Dayton Audio OPAL1 speaker launches

[RickS]

I actually find this one of the most adequate and reasonable judgements a good reviewer should apply to any speaker (and a consumer should keep in mind as well):
1) A mere glance at the [speaker] “spin-o-rama” curves would likely be misleading as to the tonal sense that these speakers impart in real-world listening. If I had judged it only from this graph, I would not have guessed that I would like the [speaker] as much as I did.
2) The [speakers] deserve more than a superficial analysis of measurements. This isn’t to say measurements aren’t indicative of how the speaker will sound, but rather that these need a deeper dive to get a full understanding of how they behave in real-world situations. Despite the erratic anechoic frequency responses, the [speakers] sounded good and measured well in my room, even when compared to a nearly perfect reference speaker.

That doesn't mean that any speaker with subpar measurements sound good.
But as far as all the "awfulness" happening with OPALs and some other speakers keeps within +-3 dB, one must be really not very bright to make bold statements by just looking at graphs only. "Reeee $100 Micca is better" etc

But oh wait, it sells so well nowadays

Much respect for the reviewer.

Have not heard these personally, but they may sound decent. If I was interested though, would put more faith in Erin as reviewers go. If no subjective reviews are available, then am thankful for the measurements. Parts Express measurements are woefully lacking for a contemporary speaker.

I get that many will choose what speakers they like over accuracy. Many do the same with electronics. I can respect freedom of choice, am just not likely to buy or recommend if the measurements are lacking. I can also respect Larson’s overall efforts but not accept his subjective opinions. I do not always agree with Erin’s (or Amir’s) subjective reviews either. Am also not a fan of gloss black finishes so would not spend my time or money to order these even if I can easily return them.

As for the Micca MB42X, it does measure well AND is only $100 but would need a subwoofer for low bass. In any case, would be comparing OPAL1 to other speakers around the same price if I were in the market. Since I know I can find good sound AND better measurements for around that price, the OPAL1 is not a standout in that respect. That said, it may be decent tradeoff for someone else.

 

[AnalogSteph]

You'd think that a 5-1/4" / 28mm combo would be hard to mess up, but man, I haven't seen a tweeter crying out for a waveguide that much in a while. With that sorted, these could be good nearfields when placed on a desk to help out the low midrange. A powered or active option with various choices of EQ would be preferred. As-is, they're a very half-baked product IMO, although there is some promise - you don't see a 30 Hz F10 in a speaker this size every day.

 

[biker29]

Noticed an Opal2 in my latest PE catalog.

 

[Jim Taylor]

A mere glance at the [speaker] “spin-o-rama” curves would likely be misleading as to the tonal sense that these speakers impart in real-world listening.

What is a "mere glance"? This sentence might mean that the writer isn't comfortable with interpreting measurement graphs.

The [speakers] deserve more than a superficial analysis of measurements. This isn’t to say measurements aren’t indicative of how the speaker will sound, but rather that these need a deeper dive to get a full understanding of how they behave in real-world situations.

Again the qualifier "superficial", building on the former "mere". Not only that, but ANY speaker is affected by "real-world situations" (read: room acoustics), and differently so in different rooms.

Seems like someone is hedging their bets.

 

[Penelinfi]

Noticed an Opal2 in my latest PE catalog.

I looked at the one online and it only shows the Opal1 2-way speaker

 

[uwotm8]

Seems like someone is hedging their bets

To me it's seems like someone - reviewer in that particular case - have grown up enough to avoid teenage-like maximalism in their statements and prefers sort of double-checking the results instead.

may sound decent. If I was interested though, would put more faith in Erin as reviewers go

Yes, may sound good for someone in some cases, that's a good point.

Erin-like style of reviews have a major issue to me: almost nothing is said about (ok I'm hyperbolizing a bit) difference between "good $100 speaker", "good $1000 speaker" and "good $10k speaker" which kinda gives someone the idea that Miccas can unjokingly be compared to KEF Reference 1 and be same as good with a sub and some Equalizer APO involved.

P.S. Not even talking about how naive a preson should be to believe that "flawed high-end speaker", say, Wilson Tune Tot will lose to Micca or Edifier MR4 + EQ. But such reviews make some people think it's real.

 

[quattro98]

I saw these last year at Axpona. The fun thing about the speakers is crazy bass from a tiny cabinet. The measurements aren't perfect and they need a ton of power, but they're fine for listening. I don't need that combo of size and extension, but there is a use case for them.

 

[Thomas Savage]

We seemed to have wondered far from the path while doing little to no good in doing so.
Can we at least stay vaguely on topic, please?

Also if ones to get techy etc let it be over something more important than some off topic distraction.

Thanks guys .

Edit , iv moved 16 post out to the measurement master thread .

@RickS , sorry about that mess mate , if iv hoovered too much or not enough give me a shout and I will sort it.

 

[RickS]

I saw these last year at Axpona. The fun thing about the speakers is crazy bass from a tiny cabinet. The measurements aren't perfect and they need a ton of power, but they're fine for listening. I don't need that combo of size and extension, but there is a use case for them.

Not exactly a blazing endorsement as there is a use case for other plenty of marginal products (and misuse of some as well)! 

