Dutch & Dutch 8Cs

[tuga]

Additionally, I've read in a few places some users complain of a "narrow" sound stage with the 8cs. Can someone who has heard them comment on that? My Type 20s have a very luxuriously wide soundstage that I'm a fan of.

The 8c has a narrow and constant directivity pattern. This means less interaction with the side walls. The advantages are increased accuracy, a balance that is less room dependent and sharper phantom images.

Image sharpness and the amount of spaciousness are inversely proportional, you either get crisp imaging or a wide soundstage. It's up to you to decide which matters most and then choose a wide or narrow dispersion speaker.

 

[tuga]

Does "buttery smooth" equate to accurate, or inaccurate, or what?

To me it means little or no own-sound/distortion of the unpleasant kind.
In a speaker it is the result of a balanced response and absence of cone and dome resonances in the upper-mids an treble.

 

[Purité Audio]

The 8c has a narrow and constant directivity pattern. This means less interaction with the side walls. The advantages are increased accuracy, a balance that is less room dependent and sharper phantom images.

Image sharpness and the amount of spaciousness are inversely proportional, you either get crisp imaging or a wide soundstage. It's up to you to decide which matters most.

Although if you have the speakers firing ‘straight’ no toe in you can increase spaciousness depending upon construction, proximity etc etc
Keith

 

[fredoamigo]

The ones I listened to although they were pinched towards the listener gave me the impression of a very wide sound image ... we are very far from listening with a neck brace as with typical studio monitors.

 

[Robert394]

I have both, if you want the ‘best’ and can afford them get the 8Cs, having said that the 20’s are a really enjoyable speaker, whether they are better than comparable Genelec, NEUMANN et et you would have to decide.
Keith

Keith, I would greatly appreciate any additional comparison information you can give me on the 8cs versus the Type 20s. (Think for listening for enjoyment purposes, not mixing).

1. How big a difference in performance would you say there is between them? For example, before I had the Type 20s, I had the A7Xs. The Type 20s were a qualitative step up -- everything was better without question: soundstage, detail, "enjoyment", power, solidity of imaging within the sound stage, scale of soundstage, etc.. Would the 8cs be a comparable step up from the Type 20s, or more an incremental improvement?

2. Since you feel the 8cs are better, better in what ways specifically?

3. Are there any trade-offs? For example, the Type 20s outperformed the A7Xs in every qualitative way (detail, soundstage, imaging, etc.). Would you say the 8cs outperform the Type 20s in every way, or would there be trade-offs?


Thank you. Because it's hard or impossible to listen to the 8cs in my area, your input is greatly appreciated.

 

[Dialectic]

The 8c has a narrow and constant directivity pattern. This means less interaction with the side walls. The advantages are increased accuracy, a balance that is less room dependent and sharper phantom images.

Image sharpness and the amount of spaciousness are inversely proportional, you either get crisp imaging or a wide soundstage. It's up to you to decide which matters most.

One can get image sharpness and an appropriately wide soundstage with the 8Cs, BACCH, and first-reflection-point absorption. With the 8Cs and BACCH, chamber music soundstages are suitably small; orchestral soundstages are huge. Popular music soundstages may be small, huge, or insanely three-dimensional depending on how the recording was made. I'm reluctant even to use the word 'soundstage' to describe the three-dimensional images that I hear.

I know we have a lot of D&D/BACCH skeptics on the forum. Until recently, I lived a couple blocks away from Harman's flagship Revel/ML listening room in Manhattan. There is no comparison between the Salon 2/ML system and that room and the much less expensive D&D/BACCH system in my house.

I need to get around to posting measurements...

 

[tuga]

One can get image sharpness and an appropriately wide soundstage with the 8Cs, BACCH, and first-reflection-point absorption. With the 8Cs and BACCH, chamber music soundstages are suitably small; orchestral soundstages are huge. Popular music soundstages may be small, huge, or insanely three-dimensional depending on how the recording was made. I'm reluctant even to use the word 'soundstage' to describe the three-dimensional images that I hear.

