MoFi SourcePoint 10 - Review & Measurements by Erin

[cavedriver]

Also, note how Erin's mentions the driver pair being "not very heavy". I wonder how not very heavy is that? Of course I understand that most of the driver weight in heavy drivers is magnet power to drive large woofer cone excursions so it makes sense for the frequency range of this speaker that the total driver weight might not need to be that much. But there's also the question of how much weight did AJ save by overlapping the magnetic fields of the two drivers.

 

[VintageFlanker]

what are all of you doing when you approach a new pair of speakers?

Just about every pair I owned, I always positioned them with no toe-in.

 

[hmt]

And the current R3 Meta is even smoother, can't wait for Erin or Amir to NFS it:

View attachment 289130
Source: KEF R Series with MAT white paper

Maybe but imo the scaling is too different to assess this. 5db increment vs 3db. To me it shows a similar directivity. No surprise because the waveguide and drivers look the same and just the xover is a tad different. But I agree with the previous poster that the R3 looks better overall because of less resonances. I also mentioned this in erins youtube review in the comments.

 

[richard12511]

Ascend Acoustics Sierra LX:

View attachment 289120

SIERRA-LX PAIR

Our Latest And Greatest Bookshelf Monitor Class-leading bass extension, massive dynamics and midbass punch, high power handling, exceptionally wide and linear dispersion combined with some of the best measurements in the industry, our new LX is truly something quite unique and special. This is...

ascendacoustics.com

That's actually a pretty good example. To my eye, the spin of that Ascend does look slightly better. Its overall directivity is not quite as good as the Mofi, and the vertical directivity will be considerably worse(no coaxial) but it appears to have significantly less resonances. Note that the Mofi spin looks to be a higher resolution, which highlights all those tiny high q resonances. I'd be curious to see how many of those Mofi resonances would disappear if a similar resolution was used. Dave also has an NFS, so he must have just configured the NFS to use less measurement points. You can look at Amir's reviews of the Revel F208 and F228Be to see how adding additional measurement points adds more resonances and makes the spin look worse, despite that not really being the case.

Spin isn't everything, though. SPL capabilities can make a huge difference in overall sound quality. How does the Sierra compare to the Mofi there? The Mofi does pretty well in Erin's 102db torture test.

For the price, though, those Sierra's look some of the best I've ever seen for a passive speaker, though I disagree that makes the Mofi a bad price/performance speaker. Just because something is not the best there is, that doesn't make it bad. These Mofi speakers still look really good compared to the rest of the field(I'd say top 20% or even top 10% at least).

 

[617]

Nice innovative design. Not easy to make that response with a two way.

I'd probably get the KEFs but if you like the way they look this is an impressive piece of engineering.

 

[richard12511]

Nice innovative design. Not easy to make that response with a two way.

I'd probably get the KEFs but if you like the way they look this is an impressive piece of engineering.

I do kinda wonder why the choice was made to stick with a 2 way when you have a fairly decent budget.

 

[617]

I do kinda wonder why the choice was made to stick with a 2 way when you have a fairly decent budget.

The odd ten inch coax is an intrinsically distinguishing design choice. If you pull it off you will have at least some quality no other speaker can match.

In this case, the big woofer allows directivity control down to a much lower frequency than a five or seven inch driver can accomplish. You also get the potential for lots of output and bass.

Smart choices, since consumers want the clarity of a narrow dispersion and they also want lots of bass.

Most speaker manufacturers aren't ambitious enough to design a speaker like this. KEF uses the same size midrange on every speaker they make, Ascend uses drivers made by other people, Revel is invested in their design choices.

I'm not a 'fan' of Andrew Jones, I find it bizarre that he's the only speaker designer most audio people can name, but him and his team deserve credit for executing tricky designs like this.

 

[PowerSerge]

These remind me of my Equator Q10s except mine use a horn with a titanium compression driver and are dsp controlled. I wonder if any of the audio shops have these in the portland or area so I could listen to them.