My sons have JBL Charges and the same argument could be made for them as for OPAL1s. If the goal is lots of bass wrt sound quality, can find lots of examples. AH gave them a 2024 Product Of The Year Award. Now that's an endorsement that takes AH down another notch imo.

 

[a4eaudio]

Have not heard these personally,

AH gave them a 2024 Product Of The Year Award. Now that's an endorsement that takes AH down another notch imo.

 

[lewdish]

This is why I have trust issues w/ Audioholics reviews. Despite the terrible response it has a 4.5 rating. Ended up looking like you need lots of power, at least 200w and listen to it severely off axis w/ EQ to make it usable. I mean you basically have Wilson Audio tuning on a budget at this point I guess which might be the glass half full way of looking at it....
I think had they made it a 3-Way tower w/ more of the woofers It would have actually been something decent. But the Parts express team probably was targeting a lower budget and as a result they ended up w/ something that seemed cool but didnt perform well.

Audioholics also measure using w/ 10db intervals so it visually flattens out their response which i think is not a great way to show measurements...

 

[Penelinfi]

What would be interesting is having individual driver responses on this cabinet so people can make their own version.
Or even better, a new speaker with their new mid-tweeter truncated frame bundle.

 

[lewdish]

What would be interesting is having individual driver responses on this cabinet so people can make their own version.
Or even better, a new speaker with their new mid-tweeter truncated frame bundle.

They have that new Carbon Mid/Tweeter combo kit that I think would look nice in combination w/ the Epique Woofer.
The Opal1 is using the Epique E150HE-44 crossed over at 2,200Hz (which i think is just way too high for these woofers) I do wish Erin Measured the individual driver response also for further comparison like how Amir does in his reviews. Heres graphs from Parts Express & AudioXpress The graphs look vastly different in the low end but share some similarities in the later mids - Highs where it doesnt really work well. This is why I'm concerned every time I look at a Parts Express catalog. AX also measured the distortion and its not great but its not bad either. Def would improve if you had more woofers to up the SPL.

Dayton Epique E150HE-44 Measurements from PE

Dayton Epique E150HE-44 Measurements from Audio Xpress.

Like some folks here said it def would have been a lot better crossed at around 700hz and under

 

[uwotm8]

the terrible response

It's within standard +- 3 dB and gets better if we look at PIR

What's even funnier PS is 5.0 so it is "better" than "good speakers" like LSR 305, T5V and on par with Kali LP-6 and IN-5

Also beats KEF Q150 (4.6) and on par with Q3 Meta (5.0)

This is science

 

[a4eaudio]

... as a result they ended up w/ something that seemed cool but didn't perform measure well.

View attachment 437378

 

[thewas]

It's within standard +- 3 dB and gets better if we look at PIR

What's even funnier PS is 5.0 so it is "better" than "good speakers" like LSR 305, T5V and on par with Kali LP-6 and IN-5
View attachment 437414
Also beats KEF Q150 (4.6) and on par with Q3 Meta (5.0)

This is science

Science means to be able to interpret the data, the high score from the OPAL1 comes not from its linearity or smooth directivity but mainly from its bass extension, which can be seen if we compare the scores of the loudspeakers you mentioned with subwoofer and no EQ:

Dayton Audio OPAL1 6.5
KEF Q150 6.8
KEF Q3 Meta 6.9

 

[uwotm8]

which can be seen if we compare the scores of the loudspeakers you mentioned with subwoofer

Why should I compare them with a sub? To give average speakers a chance if I invest somewaht 2-3x their price into good sub?
Due to OPAL 5" woofer size comparing it to 6.5" Q350 is already unfair tho.
Yes, I know that LF extension means a lot in PS calculations.

Still, I'd prefer speaker that go lower, cuz even when used with a sub, possibility of crossing lower is a benefit. And it seems rather risk free as far as OPAL woofer is unlikely to go inverted cone mode if one will decide to turn it crazy loud (good luck with that sensitivity tho ). But that's arguable ofc.

Dayton Audio OPAL1 6.5
KEF Q150 6.8
KEF Q3 Meta 6.9

But even with a sub that "difference" is nowhere as big to call one of that a bad speaker and another a good one.

Better than one of a "good speakers" (and I unjokingly think T5V are awesome) even in a "sub mode".

 

[RickS]

Also, OPAL1 directivity is quite poor. Can be seen in both Erin's video and Larson's post. Notably, it is ugly in the critical midrange. It blooms around 2-3 kHz and recedes around 4-5 kHz. Not only does it make for a challenging listen (as Erin indicates), but makes it hard to use EQ to address.

This is not the directivity performance of a well-designed contemporary speaker.

 

[MAB]

Science means to be able to interpret the data, the high score from the OPAL1 comes not from its linearity or smooth directivity but mainly from its bass extension, which can be seen if we compare the scores of the loudspeakers you mentioned with subwoofer and no EQ:

Dayton Audio OPAL1 6.5
KEF Q150 6.8
KEF Q3 Meta 6.9

Great point and great way to look at it. Likely will be missed by the recipient of your post who is still trying as hard as he can to confuse preference and measurement, and apparently not even understanding preference score criteria.

 

[kyuu]

This is science

Looking at the preference score in isolation is not science. It has significant shortcoming and was abandoned even by the people who came up with it. It's merely one data point among many others. The entire suite of measurements for a speaker need to be taken into account.