• 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!

Thrax Audio Speakers - Anodized casing

sofrep811

Active Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
281
Likes
349
I’d love to hear these Lyra speakers by Thrax. Reviewing all their gear I wonder if this is all beauty over everything else? Anyone have any clue about Thrax and their sound?

New Gen of audio is taking over with some old style Western Electric stylings and then some with Brutalism styling.

https://www.thraxaudio.com/lyra
 
More style than substance I would say.

The MTM layout, sharp chassis corners, extremely basic specs, and lack of any MFR provided measurements indicate that Thrax Audio don't care that much about the nitty gritty details of great loudspeaker design.
 
If I read things like ...

"those are discussed by connoisseurs "
"require a higher level of equipment and knowledge to identify"
"discussed only among people with true experience and understanding."
"you can clearly hear the difference between the DACs".
"custom designed"
" proprietary"
"foil wound inductor and polypropylene capacitors of the highest quality."

... my B.S. meter activates, big time.

Jim
 
Oh my, this webpage is a good example of why you shouldn't let engineers write marketing copy, ESPECIALLY when they're sure they can do it. Somehow those ones never see the point in proper punctuation.

I will say the baffles look very expensive.
 
The MTM layout...

Looks like a good MTM layout to me, with that elliptical waveguide. There are arguments for different approaches to MTM, as well as arguments for and against MTM, but the shape of that waveguide makes me think that attention is being paid to minimizing the radiation pattern discontinuity in the crossover region.
 
Last edited:
Different model, but measurements are available. Not terrible.

 
Although MTM is a bit skeptical and the spec or description is a bit weird, The waveguide design looked like they are at least considering directivity issues seriously, no idea how other things will collectively goes on, but with these combined I would wait till some trust worthy measurements are out to put them even into considering list
 
the shape of that waveguide makes me think that attention is being paid to minimizing the radiation pattern discontinuity in the crossover region.
What good does minimizing the radiation pattern discontinuity in the crossover region do if the two woofers will start beaming at ~200Hz?

Ain't no way they're crossing the tweeter over that low.
 
Different model, but measurements are available. Not terrible.

Not terrible but with a purifi woofer and a deepwaveguide I am kind of disappointed at the performance
 
What good does minimizing the radiation pattern discontinuity in the crossover region do if the two woofers will start beaming at 200Hz?

Ain't no way they're crossing the tweeter over that low.

It is not obvious to me how you come up with 200 Hz as the point where the woofers will start "beaming". I think they are 6.5" woofers, so the effective cone diameter is probably about an inch less.

The woofers' vertical pattern won't narrow to 90 degrees until about 800 Hz, and the horizontal pattern won't narrow to 90 degrees until well north of 2 kHz.

I assume the designer was aiming for approximate pattern matching in the crossover region in the horizontal plane, and approximate power response matching in the crossover region in the vertical plane. I'm guessing that the crossover is in the 1.5 to 2 kHz ballpark.

The waveguide looks like it's a constant-directivity type and the angles are hard to judge but I would guess 100 degrees horizontal and 60 degrees vertical. This would be pretty close to the woofers in the horizontal plane and a bit wider than the central lobe of the woofers in the vertical plane, but then the sidelobes of the woofers (the lobes above and below the main lobe) will fill in the vertical off-axis energy somewhat.
 
Last edited:
"Listing all those shortcomings in a speaker would make you wonder how does it even work and yet when you are comparing 2 DACs with 100 times better specification and measured performance on the obviously imperfect speakers you can clearly hear the difference between the DACs."

Proof, that you can "clearly hear the difference between the DACs"?

:facepalm:
 
These speakers are very expensive, do not measure especially well and have some exaggerated marketing. That's a reason to not buy them, but the pile on makes me uncomfortable.
 
Different model, but measurements are available. Not terrible.


Quote

The Thrax's cumulative spectral-decay, or waterfall, plot (fig.7) is perhaps the cleanest in the midrange and low-mid treble I have ever found!


Surely this is exceptionally awesome!
I have no opinion on the audible difference…
 
To stir the debate a bit I can give you a bit more information about the design. What is used an why. But I see very strong opinions based on observing a web picture and reading my essay :) It would be good if anyone in the discussion has owned a pair or at least listened to one for a while, so a 3rd party can share experience on the actual performance. Any meaningful question will be answered.
 
Different model, but measurements are available. Not terrible.


LOL at the measured pair arriving with the wrong polarity wired. Haphazard boutique brands and their apologists...
 
Different model, but measurements are available. Not terrible.

Measurements are decent. We’ve seen way worse.
 
Back
Top Bottom