• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Mesanovic CDM65 Studio Monitor Review

Rate this studio monitor:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 7 3.2%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 40 18.2%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 173 78.6%

  • Total voters
    220
I noticed the Silverback module in above post kind of sort of photoshop the Pic. No idea why they do this.

1734525327011.png


Here's a photo from a speaker sent for review.

1734525393367.jpeg
 
But I wouldn't buy a car without knowing if its engine is reliable or if it has caused recurring problems in the past, even if the car is very beautiful and performs well
An interesting comparison: how many test reports have you seen about car engine performances? Then why would you expect to see the amp measured separately in what is a complete, whole product—an active speaker?

But I see that you are now ranting about reliability… something impossible to assess with a sample of one.
 
One would actually assume that the exchange here addresses the acoustic qualities of the CDM 65, but the way the thread "drifts" is... interesting.
Regarding the DSP/amplifier/WISA unit, the criticism is certainly legitimate in that 100% of recording studios and most stereo listeners will not use WISA. I don't think it's that likely someone will build a surround setup with the CDM65 for home theater use either. But it was obviously not the plan to offer this feature by Mesanovic (and the other manufacturers which use it). Instead, a cheap 4-channel DSP power amplifier was needed.
But since I now know that the part is used by different manufacturers in large numbers, it will certainly be easy to get as a spare part if it breaks.
 
More on topic: I'd like to know how I can see from the charts if a speaker is suitable for near, mid or far field.

And on cardioid behaviour: do I understand correctly this is implemented in dsp in order to get better directivity in bass? I.e. just placing 2 subwoofers opposite like in the ls60 doesn't make it a cardioid design, though in principle it could work - as the hardware is already in place - with correctly implemented dsp?
 
Just wanted chime in here to clear some things up and thank Amir for his detailed review and measurements. They correlate extremely well with our own anechoic measurements which is great to see!

The CDM65 uses drivers/components from various companies which are all off the shelf and readily available from us or from the many online retailers that distribute these drivers direct to end users. We do not upcharge for the tweeter/midwoofer/woofers if they ever need replacing simply by calling them "OEM variations". You can purchase from us or from a distributor at the same price. The amplifiers will have to be serviced/supplied by us in case of any issues or failures (none so far, very reliable) - end users can replace them very easily as they only have one internal 8 pin pheonix connector.

Given the price target we had with this design, the drivers had to be chosen carefully. The midwoofer/tweeter combo is by far the best price/performance combo currently available. You will see these two drivers used by many other companies for this reason. Very few combos out there that beat them in performance for this specific design and if they do the price jump is staggering. The Dayton woofers offer great performance for their price and work well in this specific narrow cardioid designed cabinet layout. Yes, the Purifi drivers are fantastic, but using them in this design would most likely require different amplification to get their true performance out of them and using 4x of them for a pair of speakers would put this speaker in a completely difference price category.

Regarding the components and their country of origin:
Tweeter - SB Acoustics - Indonesia
Mid Woofer - SB Acoustics - Indonesia
Woofers - Dayton Audio - Taiwan
Amplifier - Platin Audio - China
Waveguide - Machined in house - USA
Cabinets - USA
Assembly/Testing - At our facility in Detroit
 
consider these:
And check the spec sheet (no measurements though):


purify woofer, hypex amp, hype dsp (may need lots of time to tune), good cabinet, option for beryllium tweeter, and modular upgradability (hopefully).
About £3000 a pair without the beryllium tweeter option (which you can add later).
based in the uk with 1 year warranty.
 
Sound on Sound measured one of their models.
Keith
 
consider these:
And check the spec sheet (no measurements though):


purify woofer, hypex amp, hype dsp (may need lots of time to tune), good cabinet, option for beryllium tweeter, and modular upgradability (hopefully).
About £3000 a pair without the beryllium tweeter option (which you can add later).
based in the uk with 1 year warranty.

Kinda funny that their render has no screws in the driver holes.
 
Almost $1000 more expensive than the KH150 while having fewer controls and worse distortion? Looks like a scam :(
Not a scam..... A nice monitor but not quite as good as a KH150.
 
It's disappointing to see such ignorance in audio science forums. People just check how pretty measurements are without understanding what they mean, and how they relate to real life situations.

How measured data applies to real life situations is an important aspect of audio science. Two speakers with identical predicted in room responses can measure differently when placed in the same room and position. This is because their dispersion patterns interact with the room differently. Cardioid speakers, for example, tend to have fewer dips and peaks compared to monopole speakers because they interact less with the surrounding room. This results in less Speaker-Boundary Interference Response (SBIR) in the actual measured in room response.

Cardioid speakers generally offer better midrange clarity and bass texture compared to conventional speakers, especially in typical room environments. This is because their design minimizes room interaction by directing sound more towards the listener and less towards the walls, reducing reflections and standing waves. However, in exceptionally large rooms, these advantages might be less noticeable due to the different acoustic dynamics at play.

In other words, these speakers are significantly superior to the KH 150s because of their cardioid response. In a small room, Mesanovic speakers may show similar peaks and dips, but these can be attenuated by up to -10 to -12 dB compared to the KH 150s. Under the same conditions, certain small peaks and dips that appear in the KH 150s' in-room response won't even show up with the Mesanovic speakers, resulting in a completely smooth and linear response. Another problem with KH 150s is that they do not have a great sound power response for farfield listening. (sound power is the highest determining factor for farfield listening sound quality) While the KH 150s can sound great in nearfield settings, their sound power is too non-linear for farfield use. Similarly, while Mesanovic speakers may not have the best sound power for farfield listening, they perform better in that aspect compared to the KH 150s.
These are supposed to be monitors - not pleasure listening speakers. Farfield is irrelevant. The real issue for studio use as monitors is nearfield performance. The KH150 are significantly better, but these are rather nice.
 
I gain a great deal of pleasure from listening to ‘monitors’.
Keith
 
Yes - simply compare the measurements of Amir here on ASR.
I did and showed that the Mesanovic has a more continuous PIR and sound power due to its wider directivity and better vertical radiation:


So I repeat my question to you on which data concretely do you base your statement that "the KH150 are significantly better"?
 
Back
Top Bottom