I know we have a lot of D&D/BACCH skeptics on the forum. Until recently, I lived a couple blocks away from Harman's flagship Revel/ML listening room in Manhattan. There is no comparison between the Salon 2/ML system and that room and the much less expensive D&D/BACCH system in my house.

I need to get around to posting measurements...

I am one of those BACCH sceptics, wouldn't touch it with a stick.
I'm happy with the way stereo reproduces recorded ambience cues.

 

[Robert394]

One can get image sharpness and an appropriately wide soundstage with the 8Cs, BACCH, and first-reflection-point absorption. With the 8Cs and BACCH, chamber music soundstages are suitably small; orchestral soundstages are huge. Popular music soundstages may be small, huge, or insanely three-dimensional depending on how the recording was made. I'm reluctant even to use the word 'soundstage' to describe the three-dimensional images that I hear.

I know we have a lot of D&D/BACCH skeptics on the forum. Until recently, I lived a couple blocks away from Harman's flagship Revel/ML listening room in Manhattan. There is no comparison between the Salon 2/ML system and that room and the much less expensive D&D/BACCH system in my house.

I need to get around to posting measurements...

Any chance you've heard the Type 20s? It sounds like you are saying the 8cs (even without BACCH) create a very good/coherent 3d image of the instruments?

 

[Purité Audio]

Keith, I would greatly appreciate any additional comparison information you can give me on the 8cs versus the Type 20s. (Think for listening for enjoyment purposes, not mixing).

1. How big a difference in performance would you say there is between them? For example, before I had the Type 20s, I had the A7Xs. The Type 20s were a qualitative step up -- everything was better without question: soundstage, detail, "enjoyment", power, solidity of imaging within the sound stage, scale of soundstage, etc.. Would the 8cs be a comparable step up from the Type 20s, or more an incremental improvement?

2. Since you feel the 8cs are better, better in what ways specifically?

3. Are there any trade-offs? For example, the Type 20s outperformed the A7Xs in every qualitative way (detail, soundstage, imaging, etc.). Would you say the 8cs outperform the Type 20s in every way, or would there be trade-offs?


Thank you. Because it's hard or impossible to listen to the 8cs in my area, your input is greatly appreciated.

Rob the 8Cs are amongst the finest loudspeakers I have heard at any price, I have never really placed much weight in soundstage but thee 8Cs imaging is exceptional partly because you can adjust each speaker’s output for exact match.
The 8Cs just just allow you to hear more, just greater resolution, cardioid, constant directivity , perfect step, phase coherent bass is superb partly because you can adjust the response with the built in EQ.
you must try and hear them, only then can you really decide if they are worth the extra.
Let me know if I can help getting a pair to you to try.
Keith

 

[Dialectic]

Any chance you've heard the Type 20s? It sounds like you are saying the 8cs (even without BACCH) create a very good/coherent 3d image of the instruments?

I have not heard the Type 20s.

The 8Cs provide the soundstage that is on the recording. Imaging is very precise without BACCH. In my limited experience listening to them without BACCH, they don't throw a huge, indistinct soundstage but instead one that is very precise and defined.

To the extent that otherwise similar and well-engineered loudspeakers seem to generate soundstages of different sizes, the difference usually owes to the extent to which the speakers are splashing mid and high frequencies off the sidewalls. I think this explains the results of the famous faceoff between the Salon 2 and the JBL M2, which the Salon 2 won because listeners generally preferred its more spacious presentation of the stereo image. I suspect the M2 generated more precise but less expansive sonic images.

So, if you want a huuuuge soundstage, go with MBLs or other omnis.

 

[Robert394]

What I'm really looking for is a qualitative step up in performance across each dimension of sound quality, similar to the improvement I heard going from Yamaha HS7 -> Adam A7X -> Hedd Type 20s. Each time was a leap in performance where the upgraded speaker was better in every respect.

Basically I'm looking to be "wowed" again I guess. I love the Type 20s but have had them for a year so I'm kind of used to them now.

I email Martijn to ask about the possibility of an audition where I am but we'll have to see.

 

[Purité Audio]

The better the speaker the less available ‘wow’ but I believe the 8Cs have some wow left In them.
Keith

 

[Martijn Mensink]

Did these answers get posted somewhere?

