This is a review, listening tests, EQ and detailed measurements of the Cambridge Audio Minx XL bookshelf speaker. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US$299.
I should note however that I can't find new stock anywhere so maybe it is discontinued. As you can see, speaker is rather attractive with quality finish and stylish blending of the woofer and tweeter. Predictably, speaker is made in China even though the company is in UK:
If you are not familiar with my speaker measurements, please watch this video:
Cambridge MINX XL Speaker Measurements
Let's start with our family of anechoic frequency response measurements:
Gosh, this is disappointing. On axis response because quite variable post 400 Hz with wide dip around 2 kHz and exaggerated highs. Clearly speaker was not designed by research that shows not only do you want flat on-axis but smooth directivity. We can see the cause of some of the errors in near-field measurements:
Dip in on-axis and poor directivity in the same region presents us with one of the worst early window responses:
Which translates into same as far as predicted in-room response is concerned:
I expect the sound to be somewhat bright and at the same time, recessed in lower treble.
Beamwidth is wide so should result in more spacious sound:
We see diffractions in horizontal directivity at 3.5 and 4.5 kHz:
Vertical directivity is never good in this type of 2-way speaker so stay around tweeter axis:
Overall distortion picture is good:
As noted though, we have an anomaly around 8.1 kHz (typo on graph). Relative THD measurement shows a lot more of them:
Note that due to small size, I am only showing response up to 90 dBSPL. I did run the usual 96 dBSPL but speaker was audibly complaining and measurements were off the charts.
Impedance is the typical < 4 ohm:
Sensitivity is also typical at 86 dB so you should not need a ton of power to drive it.
Waterfall shows expected resonances:
Finally, here is the step response for fans of this measurement:
Cambridge Minx XL Listening Tests and Equalization
Immediate impression was that of "warmth" which quickly turned into recessed upper range of vocals and sound that was both wooly, and bright at times. I first filled in the dip:
That nicely filled in the hole but then my attention kept going to high frequency sharpness. So I quickly dialed in that shelf. The transformation was quite nice. The sound now was quite neutral which when combined with wide dispersion and good power handling, was quite nice. Sub-bass response is not there but what it does play, is cleaner than speakers in its size.
Conclusions
The Minx XL could have been a much nicer speaker if modicum of effort was put in analyzing its objective response and cleaning up what is very obvious issues. I don't know why companies continue to ignore this science and let an OEM in China build them a random design. 20 years ago, sure. But today? A disappointing product from a well respected company.
I can't recommend the Cambridge Audio Minx XL. Not that it is horrible but because it could have been much better.
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
I should note however that I can't find new stock anywhere so maybe it is discontinued. As you can see, speaker is rather attractive with quality finish and stylish blending of the woofer and tweeter. Predictably, speaker is made in China even though the company is in UK:
If you are not familiar with my speaker measurements, please watch this video:
Cambridge MINX XL Speaker Measurements
Let's start with our family of anechoic frequency response measurements:
Gosh, this is disappointing. On axis response because quite variable post 400 Hz with wide dip around 2 kHz and exaggerated highs. Clearly speaker was not designed by research that shows not only do you want flat on-axis but smooth directivity. We can see the cause of some of the errors in near-field measurements:
Dip in on-axis and poor directivity in the same region presents us with one of the worst early window responses:
Which translates into same as far as predicted in-room response is concerned:
I expect the sound to be somewhat bright and at the same time, recessed in lower treble.
Beamwidth is wide so should result in more spacious sound:
We see diffractions in horizontal directivity at 3.5 and 4.5 kHz:
Vertical directivity is never good in this type of 2-way speaker so stay around tweeter axis:
Overall distortion picture is good:
As noted though, we have an anomaly around 8.1 kHz (typo on graph). Relative THD measurement shows a lot more of them:
Note that due to small size, I am only showing response up to 90 dBSPL. I did run the usual 96 dBSPL but speaker was audibly complaining and measurements were off the charts.
Impedance is the typical < 4 ohm:
Sensitivity is also typical at 86 dB so you should not need a ton of power to drive it.
Waterfall shows expected resonances:
Finally, here is the step response for fans of this measurement:
Cambridge Minx XL Listening Tests and Equalization
Immediate impression was that of "warmth" which quickly turned into recessed upper range of vocals and sound that was both wooly, and bright at times. I first filled in the dip:
That nicely filled in the hole but then my attention kept going to high frequency sharpness. So I quickly dialed in that shelf. The transformation was quite nice. The sound now was quite neutral which when combined with wide dispersion and good power handling, was quite nice. Sub-bass response is not there but what it does play, is cleaner than speakers in its size.
Conclusions
The Minx XL could have been a much nicer speaker if modicum of effort was put in analyzing its objective response and cleaning up what is very obvious issues. I don't know why companies continue to ignore this science and let an OEM in China build them a random design. 20 years ago, sure. But today? A disappointing product from a well respected company.
I can't recommend the Cambridge Audio Minx XL. Not that it is horrible but because it could have been much better.
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/