Dali Opticon 2 vs Opticon 2 MK2 - Frequency Response Graphs

[capdec]

Hi, I am new here and this is my first post! I have owned the Dali Opticon 2's for a few years now and really enjoy this speaker, it is very neutral and detailed but never fatiguing or bright sounding. Sometimes I just can't help but wonder if the new mk2 version would be much of an upgrade. I would like to keep the same sound signature and hoping that the mk2 would add just a bit more treble in the top end. What I fear is that if I get rid of the Opticon 2's I might regret it if the new mk2 version turns out to be brighter or different in sound signature.

I pulled out the frequency response measurement graphs from the same German magazine ( Stereo.de ). I do not have extensive knowledge on how to read these graphs but I clearly see that the frequency response for the Dali Opticon 2's is very good, it is linear without any ( or little ) peaks.

If you look a the measurements below for the new Opticon 2 mk2's there are more peaks. This brings me to my question. What are the differences that will be heard knowing there are peaks found around 500hz to 900hz for the Opticon mk2's? Also, there is a peak around 5-6khz. Does this give an indication that the mk2 model is brighter than its predecessor? If you were to look at these graphs without having listened to these speakers would you say that the Opticon 2 mk2 is a much different or brighter sounding speaker?



Dali Opticon 2 :

Dali Opticon 2 mk2:

 

[Soniclife]

The new version does not look like an improvement, approach with caution. The response of the new version may indeed sound bright, but it could also sound many other ways, it depends if you brain hears those bumps as peaks, or dips

 

[capdec]

Can anyone explain what could be audible given the fact that there are bumps peaks and dips from 100hz - 800hz? Would that result in boomier bass?

 

[capdec]

anyone?

 

[NJC]

Well, I don't know if you pulled the trigger or not, but I just bought the Opticon 1 and letting it "burn in", as well as my ears adjusting. Listening at midfied 6-7 ft away, I can say I like it better than the Menuet SE which I also tried, and although I plan to use it on the desktop, I still like the Opticon 1 better. Better detail although there is some strain in some music from certain passages perhaps due to the excessive bump from 650-950 Hz and perhaps the lower bass/midbass falling below the average response. But it seemingly works up close without excessive bass, has a small footprint and the rear port can function close to boundaries.

The Opticon 2s measure alot flatter on axis and comparing the new MK2 version, the curve on the new version is much more variable. If you shoot for a flatter response, I would stick with the Opticon 2 especially if you like the speaker in spite of wanting more highs. Even with a slightly larger tweeter, the drop off in highs seem more pronounced with the new version and there appears to be a relative lift in frequencies that could sound more sibilant. Given the box is nothing special (I mean, the vinyl is cheap but nice looking enough), that jump in price I think will make them a dog in comparison of all the other choices one has in speakers at or near their new price.

I have other speakers which utilize metal domes and time after time, metal domes give me more of a lift in the highs that make certain instruments pop more in my room and are to my liking. But, the Opticon 1s are seemingly more detailed and have sufficient bite in the highs as compared to some other speakers using soft domes I have tried. A few others that extend more and give more high frequency energy have tended to give me fatigue but these seem to ride the line well between extension, weight of notes and fatigue. Not the most "refined" but a nice enough listen overall and weirdly, can sound just as good or smoother off axis, in another room, etc. So podcasts, if not music will play well on the desk and as I move around the room, from room to room, etc as I do work.

I considered the Opticon 2 MK1 as a main driver but happy enough with what I have now and at the current price I would never buy the MK2 version. Even at half price, I wouldn't jump on the MK2 version given that measured frequency response. So, if you did try them, let us know how they compare in your room.

 

[Recluse-Animator]

To me the MK2 version looks worse. Then again it's hard to be sure because the older one's fr could be more smoothed.

 

[thewas]

To me the MK2 version looks worse. Then again it's hard to be sure because the older one's fr could be more smoothed.

Unfortunately those Stereo magazine measurements have had different smoothing over the last years so they cannot be really used for informative comparisons.

 

[steve59]

I'm in a similar position, owning the kef Blades and now the Blade 2 is released. The consideration is the same with all speakers. First most measurements are more sensitive than we are and often when shopping in similar price groups sound is more different than better. In my case I've read of owners that have upgraded from the blade to the blade metas and appreciate the audible difference. I ask myself, Is the money I lose on the blades worth the price to upgrade to the metas? Blades $32k + tax -50% resale. blade meta $36k + tax...supposing I recovered $16k i'm only out 16k+tax added to the 36k. Now i'm up to $52k invested in the latest, greatest speakers until Kef upgrades them again. sorry but at some point reality has to take over so I'm not even going to demo the blade metas. and if you like what you have now, just enjoy it.

