More cone, more body? In two-way land, many catalogues afford easy comparisons between 5¼" and 6½" versions. Some even go to 8". All else being equal, bigger goes lower and louder. Those are foregone conclusions. But bigger also tends to hang more meat higher up toward the tweeter meet. Paying close attention to the harmonic content of instruments in that zone like violins or guitars, it's often the case that smaller cones apply higher magnification to the metallic overtone aspects. Bigger cones focus more on resonant tone-wood contributions. Once we get to 10" and 12" classics like dual-concentric Tannoy, that observation loads up further. An associated observation can be that smaller cones separate and tease out better. Something along those lines also factored for my two IQ iterations. Baked into its greater relaxation was IQ30 shifting deeper into tonal woodiness away from metallic attributes. Spelled out, it's obvious how this would register more laid back. Whilst my various comments thus far all ended in the same chilled place, it's still informative to parse their various expressions. It would even be true to invoke somewhat greater warmth for IQ30 with the proviso of it not being from temporal blur.

Like IQ, IQ30 set up with sufficient clearance can throw an immense stage if a recording doesn't centrally cluster its action. Newbies to hybrid dipoles might expect diffuse imaging. That doesn't apply. Localization is very specific and sorted front to back. Yet images have undeniable bloom. They don't render miniaturized. That holds hands with the softer textures. It's why despite clear detailing, this soundstage feels more organic than laser-etched hologram. Quite enthusiastic dynamic scaling too connects with that looser less edge-chiselled gestalt. These drivers energized more air than my smaller IQ. This extra in-room activity registered as more substance and a heavier foot on voltage swings. What likely prevented it from steering too much into a darker heavier milieu was the doubled-up tweeter surface. It didn't tilt things up, just stopped them from tilting down. I used the same flat resistor tuning as on my IQ, leaving the +1dB and -1dB, -2dB and -3dB values in the box. At the other end, moving from a 9½" Satori woofer to a 12er didn't make a real extension dent when the former's useful in-room reach already breaches 30Hz. The real difference was upper-bass shove. It's where the larger cone had a bit more welly. Returning to IQ already matching ideally to my room and SPL, did IQ30 successfully argue that its extras, despite being presumably shelved mostly for what-if reserve duty like higher SPL and bigger rooms, pulled hard enough? Or was my standard IQ at half the cost too close; even had the edge?

I decided to query Marek on whether he had deliberately rejigged the voicing. If so, with what intentions? "Yes, the sound of IQ30 differs slightly from IQ. My goal wasn't to reproduce the original sound in a larger format but to achieve optimal results with new drivers. In this case only the dipole + port concept is unchanged. The driver configuration diverges. Some sonic characteristics remain unchanged due to the basic design, including how it reproduces space and integrates the woofer. The IQ30 goal was to create a more authoritative IQ Ultra which already sounds slightly smoother and fuller than the IQ. Personally I really like the IQ for its slightly sharper sound but the Ultra is a bit richer and smoother. The IQ30 was developed with this in mind as well as an overall experience of greater scale, power and richness." That fully correlated with the impressions and assessment on my end. It neatly undercut any reluctance to spell out that for my tastes, the standard IQ really had the edge. I favoured its more energetic, enunciated and quicksilvery reading to IQ30's thicker slightly lazier attitude. IQ30 acted older so more settled and filled out. IQ behaved younger, leaner and sportier. You might quip that I ought to act my own age not play at sonic reversal of fortunes. Obviously reviews aren't stuck on a writer's likes. They describe sonics to help determine what might match your tastes. Already my choice of 2.5MHz DC-coupled class AB Kinki monos and elimination of an active direct-coupled 300B preamp in favour of an amp connection to the variable reference voltage of a multi-segmented R2R DAC are useful data points for my aural aesthetic. Mentioning them is no call to agreement. It only builds context. In mine, spending double to stare at a clearly wider bass bin just to trade treasured immediacy, transparency and separation for more weight, bloom and concomitant softness makes no sense. If I wished such a trade, I'd execute it by swapping my amps for Laiv's class A-reminiscent GaN monos and spend less. But those I had returned after their review for precisely that reason whilst giving away six more class A amps.

Just so, no proper review is a selfie. Where to set our needle between the end stops of speed and comfort is deeply personal. I see it as possibly the decider of conscious system tuning. Tubes or transistors, ceramic-composite or cellulose cones, dome tweeters or ribbons… intrinsic in all such choices is moving the mass x transparency needle. It's like deciding which row of a concert hall to sit in. Some favour close to stage, others row 10, yet others the upper balcony. From Marek's stated intentions to my hearing them, we see how progressing from IQ to IQ Ultra to IQ30 moves this needle from leaner, sharper and quicker to richer, weightier and plumper. We appreciate that where higher SPL, greater listening distances and escalating cubic volumes intersect, IQ30's driver gains will step ever more to the fore than I could mock up. In some ways, IQ30 and I mimicked renting a big Bentley without moving beyond gravel-ridden narrow country lanes with the occasional cattle or sheep crossing. It won't tap into the raison d'être of such wheels. So hindsight was its own IQ injection. In my room, IQ30 only hinted at its aces. Meanwhile its darker heavier tuning played against my sonic blueprint. Hence a leap from €6'900 to €14'700 heard zero justification. Having to imagine far larger rooms turning these tables didn't count. In my context IQ30 offered a parallel reality, not a higher octave. In my context the original IQ remained far too potent to give its bigger mate any chances. As someone whose excitement twitches when obvious value needles it, I felt lukewarm about IQ30. I do appreciate alternate flavours to service different tastes. In my 6x8m room, the emphasis simply remained on 'alternate' not 'superior' – yet outlay doubled. That's what toned down any sense of real discovery.