Krix Speaker Design discussion

[Privatekepler]

Hello

I have a question for people on the forum with any experience and background with speaker design.

I am curious about 2 speakers from krix (Australia)

1. NEUPHONIX MK2
Floorstanding - https://www.krix.com.au/product/neuphonix-mk2

2. Megaphonix flat onwall - https://www.krix.com.au/product/megaphonix-flat

I have space for both so it's not one vs the other in terms of sound it's more theoretical question about their design

Question:

1. What is (if any) pro or cons of 2 way vs 3 way design?

2. in NEUPHONIX what is the benefit of having 4x Low Frequency Drivers (5”) and Mid Frequency Driver 1 (5”) coated paper cone. 26mm as compared to MEGAPHONIX FLAT that only has only 1x Low Frequency Driver Single (10”) paper cone driver, and no mid frequency driver, and a high frequency driver?

3.Lastly For these two speakers the Cabinet design (shape, materials, size of drivers) are different and so is the price - how does that translate to real life in terms of sonic performance (not functionality as I know they are design for two different functional purposes)? Movies (which have more dynamic range and diaglouge vs mmusic?

4. If anyone has had same or equivalent speakers and have switched to on wall (for speaker to go behind accoustic transparent screen) would be willing to share their observations for movies and music.

Your input
is much appreciated.

 

[Alexei]

Hi fellow Australian, no replies from the more knowledgeable, so I’ll take a crack with what I think I know.

The Neuphonix Ii are a hi-fi speaker engineered with the attributes that are desirable for that purpose. They are significantly less electrically efficient with the aim to provide a smoother frequency response and will have a wider horizontal dispersion over a wide frequency range. Their tonality is less likely to sound different to those not sitting dead-centre. With all those woofers and being 3-way, they probably still suffer lobing in the vertical dispersion. For music they should sound more pleasant and natural and have a deeper bass response. They are likely to have lower distortion of every variety except at deep bass frequencies like almost all towers that don’t have very large woofers. I read a review somewhere last year that was impressive.

The Megaphonix Flat are significantly more efficient and may sound almost twice as loud with the same amp drive level. Crossing a 10” mid-bass to a waveguided 1” dome (not true compression driver) at 1.8kHz is likely trickier to achieve good directivity matching. They will sound quite different in the mids (less presence and increased muffling) when you move off centre in either plane due to the woofer beaming its high frequency extremes. A 2-way’s midrange response also has more potential to suffer IM distortion from bass at higher levels. I would also expect a rougher frequency response and despite the large woofer, probably not as much deep bass and more bass colouration. It’s hard to know as Krix don’t specify their response dB limits. They may sound better for Home Theatre use as punch and thump are likely more impressive. They’ll probably sound closer to what you would hear at the Cinema whether you like that or not. You’d have to think about whether that sort of sound would suit you long term for music listening once the ‘dynamics and turn it up to 11’ novelty wears off.
A quick net search will yield many articles on the virtues of 2 v 3 way speakers. Too hard to summarise it in this answer.
Hopefully someone else chimes in and adds more info.

 

[Doenerkunde]

2. in NEUPHONIX what is the benefit of having 4x Low Frequency Drivers (5”) and Mid Frequency Driver 1 (5”) coated paper cone. 26mm as compared to MEGAPHONIX FLAT that only has only 1x Low Frequency Driver Single (10”) paper cone driver, and no mid frequency driver, and a high frequency driver?

The cone surface of one ten Inch vs four 5 Inch drivers is virtually the same, but the four 5 Inch drivers might offer an advantage in real room listening: With a single driver in typical listening height the direct sound and the floor bounce arrive at the ear out of phase, typically causing a response dip in the upper bass range. With multiple drivers closer to the floor this "upper bass suckout" will be mitigated.

But this is only one aspect and this aspect alone is not sufficient to make a choice. Speakers are complex systems that manage a multitude of trade offs. Others might chime in to illuminaten other aspects.

With that being said: The price tag of the Neuphonix is hefty and much higher than that of approved ASR crowd pleasers like the Revel Performance series, Ascend Acoustics Sierra or ELX series, Philharmonic BMR Towers or Mofi SourcePoint 888.

