That segues into today's assignment. During the same Zoom chat, our quad of Germanic audio nuts conspired to have me compare our original Codex to the current version. That benefits from Manfred's HHCM SL spiderless midrange with revised crossover board. I'd also review the new Spark monitor which has that midrange and essentially cuts Codex off at the belt line. I could thus report on what Manfred's 2nd-best midrange does in our 4-way upgraded to current specs except for internal enclosure tweaks; and the brand-new 3-way monitor.
Thinking over the gig—having to unsolder two drivers, remove their filter boards, install new boards, re-solder new drivers, rinse and repeat for multiple A/B—a different plan hatched. Spark duplicates Codex's top three drivers albeit with the new midrange. Why not knee-cap both Spark and Codex with my usual 4th-order/80Hz active analog hi/lo-pass filter handing seamlessly over to our dual 15" Ripol subwoofer? However many A/B it might take, I could swap speakers without surgeries. Whatever differences factored would concentrate on the dissimilar midranges. The sub would completely equalize Codex's advantages in the low end. Meanwhile I'd not have to return our Codex glass baffles to Germany to have their midrange holes widened to clear the spiderless midrange surrounds. Audio Physic didn't have to dispatch a €2K mod kit then get it back used. A win all around. Here's what I learnt.
Tuning into Spark, Manfred's spiderless midrange seemed to split the difference between a standard dynamic driver and a classic xover-less widebander like our Cube Nenuphar v2 or Zu Soul VI. Such widebanders invariably are dynamically aspirated, immediate and more twitchy like caught fish wiggling to free itself. It's a particular blood-thinning tell which living with widebanders helps one recognize. While Spark looked entirely poker-faced on the subject, it held some of those quicker more lucid aces. It was my first indicator that in its own way, a classic spider must act like a mechanical sponge. It soaks up reactive energies to damp dynamic micro reflexes. The result is curtailed related contrast and expressivity. Crossover parts are said to have similar effects. Avoiding them is one rationale for widebanders; or 2-ways which run their mid/woofer wide open then add a simply high-passed tweeter like a Tash Goka Reference 3A or a Sean Casey Zu. Though Spark runs electrical filters, it avoids the apparently similar filter of a traditional midrange spider. Hence my calling the effect 'splitting the difference'. Confirmation came in my Codex shootout.
Hello greater open-throatedness, presence and intensity. Whatever we call it, Spark had sufficiently more than the previous generation's traditionally hung midrange. It telegraphed alike on 24/96 vocals by Mahsa Vadhat and the 16/44.1 spiked fiddle of Mark Eliyahu. Over Spark the bandwidth of female vocal cords and viola-type strings had more emphatic range, more in-room presence. The acoustic occupancy of virtual performers was more insistent. As an easy A/B/A/B, it was a very interesting exercise. It stripped away the usual distractions of disparate tonal balance, dispersion or material attributes when one compares loudspeakers. This was about just one quality; the home turf of good widebanders. Though not as pronounced as Nenuphar, it had elements of the same quickening. The vocal range felt more intimate, elastic and vigorous. Because the big sound|kaos sub equalized all differences below the waist, my verdict for this comparison was easy. Spark took home the prize. Its updated midrange had superior dynamic response thus better expressivity and presence.
