Dayton Audio OPAL1 speaker launches

[thewas]

Why should I compare them with a sub?

I compared the scores with sub to show that its relatively high score comes mainly from its bass extension and not from other qualities, that has nothing to do with

To give average speakers a chance if I invest somewaht 2-3x their price into good sub?

 

[thewas]

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.

Exactly, let me quote Toole himself from another thread:

I just dipped into this thread and have a request: please, please stop putting any reliance on the calculated "scores". Learn to interpret the spinorama curves. That will have to do until we have an "educated" AI version of sound quality prediction. The ratings that were calculated by the Harman research group were done to prove a scientific point, and that done, they ceased to be used even by the people who created them. We rely on visual interpretations of the family of curves.

 

[a4eaudio]

The Opal1 can't even touch the KEF Blades.
Preference Score:
Dayton Audio OPAL1 6.5
KEF Blade 7.5

Of course the preference score isn't quite that important here as I think it would somewhat lean toward the OPAL1s..Since it was derived for headphone use, the OPAL1's will be much easier to strap onto your head than the Blades.

 

[uwotm8]

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

PIR curve is calculated with taking that into account, isn't it?
Wider radiation -> reflections in 2-4 kHz area seems to partially compensate on-axis dip and the same is happening in a broad 200-800 Hz zone.
But ofc will depend on exact room where they're used.

high score from the OPAL1 comes not from its linearity or smooth directivity but mainly from its bass extension

Which brings us to a question of priorities/importance of exact parameters to the end result.
Bass extension means more for preference than linearity unless the latter is really poor, not just average as in OPAL's case.

that has nothing to do with

It has as far as score being calculated for a "perfect subwoofer" which digs very, very deep.
Works cool in theory, costs like a plane in real life. Typical sub goes down to 30 Hz at best.

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

I agree so I rely on PIR

Almost within +-1.5 with a right slope.
These are not nearfield monitors so PIR should mean more than axial curve.

The Opal1 can't even touch the KEF Blades

That's very strange for a 30x less expensive speaker. Or 50x? I forgot what's the price of 1 and 2.

 

[thewas]

I agree so I rely on PIR

PIR on its own is not enough, as someone can tune it to be totally smooth but if the directivity isn't smooth this would mean that in this case either the direct sound or sound power or both wouldn't be smooth.

 

[uwotm8]

PIR on its own is not enough, as someone can tune it to be totally smooth but if the directivity isn't smooth this would mean that in this case either the direct sound or sound power or both wouldn't be smooth.

Yes, and these speakers are far from being ideal - noone doubts. Same as many other speakers what have a lot to complain as well.

Coaxials are hard to beat at what they're good.
Here's a traditional 2-way which FR is better yet DI/SP is almost the same as OPALs

From 800 Hz and higher OPAL's PIR is way better but what's happening before is a real concern, MUH LOWER MIDRANGE. I hate if it's hollow.

 

[RickS]

As have not heard these, Erin's review is my proxy. Measurements aside, his subjective review is lukewarm by my estimate (he wants speakers to review so avoids being overly negative). Here is a big indicator for me, shortly after his OPAL1 review, Erin did a top speakers under $1000. The OPAL1 did not even make his list. However, over at AH, it is a speaker of the year!

 

[a4eaudio]

That's very strange for a 30x less expensive speaker. Or 50x? I forgot what's the price of 1 and 2.

My post was sarcasm. I figured if it was fair to compare a small bookshelf speaker to a small bookshelf speaker + a subwoofer (i.e., the PS + subwoofer comparison) then why not just compare it to a big $25K tower.

 

[a4eaudio]

...Here is a big indictor for me, shortly after his OPAL1 review, Erin did a top speakers under $1000. The OPAL1 did not even make the list. However, over at AH, it is a speaker of the year!

None of Erin's recommended speakers could have made AH 2024 Speaker of the Year as they were not introduced in 2024 (some are going on 7-8 years old).
But Erin also could have taken price/value into consideration - while the OPAL1's aren't "expensive" several of the others are less than half the price if my quick search is accurate. But otherwise I don't see why they wouldn't be in the same conversation, based on objective data?

The data shows how really good the Ascend Sierra 1 is
OPAL beats the Klipsch in every category
OPAL beats the KEF Q150 in two categories

Nobody is saying the OPAL1 is better than Ascend Sierra 1's, but why would they not be in the conversation of good speakers under $1,000? And they absolutely destroy them all in low-frequency extension - you can EQ the OPAL1 (it is already pretty good in PIRR and Power) but there is absolutely nothing you can do to any of these other speakers to make them play down to 32Hz.

