Dutch & Dutch 15C Discussion

[Sal1950]

The real difference is the dispersion, they have very different approaches, look at the 8C review for what I assume the 15 will look like, though the width of the beam may be different. I'd assume a general improvement in graph prettyness as well. The different dispersion will lead to very different in room sound.

As will crossover settings, speaker positions, room treatments, more.
It also uses 3 15' woofers and costs a ton more.
Genelec and others build some monster monitors also
How big is your room and how much SPL do you need or use?
But your going down a different path than my comment meant.
Which was mainly D&D didn't reinvent any wheel here, just a different packaging and cost.
And a bit crazy/silly doing it as a "stand mount" IMHO WHY?. LOL

 

[Soniclife]

But your going down a different path than my comment meant.
Which was mainly D&D didn't reinvent any wheel here, just a different packaging and cost.

I'm not getting your point, to me this is quite different form other things on the market, and interesting in it's own right. Who will buy it over no idea, but I suspect it's more a statement product and proof of concept for a 10C that will be a much bigger seller.

 

[Digital_Thor]

Amps and DSP is cheap now. Make a square box and add a known waveguide with a fitting tweeter and a woofer matching the waveguide. Plenty of designs out there... Should get you around 90% of the M2 for waaaayyyy less. We mostly pay for finish, peace of mind and know-how. Of course there's pitfalls and bumps on the way... But it's doable. The Dutch is much trickier with cardioid and rear firing subwoofers.

 

[Digital_Thor]

Though... If I should own a speaker like that... I think Ymir from Ø Audio looks much better.

 

[Sal1950]

Though... If I should own a speaker like that... I think Ymir from Ø Audio looks much better.

Very purdy,it damn well should be for $45k, totally passive.
But wait till you see how it measures. John Atkinson did for one of his swan-song reviews in this months June 2026 Stereophile.
It's not public yet so I can't say much but in his closing says "despite the lack of tonal accuracy, the sound quality was acceptable, particularly with rock recordings".
Tom Fine's subjective review complains loudly about the sound until after a very extended "breakin" period. Overall I found it quite a pan for a Stereophile review.

 

[amirm]

Now you keep writing about maximum SPL capabilities. It's trivial that a 15" has much higher maximum SPL than a 3". And it's also obvious that the 15C was designed for high SPL. But that's just not the point of the discussion.

If you are talking about my comment, break up distortion shows up at lower levels.

 

[Digital_Thor]

Very purdy,it damn well should be for $45k, totally passive.
But wait till you see how it measures. John Atkinson did for one of his swan-song reviews in this months June 2026 Stereophile.
It's not public yet so I can't say much but in his closing says "despite the lack of tonal accuracy, the sound quality was acceptable, particularly with rock recordings".
Tom Fine's subjective review complains loudly about the sound until after a very extended "breakin" period. Overall I found it quite a pan for a Stereophile review.

I must say, it sounded quite nice at the exhibition in Vienna this year. But I get what you mean I took everything with a grain of salt, like I always do on exhibitions, because there's simply too much noise and "disturbances" so you only get a "felling" and not really a "can I live with this thing for a longer period of time". And I definitely need a proper measuring speaker, to be able to live with it.
What it could do, was to play very loud without sounding in any way "pushed". It just kept playing louder it seemed. A friend of mine who likes LOUD - and rock - loved it, especially because he hates small speakers... like he really does not like them ... hehe.

Here at home I love my DIY active KEF's because they are so linear and smooth. In the end, this is what keeps me the most satisfied. It's fun with full blast and creative this and that.... but overall and mostly... I always prefer neutral and smooth, like my old Volvo V70 - whoops... a car analogy sneaked in

 

[dsprito]

Because Mms does not have a significant impact on the "speed" of direct radiating drivers, according to physics.

A fast driver needs a light cone. Or does it?

purifi-audio.com

It is interestinig in pointing to some counter-intuivity. So I am removing the direct reference to Mms although in practice the relationship rather holds.
But still it is likely to expect that the 15" driver used in 15C will have significantly lowered bandwidth compared to a 4-5" driver that can quite well cover the midrange (in the sense of reaching also quite deep low).
So, in my understanding , it will lose transients which I think largely differentiate between audio products otherwise well-engineered from the, say, static FR/THD perspective.

 

[mwmkravchenko]

It is interestinig in pointing to some counter-intuivity. So I am removing the direct reference to Mms although in practice the relationship rather holds.
But still it is likely to expect that the 15" driver used in 15C will have significantly lowered bandwidth compared to a 4-5" driver that can quite well cover the midrange.
So, in my understanding , it will lose transients which I think largely differentiate between audio products well-engineered from the, say, static FR/THD perspective.