No, not yet. I'm working on a post though. It's gotten quite lengthy, because I'm trying to answer a great number of other questions I've read in these forums as well.

 

[Dialectic]

Basically I'm looking to be "wowed" again I guess. I love the Type 20s but have had them for a year so I'm kind of used to them now.

Really excellent speakers, in general, have not wowed me. They just reproduce everything and do nothing wrong.

The speakers that wowed me in the past--e.g., the Quad ESLs or the Genesis speakers--tend not to have had strong all-around performance.

As I've said in this thread in the past, Keith demoed the 8Cs and the Kii Threes for me side by side. They were both impressive but did not wow me. They sounded extremely similar. Neither speaker obviously did anything wrong in playing back recordings, but the 8Cs' bass was deeper. The Threes sounded slightly more detailed, but I suspected that this was a result of a slightly higher-than-optimal treble balance. A quick glance at some measurements supported my suspicion, so I bought the 8Cs.

 

[Robert394]

Dialectic have you compared them to any of the upper tier 3-ways? Say Genelec The Ones, ATC SM25a, etc? I compared the Genelec 8341s to the Type 20s and preferred the 20s (I resolved to choose whichever monitor was IMO better independent of price difference).

Really trying to understand as best I can without having the opportunity to listen to them if the 8cs represent the kind of performance improvement over say the Type 20s/Genelec The Ones tier of monitors that you'd see from going up a monitor tier within a brand.

Basically, if I were to go from the Hedd Type 07s to the Hedd Type 20s, I'd be moving up a tier in monitoring performance where essentially every aspect of performance is better on the Type 20s vs the Type 07s.

Wondering if we're talking a similar type of leap between the Type 20 caliber monitors and the 8cs, or something less definitive.

I realize I'm asking a somewhat hard to answer question but I'm really just looking for people's impressions right now as part of my research in considering whether to upgrade to the 8cs. It's not clear yet whether I'll have an opportunity to audition before purchase in my area.

 

[Dialectic]

Dialectic have you compared them to any of the upper tier 3-ways? Say Genelec The Ones, ATC SM25a, etc? I compared the Genelec 8341s to the Type 20s and preferred the 20s (I resolved to choose whichever monitor was IMO better independent of price difference).

Really trying to understand as best I can without having the opportunity to listen to them if the 8cs represent the kind of performance improvement over say the Type 20s/Genelec The Ones tier of monitors that you'd see from going up a monitor tier within a brand.

Basically, if I were to go from the Hedd Type 07s to the Hedd Type 20s, I'd be moving up a tier in monitoring performance where essentially every aspect of performance is better on the Type 20s vs the Type 07s.

Wondering if we're talking a similar type of leap between the Type 20 caliber monitors and the 8cs, or something less definitive.

I realize I'm asking a somewhat hard to answer question but I'm really just looking for people's impressions right now as part of my research in considering whether to upgrade to the 8cs. It's not clear yet whether I'll have an opportunity to audition before purchase in my area.

I believe Keith sells both HEDD and D&D, and he will give you his honest opinion.

 

[Emlin]

I believe Keith sells both HEDD and D&D, and he will give you his honest opinion.

He's already done it!

 

[Dialectic]

He's already done it!

It's his MO, and it's why he's on ASR and not the gynecologist's audio forum.

 

[Robert394]

Thanks, he's already weighed in in favor of the 8cs. Though I'm still trying to get a sense of how large an upgrade they would or would not be from the Type 20s. The main question I have, which I know is somewhat subjective, is do they represent the same kind of performance leap you'd see going from say, the Adam A7x, to the Adam SV3s (in other words, up a tier within a monitor range). Or is the difference more incremental/a matter of trade-offs? For instance, the high end on the Type 20s is by far the best I've ever heard -- can the 8cs compete with the Type 20's AMT tweeter?

Given the expense, I'm just trying to gather as much information as I can. I've contacted D&D directly and we are in the process of finding out of an in-person audition is possible in my area.

In lieu of that, I'm just trying to mine the personal experiences of those who have heard them here.

 

[Emlin]

It's his MO, and it's why he's on ASR and not the gynecologist's audio forum.

What the eff are you talking about?