 

[AudioJester]

Without any published speaker measurements, how does one make any meaningful comparison other than design based theory?

 

[dfuller]

1. What is (if any) pro or cons of 2 way vs 3 way design?

A properly designed 3 way will have a wider vertical beam (read: larger sweet spot) and lower midrange intermodulation distortion than a 2-way, all other things being equal. This is because there's less of a size difference between a mid driver and a tweeter vs a midwoofer and a tweeter, and the fact that the mid and woofer cover smaller passbands than a midwoofer.

The big disadvantage is that they're more expensive to make (more complex crossover + higher BOM cost for drivers).

2. in NEUPHONIX what is the benefit of having 4x Low Frequency Drivers (5”) and Mid Frequency Driver 1 (5”) coated paper cone. 26mm as compared to MEGAPHONIX FLAT that only has only 1x Low Frequency Driver Single (10”) paper cone driver, and no mid frequency driver, and a high frequency driver?

Basically 2 way vs 3 way as far as pros and cons. 4x 5" drivers has similar radiating area to 1x 10", but using 4x 5" allows for a narrower cabinet because you can stack them vertically.

I can't answer your other two questions, I'm not familiar with the speakers.

 

[NTK]

5" drivers typically will have a significantly lower xmax than a 10" driver. Therefore, even when the total Sd is the same, the max volume velocity from a 10" driver will mostly likely be higher than four 5" drivers. The ratios of Sd to the area as indicated by the nominal diameter for smaller drivers are usually also smaller than larger drivers.

Using Purifi drivers as examples: The xmax and Sd of their 5 1/4" driver are 9.8 mm and 84.9 cm². The xmax and Sd of their 10" driver are 14.75 mm and 360 cm²

 

[Privatekepler]

Hi fellow Australian, no replies from the more knowledgeable, so I’ll take a crack with what I think I know.

The Neuphonix Ii are a hi-fi speaker engineered with the attributes that are desirable for that purpose. They are significantly less electrically efficient with the aim to provide a smoother frequency response and will have a wider horizontal dispersion over a wide frequency range. Their tonality is less likely to sound different to those not sitting dead-centre. With all those woofers and being 3-way, they probably still suffer lobing in the vertical dispersion. For music they should sound more pleasant and natural and have a deeper bass response. They are likely to have lower distortion of every variety except at deep bass frequencies like almost all towers that don’t have very large woofers. I read a review somewhere last year that was impressive.

The Megaphonix Flat are significantly more efficient and may sound almost twice as loud with the same amp drive level. Crossing a 10” mid-bass to a waveguided 1” dome (not true compression driver) at 1.8kHz is likely trickier to achieve good directivity matching. They will sound quite different in the mids (less presence and increased muffling) when you move off centre in either plane due to the woofer beaming its high frequency extremes. A 2-way’s midrange response also has more potential to suffer IM distortion from bass at higher levels. I would also expect a rougher frequency response and despite the large woofer, probably not as much deep bass and more bass colouration. It’s hard to know as Krix don’t specify their response dB limits. They may sound better for Home Theatre use as punch and thump are likely more impressive. They’ll probably sound closer to what you would hear at the Cinema whether you like that or not. You’d have to think about whether that sort of sound would suit you long term for music listening once the ‘dynamics and turn it up to 11’ novelty wears off.
A quick net search will yield many articles on the virtues of 2 v 3 way speakers. Too hard to summarise it in this answer.
Hopefully someone else chimes in and adds more info.

Thank you for this response. When you mentioned "They will sound quite different in the mids (less presence and increased muffling)" would it make a difference if say a dedicated centre channel was used ? Although it would be the same speaker i.e. same 2 way speaker but just for center channel but again it is a 2 way design so does it effect the mid range human vocal as they found muffled?

 

[Privatekepler]

5" drivers typically will have a significantly lower xmax than a 10" driver. Therefore, even when the total Sd is the same, the max volume velocity from a 10" driver will mostly likely be higher than four 5" drivers. The ratios of Sd to the area as indicated by the nominal diameter for smaller drivers are usually also smaller than larger drivers.