How? Over what range of music does the 15 midrange need to operate?

 

[amirm]

So, in my understanding , it will lose transients which I think largely differentiate between audio products otherwise well-engineered from the, say, static FR/THD perspective.

You only "lose" transients are above the frequencies it is asked to play. Otherwise, we could say every speaker has this problem if one asks it to play a transient that has 1 MHz bandwidth.

 

[dsprito]

You only "lose" transients are above the frequencies it is asked to play. Otherwise, we could say every speaker has this problem if one asks it to play a transient that has 1 MHz bandwidth.

It is interestinig in pointing to some counter-intuivity. So I will remove the direct reference to Mms although in practice the relationship rather holds.
But still it is likely to expect that the 15" driver used in 15C will have significantly lowered bandwidth compared to a 4-5" driver that can quite well cover the midrange.
So, in my understanding , it will lose transients which I think largely differentiate between audio products well-engineered from the, say, static FR/THD perspective.

Well, that's what I call the (dynamic) time vs frequency perspective. It is likely for high fidelity music reproduction time resolution especially in the critical fast-changing attack part of the music time envelope might be quite demanding and not well covered by pure Fourier (and static) frequency analysis. Or is it ? Eager to tune or expand my view

 

[Hayabusa]

Well, that's what I call the (dynamic) time vs frequency perspective. It is likely for high fidelity music reproduction time resolution especially in the critical fast-changing attack part of the music time envelope might be quite demanding and not well covered by pure Fourier (and static) frequency analysis. Or is it ? Eager to tune or expand my view

it is..

 

[dsprito]

it is..

Still not quite convinced by the power of this argument

 

[mwmkravchenko]

Still not quite convinced by the power of this argument

Then you need to study more.

Mark

 

[dsprito]

Can it well represent transients reproduction fidelity that can be generated by percussive intruments that can have dynamic level changes in the range of 100dB within 10us ? And their inharmonic/noise-like frequency contents ? if I remember correctly such data was reported in a research paper Specific Hearing Loss in Young Percussion and Brass Wind Players due to Music Noise Exposures

 

[NTK]

You understand that a rise time of 10 μs equates to a bandwidth of 35 kHz, right?

https://www.edn.com/rule-of-thumb-1-bandwidth-of-a-signal-from-its-rise-time/

 

[Hayabusa]

Still not quite convinced by the power of this argument

How can I convince you? Frequency and time domain can be exchanged without loss.
But I have to agree that looking at both you could come to wrong conclusion if not done correctly.
For instance: A 0dBFS single sample 'dirac' pulse is audible but shows up as 20*log10(1/fft_size) dBFS wideband noise.
(-60dB for 1024 and -120dB for a 1.048.576 fft)
So maybe I have convinced myself now (And you are right?)

 

[dsprito]

Thanks for a friendly reply This opens me up to confessing that I just shared my intuitive thoughts at weekend about the limitations of classic Fourier without prior properly refreshing and researching this topic with relevant AES articles of which I think I have caught a glimpse in the past - maybe someone can point to some specific research articles about analysis of short-lived audio transients ? Just thought others on an audio science discussion forum might have or have had some similar questions and friendly share their POV or conclusions .
It has just ocuured to me on several occasions that there might be some challenge to std Fourier applied to audio as it gets its analytical resolution by extending the time of the signal sample interval (the longer time sample the better resolution) and assuming its fully harmonic, stable and repetitve within this interval. Audio transients, especially for percussive instruments seem not to fit in too well with this assumption so I am asking (outloud) myself a question is the std Fourier analysis well representative for audio transients especially taken their very short attack outbursts and noise-like or highly fluctuating frequency contents.
But there is a maybe good chance due to my intuituive approach here that I am overcomplicating this and in the essence a bunch a sines with optionally some extra phase they are going through holds perfectly well also for extemely short transients.
But generally this discussion gets a bit off the main topic as well ...

 

[ppierre]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_system

The outer ear funnels sound vibrations to the eardrum, increasing the sound pressure in the middle frequency range. The middle-ear ossicles further amplify the vibration pressure roughly 20 times. The base of the stapes couples vibrations into the cochlea via the oval window, which vibrates the perilymph liquid (present throughout the inner ear) and causes the round window to bulb out as the oval window bulges in.

Mother nature doesn't seem to care of your obsession for "audio transients"...

 

[Hayabusa]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_system

Mother nature doesn't seem to care of your obsession for "audio transients"...

sad response.. what are you trying to accomplish with this answer? Make things worse?