 

[Recluse-Animator]

I'm in a similar position, owning the kef Blades and now the Blade 2 is released. The consideration is the same with all speakers. First most measurements are more sensitive than we are and often when shopping in similar price groups sound is more different than better. In my case I've read of owners that have upgraded from the blade to the blade metas and appreciate the audible difference. I ask myself, Is the money I lose on the blades worth the price to upgrade to the metas? Blades $32k + tax -50% resale. blade meta $36k + tax...supposing I recovered $16k i'm only out 16k+tax added to the 36k. Now i'm up to $52k invested in the latest, greatest speakers until Kef upgrades them again. sorry but at some point reality has to take over so I'm not even going to demo the blade metas. and if you like what you have now, just enjoy it.

Instead of spending the money on new speakers I recommend spending them on room acoustics and or multiple subs.

 

[Mnyb]

Tone controls ? EQ anyone keep the speakers get yourself some means to adjust to taste and varying recordings

 

[mar1o]

Instead of spending the money on new speakers I recommend spending them on room acoustics and or multiple subs.

Maybe first a good mic to make some measurements in room.

 

[Pudik]

Tone controls ? EQ anyone keep the speakers get yourself some means to adjust to taste and varying recordings

This is one of the main issues. Even the best recordings differ from one another. I may obtain good rendition of high strings and woodwinds from one good recording, but from the next good recording tone color of instruments is terrible, modified by high harmonics distortion and high frequencies cut off (ex solo violin inaudible beginning with the 6th octave.) So which speaker can overcome these differences? Is there one out there? Surely, room treatment will help, but would i need to spend $30 k on speakers as well?

 

[MattHooper]

This is one of the main issues. Even the best recordings differ from one another. I may obtain good rendition of high strings and woodwinds from one good recording, but from the next good recording tone color of instruments is terrible, modified by high harmonics distortion and high frequencies cut off (ex solo violin inaudible beginning with the 6th octave.) So which speaker can overcome these differences? Is there one out there? Surely, room treatment will help, but would i need to spend $30 k on speakers as well?

Personally, I seek to optimize my system to where most recordings are enjoyable. String tone is one of my first requirements. Once that is generally right, though of course recordings will be variable, I tend to enjoy the vast majority of recordings with strings.

Ultimately of course it's a subjective call whether any particular speaker/room set up will work for you in this regard. Plenty of people love listening to systems that cost much less than $30K!

 

[Davide]

I have had the Opticon 2 mk2 for a few months and I am very satisfied (also 2 DIY subs are part of the system).
I have followed ASR for some time and have learned about audio science (sacrosanct), thanks to which I have best chosen and build the components of my system.
I can't say that I saved money, but I certainly invested it in the best possible way.
The speakers, however, are something a little different. Measurements in hand, I demoed various top-rated models, such as KEF LS50, R3, Revel M16, Genelec 8030, Neumann KH80, NHT C3, as well as other less science-oriented brands (Dali, Dynaudio, Klipsch, Davis).
Here I must say that my ear preference came into play, and in the end Dali was the one who made the best impression on me out of the box.
I think listening to music must be pleasant and engaging, seeking fidelity makes no sense if it's not engaging.
These Dali are certainly not very neutral, they have a bit of V shape to impress.
But armed with the room correction system I started looking for the most correct response possible, to see if the sound seemed more realistic and engaging, taking inspiration from Harman's preference curves.
Well the result was that a more or less straight and tilted line sounds better than ever.
Now my Dalis, in addition to providing that "yeah" factor that the others didn't have, also has a quite neutral response, without those (deliberate) deviations out of the box anymore (see attachment).
Alas, it's difficult to make comparisons between speakers. Perhaps the Kefs, once properly equalized in my room, would have sounded even better, who knows.
The important thing in my opinion is to have a correction system with which to shape the response according to one's preferences and room, and speakers that respond well to correction, because in the end those are the important thing, not the FR out of the box.

 

[LeoB]

Opticon 2 mk2 are very nice speakers.
I auditioned Kef R3, Lintons and Arendals 1723S in my house and was not impressed with any of them. Then I tried Opticon 2 mk2 and liked them so much that I went ahead and bought Opticon 8 for the fronts and Opticon 6 for surrounds.