Using Purifi drivers as examples: The xmax and Sd of their 5 1/4" driver are 9.8 mm and 84.9 cm². The xmax and Sd of their 10" driver are 14.75 mm and 360 cm²

View attachment 457525View attachment 457526

Thank you for making me aware of this learnes something

A properly designed 3 way will have a wider vertical beam (read: larger sweet spot) and lower midrange intermodulation distortion than a 2-way, all other things being equal. This is because there's less of a size difference between a mid driver and a tweeter vs a midwoofer and a tweeter, and the fact that the mid and woofer cover smaller passbands than a midwoofer.

The big disadvantage is that they're more expensive to make (more complex crossover + higher BOM cost for drivers).

Basically 2 way vs 3 way as far as pros and cons. 4x 5" drivers has similar radiating area to 1x 10", but using 4x 5" allows for a narrower cabinet because you can stack them vertically.

I can't answer your other two questions, I'm not familiar with the speakers.

Thank you for answering the firat questions I was looking for why a vertical stack of 5 inch drivers vs 1 10inch driver and your explanation answered that

 

[Alexei]

Thank you for this response. When you mentioned "They will sound quite different in the mids (less presence and increased muffling)" would it make a difference if say a dedicated centre channel was used ? Although it would be the same speaker i.e. same 2 way speaker but just for center channel but again it is a 2 way design so does it effect the mid range human vocal as they found muffled?

Hi again, I believe it would be less problematic with a dedicated centre channel. It sounds like your focus is more for an immersive HT experience. IM distortion is unlikely to be your focus during movies.
I have a pair of cheap 15”W/1”compression Tweeter PA speakers that I occasionally break into service when the mood takes me. If you sit with them pointed so the woofer dust caps are looking directly at you, they sound really good, especially for clear HT dialogue and chest-thumping FX. They also sound ‘live-like’ for classical/jazz. They do full orchestra so impressively effortlessly. Only issue is if you stand up or move >30degrees left or right they lose mid range vocal clarity noticeably. Walking around the room while doing other things they sound quite midrange deficient and speech is harder to understand. It’s all about beaming and directivity at the upper frequency range of a large woofer. Sitting in the sweet spot though, they really recreate the cinema experience better than any other speakers I have, including Kef LS50 OG and Wharfedale Linton 3-way and Diamond 10.2s. I find in a large room they best convey a sense of depth and maintain speech clarity at significant distance (5m) better than my other speakers. At closer distances they sound harsh in the upper mids. My PA speakers are closest to the Megaphonix but with even more exaggerated directivity mismatch. You’ll definitely want a sub for HT use anyway, probably with either, but definitely the Megaphonix.
I also have 6.5”W/1” dome waveguide Tweeter bookshelves with a crossover freq close to the Megaphonix that don’t have the muffling, presumably due to better dispersion matching. The LS50s don’t change sound character noticeably due to their Uni-Q point source design really working well.
If you’re going to listen in a dedicated seating area and music is the secondary concern over the HT experience, id say the Megaphonix might suit your situation better if the price is OK for you.
Only thing to consider is that any colouration and resonances in response of the Megas is going to be magnified when you have three of them up front. There’s no practical way of knowing if this is an issue to you without auditioning. We know what chance there is of that in Australia, particularly with a niche brand like Krix!

 

[Newman]

Without any published speaker measurements, how does one make any meaningful comparison other than design based theory?

I know senior people at Krix and have expressed in the past my disappointment at their lack of public measurement data, and encouraged them to publish it, since I know they have it all, due to in-house facilities they have developed including full anechoic chamber as well as their very own development of an in-house automated turntable about 7m in the air with a data capture system that collects 360 degree off-axis data over a period of hours (they let it run overnight).

They have excellent designers and work from a science/engineering/R&D paradigm, so all the right signs are there for excellent speakers to be developed.

They replied that their marketing people are extremely clear that publishing measurement data - good or bad - only decreases sales. So they act accordingly.

It's frustrating. But the real blame lies with the audiophile market.

cheers

 

[Penelinfi]

With that being said: The price tag of the Neuphonix is hefty and much higher than that of approved ASR crowd pleasers like the Revel Performance series, Ascend Acoustics Sierra or ELX series, Philharmonic BMR Towers or Mofi SourcePoint 888.

They are roughly the same if not a little less expensive than some of the options like mofi 888 in Australia.