 

[thewas]

My post was sarcasm. I figured if it was fair to compare a small bookshelf speaker to a small bookshelf speaker + a subwoofer (i.e., the PS + subwoofer comparison) then why not just compare it to a big $25K tower.

Who did that?

 

[thewas]

Which brings us to a question of priorities/importance of exact parameters to the end result.
Bass extension means more for preference than linearity unless the latter is really poor, not just average as in OPAL's case.

First of all please read again the quote of Toole I posted about those scores.
Second, even if we ignore that and blindly trust in it, yes, possibly many will prefer a loudspeaker with more/deeper bass to one which lacks bass but is otherwise better (Toole says that bass accounts for around 30% of the preference) but it is possible to correct bass with EQ, placement and/or subwoofer but is not possible to correct directivity issues.

 

[thewas]

you can EQ the OPAL1 (it is already pretty good in PIRR and Power)

Nope, its directivity is suboptimal and that cannot be corrected by EQ:

 

[uwotm8]

(Toole says that bass accounts for around 30% of the preference) but it is possible to correct bass with EQ, placement and/or subwoofer but is not possible to correct directivity issues

There is no more issues than with any similar traditional 2-way speaker, it's all within acceptable tolerance as I showed in comparison with Wharfediamond.
It's listenable and maybe even joyable as is, both of them.

However, looking from your point and keeping in mind that LF extension matters a lot, that one "much liked" speaker seems to be a pure junk:

You can say ofc that it's dirt cheap as well but as you told me previously price doesn't matter and is barely a factor for science.
So either this one is an unEQable disaster with no LF (as a bonus) or it's "good" and then OPAL is "good" too at least

You can call it trolling ofc or whatever, but I'm just pointing at somewhat double standards here.

 

[a4eaudio]

Nope, its directivity is suboptimal and that cannot be corrected by EQ:

You can't change the directivity, but that is not the issue. Almost all two-ways with a 5 or 6-1/2" midwoofer and a non-waveguided tweeter will have a directivity mismatch - the directivity is suboptimal == tradeoffs in speaker design. So unless you think the comparison to the KEF Blade was actually relevant, we should compare apples to apples.

The comparisons above were related to Erin's top bookshelf speakers under $100 and Audioholics naming the OPAL1 the 2024 Best Affordable Bookshelf Speakers of the Year. The OPAL1 absolutely destroys them all in low-frequency extension. Its not even close. Its weakness (among others) is it is less linear. It is the least linear of the bunch (the Klipsch data in post #149 is wrong as Erin recommended the version II). But the OPAL1 is still +/- 3dB from 50hz to 18kHz. So EQ the broad hump between 900Hz and 2kHz down 1.5-2dB or listen to them 30-degress off-axis and there isn't going to be much to complain about (unless your comparing them to the KEF Blades). Are they the best affordable bookshelf in the world? No! I'd take the Ascend Sierra 1 over them. But the bashing of them by people who have never heard them, and then trying to point out why those who have actually heard them and thought they sounded good must be wrong because the squiggly lines say so, isn't helpful.

The Directivity Index is relevant, but there are quite a few things that are higher priority. Based on DI alone, could you rank the speakers below by sound quality? I see lots of different design tradeoffs, but no way I'd bet $1000 real money on which of these would win a blind listening test. Of course, they will all sound different which is what makes speakers so much fun.

 

[thewas]

There is no more issues than with any similar traditional 2-way speaker, it's all within acceptable tolerance as I showed in comparison with Wharfediamond.

First, also the 12.1 like almost every 2-way loudspeaker without a waveguide is nowadays an unnecessary compromise but its still better in terms of directivity and sound power compared to the OPAL:

It's listenable and maybe even joyable as is, both of them.

Individual tastes cannot be reasonalby discussed, some people like also $50 bluetooth speakers or some Bose Acoustimass stuff.

You can say ofc that it's dirt cheap as well but as you told me previously price doesn't matter and is barely a factor for science.
So either this one is an unEQable disaster with no LF (as a bonus) or it's "good" and then OPAL is "good" too at least

You can call it trolling ofc or whatever, but I'm just pointing at somewhat double standards here.

You are discussing with me in this case though and I don't like the Micca either, without EQ I find it better tuned though and its 8 times(!) cheaper.