 

[jhaider]

what are all of you doing when you approach a new pair of speakers?

It depends on what it is. If it has a coax or circular waveguide/horn My starting place is to rotate them such that their axes cross ahead of the listening area. Everything else starts toed in to cross roughly at my head in the main spot. I haven't found toe-out useful to date.

Also, note how Erin's mentions the driver pair being "not very heavy". I wonder how not very heavy is that? Of course I understand that most of the driver weight in heavy drivers is magnet power to drive large woofer cone excursions so it makes sense for the frequency range of this speaker that the total driver weight might not need to be that much. But there's also the question of how much weight did AJ save by overlapping the magnetic fields of the two drivers.

It looks like they spec'ed an expensive neo magnet instead of a mud magnet, on an open cast alloy frame. That's why it's light for a 10. The tweeter magnet is insignificant in comparison.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Apparently, John Atkinson got to review these first and did not have any issue with the bass output (as Erin did). For $4600, they should rock imo. Would like to see a teardown. Agree with many others that KEF appears to have better values.

 

[dualazmak]

The thing that really gets me about all this is that I always start listening to speakers with both speakers pointed straight forward. This gives anywhere from 10 to 30 degree "off-axis" listening depending on room and setup. This came from my old Snells, a classic wide baffle design, which are best with the speakers straight forward or only slightly turned inwards towards the listener. Only recently have I considered turning speakers in towards the listener, and then only part way and never to where the speaker is directly on axis with the listener's location. It reminds me that I really need to be looking at the off-axis frequency responses more carefully when reviewing speakers, but also makes me really wonder, what are all of you doing when you approach a new pair of speakers?

Edit: For reference, the Linton's and the KEF Reference 1 Meta's, both show basically equivalent response at 0, 10, and 20 degrees off axis, so it comes down to preferred soundstage width I suppose for those speakers.

I do the same in my audio setup as shared here on my project thread...
- Not only the precision (0.1 msec level) time alignment over all the SP drivers but also SP facing directions and sound-deadening space behind the SPs plus behind our listening position would be critically important for effective (perfect?) disappearance of speakers: #687

 

[abdo123]

And the current R3 Meta is even smoother, can't wait for Erin or Amir to NFS it:

View attachment 289130
Source: KEF R Series with MAT white paper

Weren't the DI curves more or less the same between the MAT and the previous revision?

 

[thewas]

Weren't the DI curves more or less the same between the MAT and the previous revision?

The DI mainly yes but not the on and off-axis responses which were less smooth on the older model.

 

[abdo123]

The DI mainly yes but not the on and off-axis responses which were less smooth on the older model.

then the normalised directivity graphs should be more or less the same then.

 

[VintageFlanker]

the new R3 Meta will possibly suffer less on the more audible multitone distortions, hope Erin will also measure it.

He received a pair a few days ago.

 

[hmt]

I am also looking for the differences to the R3 non meta.

 

[thewas]

then the normalised directivity graphs should be more or less the same then.

No, the directivity is same but there were on-axis deviations which then can be off course could be also found off-axis in the old one which are significantly reduced in the Meta:

 

[hmt]

With EQ they will be the same. The most obvious thing of the R3 is the elevated treble which makes them sound a bit too bright.

 

[DanielT]

Here another model with a 10 inch coaxial. The reason I'm mentioning it is that a friend of mine bought a pair of these yesterday. I will listen to them in a few weeks. It will be exciting.

This is what they look like. Not my friend's speaker but that model:

Tannoy T225 Loudspeaker System with Passive Radiator Bass Loading Manual | HiFi Engine

www.hifiengine.com

However, attached pictures are pictures of my friend's speakers. He unscrewed the drivers and took a look at them. He will put in new capacitors in the passive crossover in them.

 

[VintageFlanker]

Now, the SourcePoint 8: