some quality issues like cabinet walls wich are to thin or something!
Thank you very much!
I’ve actually already introduced the JBL 4367 as my center speaker.
However, I’m very interested in the Cadentia 3 and its gradually narrowing directivity. It somewhat reminds me of the Wharfedale Aura 2, but since the Cadentia 3 starts narrowing around 1 kHz, I imagine vocals would sound cleaner and smoother, with a natural and beautifully refined transition in the upper range—something beyond what I can even imagine.
I would love to purchase it someday.
This looks great! As a current owner of a 3-way DIY SB Acoustics speaker I look forward to this one.
My speakers only sit 1 ft from the wall behind them, I wonder if this design will work for me?
@Audiofirstdesigns_Harry Will you get one of these to Erin or Amirm? if so, any time line?
My speakers only sit 1 ft from the wall behind them, I wonder if this design will work for me?
@Audiofirstdesigns_Harry Will you get one of these to Erin or Amirm? if so, any time line?
Erin is MiA at the moment, he hasn't posted anything for a while, I hope he's doing fine.
He posted today, he got a promotion at his Job and has been busy. He posted today on his Patreon (Dynaudio bookshelf data)
Curvature
Major Contributor
- Joined
- May 20, 2022
- Messages
- 2,072
- Likes
- 3,183
FYI, Audio First Designs has collaborated with @pierre and the full set of data is available here:
Measurements for speaker Audio First Design Cadentia 3
www.spinorama.org
Edit: I didn't realize this link was already posted.
Trangbar
Member
FYI: Looks like the first run in kit form is sold out. I did get a message from Harry Yeung yesterday that there will be another batch in kit form in January. The Candentia 3 page now shows pricing for the assembled version at a cost of £4780 / Pair (£3983.30 price excluding UK VAT).
OP
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2024
- Messages
- 64
- Likes
- 915
- Thread Starter
- #60
Hey guys! I have finally received some finished, oak veneered cabinets this week and just put a pair together! The finish and overall quality looks great, and I have to say the veneer really does make difference!
I only have 3 pairs of finished cabinets at the moment. They will be sent to dealers and to be used in the launch event in Hong Kong next month though. The webpage will be completed soon and customer can start pre-order soon. The first batch of finished cabients is still in production. I estimate that I can start shipping them to customers in early February 2026.
I only have 3 pairs of finished cabinets at the moment. They will be sent to dealers and to be used in the launch event in Hong Kong next month though. The webpage will be completed soon and customer can start pre-order soon. The first batch of finished cabients is still in production. I estimate that I can start shipping them to customers in early February 2026.
Yes I am sending a pair of assembled kit verson to Erin, he's been looking forward to reviewing them since many month ago, haha!
Oh noooo you dont suppose to see that page at this moment, let me change the setting... thanks for letting me know!
Similar threads