 

[thewas]

You can't change the directivity, but that is not the issue. Almost all two-ways with a 5 or 6-1/2" midwoofer and a non-waveguided tweeter will have a directivity mismatch - the directivity is suboptimal == tradeoffs in speaker design. So unless you think the comparison to the KEF Blade was actually relevant, we should compare apples to apples.

Which is in 2025 a very unnecessary tradeoff as a decent waveguide doesn't really cost much higher and we have seen for example cheap loudspeakers like the JBL LSR305 MK1 which was even active/DSP and sold sometimes around $200 a pair so you can spare your rhetoric with the Blade.

The Directivity Index is relevant, but there are quite a few things that are higher priority. Based on DI alone, could you rank the speakers below by sound quality?

A poor directivity is for me and also some others a no-go criterion as compared to for example bass extension and response tuning it cannot be corrected.

 

[uwotm8]

12.1 like almost every 2-way loudspeaker without a waveguide is nowadays an unnecessary compromise but its still better in terms of directivity and sound power compared to the OPAL:

It's pretty much the same flawed, all the difference is exact locations/frequencies of humps for each speakers.
Personally speaking, just by the graphs I'd rather get Wharfedale due to my own taste (hollow midrange is worse to my ears than BBC dip). But (un)fortunately I have heard top-peak-popular-famous (and definitely not terrible measurements wise) Diamond 8 and 9 series and will never buy anything from Wharfedale without listening no matter how highly it's praised.
So choosing between these two and a lot of other flawed models including KEF Q I'd definitelly arange a listening test... well, in case of OPAL it's only buy-n-return mode.
Looks like we end up on exactly what's said at Audioholics: not limit yourself by the graphs, check its sound IRL.

 

[thewas]

It's pretty much the same flawed, all the difference is exact locations/frequencies of humps for each speakers.

No, it has much better tuning, smoother sound power and also the DI is a bit smoother.

Personally speaking, just by the graphs I'd rather get Wharfedale due to my own taste (hollow midrange is worse to my ears than BBC dip). But (un)fortunately I have heard top-peak-popular-famous (and definitely not terrible measurements wise) Diamond 8 and 9 series and will never buy anything from Wharfedale without listening no matter how highly it's praised.
So choosing between these two and a lot of other flawed models including KEF Q I'd definitelly arange a listening test... well, in case of OPAL it's only buy-n-return mode.
Looks like we end up on exactly what's said at Audioholics: not limit yourself by the graphs, check its sound IRL.

We don't, that is your own approach, I definitely wouldn't get the OPAL or any other loudspeaker with such significant flaws, even more for its price.

 

[RickS]

I think it is worthwhile to note that speakers are not absolutes and my observations here are not meant to be either. I realize that there is a tendency lately to try to label a product as simply good or bad. I appreciate the tradeoffs made in speaker design. In the case of the OPAL1, the design is not the set of tradeoffs that I would choose. But as I mentioned there are preferences of mine and within my own family that have been made for other reasons than accurate audio reproduction. While can be happy they enjoy those products, they are making lifestyle choices and not targeting high fidelity.

Speakers are the least perfect part of our audio systems but arguing in favor of less accuracy will not get us closer to making them better. See little advantage to arguing how certain aspects of the OPAL1 are better than other speakers when is so apparent its goal was not accuracy.

 

[uwotm8]

it has much better tuning, smoother sound power

If you say so

I appreciate the tradeoffs made in speaker design. In the case of the OPAL1, the design is not the set of tradeoffs that I would choose. But as I mentioned there are preferences of mine and within my own family that have been made for other reasons than accurate audio reproduction

Absolutely agree.

Speakers are the least perfect part of our audio systems but arguing in favor of less accuracy will not get us closer to making them better. See little advantage to arguing how certain aspects of the OPAL1 are better than other speakers when is so apparent its goal was not accuracy.

I'm only saying that downsides in this case are exagerrated for some reason while on absolute scale they are so usual so it's even boring to discuss. At the same time, LF extension, which is rather critical according to F. Toole (I'm not talking about "dumbed" PS, I'm talking about the model of its calculation, whic is based on that science!) is rather being ignored. Or said that it should be compensated by buying a subwoofer. A perfect one. Sounds good... but in a vaccum.

Speaking practically and keeping science in mind, a speaker restrited in LF that much so it needs a sub basically means you should get one, and that will multiply the price roughly by 2. But for that money you have a lot of better opportunities, some of which can be actually OK without a sub (yes, yes, mitigating-room-modes-with-2-or-more-subs, I know) and also be better in basics like linearity, DI and so on. Endless audiosansara wheel, isn't it?