2. speakers
  3. 1362477895

Raidho D1 audition


Two weeks ago I have heard the Raidho D1 speakers in a hi-end shop in Amsterdam (A10 audio). Surprisingly, but luckily for me, I was the only one attending the "morning" demonstration. I could listen all the CD that I brought with me sitting in the sweet spot and without any disturbances.

The D1 where driven by the Jeff Rowland Corus preamp and the 625 power amp. There were two CD players hooked up, i.e. the dCS Vivaldy and an EMM labs single box retailing at roughly 30k euros (I did not asked which model it was). The dealer told me that the system was optimized for the dCS player, meaning he has used his most expensive cables costing around 30K euros. He did not mention which brand of cables he used and I did not bother asking as I find it silly to use cables that cost as much as the pre-power combo (we all have our prejudice in this regard).

The D1s sounded certainly nice, very detailed and fast but also with a very full midrange. Resolution-wise, one would have a rather hard time to find speakers that are more transparent in the midrange and highs (IMO of course). Speed-wise, while very fast, the D1s are not as fast as horns or electrostatics. The stereo image and soundstage were quite good (given the fact that the listen room was filled with other electronics and speakers) and together with the very detail and full midrange made for a rather impressive presence of the speaker in the room. That is, voices and most instruments where rendered with full body and size with a confidence typically associated to large speakers (at least in my experience).

I could not really judge the bass output of the D1s, as the room was quite large (given the D1s' size), plus the position of the speakers in the room was not chosen to give the best bass response but rather a good stereo image and soundstage. Nonetheless, it seemed decent. However, given the level of performance in the midrange and high departments, it would be a pity to not add one or two top of the line subwoofers (in fact as many as necessary) to achieve a world class performance also in this department.

I have quite a bit of experience with moderately high priced monitors like Dynaudio C1 (mk 1&2), Focal Micro Be & Diablo, Wilson Duette and Vivid Audio V1.5. Among these monitors, the Focal Diablo sounds the closest to the D1s, i.e. fast and detailed. The Vivid V1.5 has also a similar presentation. While the D1s sounded much better than any of these monitors, I find it hard to say how much better it really is. Not only I have listen these speakers in different system and room and at very different times, but one should not underestimate the effect made by the dCS Vivaldi in the D1 demo I had. (The Vivaldi was a marvelous cd player to say the least, though at 90K euros ones should not be surprised.) Maybe I should also mention here that the dealer told me that in his opinion the D1s are above the Magico Q1 (while being cheaper here in Europe). Since I have never listened the Q1s, I can not make any comment in this regard, but the dealer carries Magico speakers for a long time and has first hand experience with the Q1s.

I would conclude by saying that I was quite impress with the Raidho D1 speakers. 17k euros (including stands) is certainly a lot of money for a monitor with limited bass, but the reality is that 17K represents only a fraction of the price of other expensive monitors, e.g. TAD CR1. (I would be really interested to hear from people who have listen the TAD CR1 monitor and also the Raidho D1s).

Finally, I should acknowledging A10 audio in Amsterdam (www.a10audio.nl) for putting together a very nice demo.
nvp
dracule1
1,085 posts
 
I have a strong music background having trained in classical guitar mostly and regularly attend live performances at very good halls for classical, jazz, big band music. The Raido D1 is the closest thing to the real thing I've heard as long as you don't play them at 105+ dB continuously and are willing to as sacrifice sub bass. The D1 play at a different level than C1.1. It is more dynamic, has greater purity in the midrange, better sound staging at high volume, subjective more extended bass, and is quieter between notes. Most importantly,it is the most tonally accurate speaker I've come across for vocals, stringed and wind instruments, and percussion within its volume limitation. It is only equalled by the finest electrostat and ribbon planar speakers (eg, Quad 57, CLS, Apogee). The Raidho tweeter is one of the most accurate no fatiguing tweeter available.

The Magico I've heard are better suited for rock and the like where bass thump and dynamics are the primary virtues. They are not tonally accurate as th Raidho.
michaelkingdom's avatar
michaelkingdom
153 posts
 
To elaborate on my audition a little bit, I was impressed by both speakers tremendously. I found the Magico S5 to be the most thrilling 2 channel experience I have had in terms of spacial presentation, imaging, separation of instruments. It was easy to independently follow any instrument separately from the rest. That being said, I did find them to be without warmth - which may be a good thing. I also found them to be great at intellectually defining the music while not drawing me in emotionally. From the very first minute I heard them, I was amazed and my opinion of them did not evolve over the listening experience. I was just as amazed at the end.

The Raidhos were a different story. The depth of their presentation was not immediately apparent. On first hearing them (within 3 minutes of switching off the Magicos) I noticed more conservative, less apparent dynamics. They sounded warmer, cozier and less over the top. BUT, after a few minutes my brain adjusted to what I was hearing and the presentation really opened up. The soundstage was deep and wide, the midrange had a rich sweetness and the tweeters revealed every noise unmasked. I, personally, found myself enjoying them immensely.

This is what I heard. I liked them both. Cheers!
usermanual
104 posts
 
>>It is the most tonally accurate speaker I've come across

Interesting. In MC measurements of the C1 there is a 5dB broad depression, starting at 1K all the way up to 5K where a bump is starting, climbing 4dB up till 10K. The swing from 2K to 10K is almost 10dB high! There is no evidence that the D1 will be much different in fq response (It is mainly the tweeter climbing behavior, which is typical of ribbons). It will most definitely not have “more dynamic, or subjective more extended bass”. Even Raidho doesn’t claim it (It starts to roll off, quite rapidly after 50Hz). Great speaker nevertheless, but I would not claim it is “more accurate” then just about anything else. Now before the flames begin, please consider objective data availability to any claims made. BTW, you are the first person who said that “Magico are better suited for rock and the like where bass thump and dynamics are the primary virtues”. This thread is hilarious.
dracule1
1,085 posts
 
Hey this is subjective. If you can't handle that then you're in the wrong forum. And by tonally I meant timbral accuracy, not frequency response, which I find to be one of the worst objective measurement to assess speaker sound. But if freq response is your thing, have at it. I've heard both C1.1 and D1 in my dedicated audio room with the same electronics. Granted I have not heard the Magico in my room, I have auditioned them 5 separate times and each time I get the same impression, dynamic as hell, extended bass chest thumping bass and hard in the upper midrange. Clinical sounding is a good way to describe them. It's not my type of sound, but I know a lot of people prefer this.

Your last sentense is condescending and has douchebag written all over it.
dracule1
1,085 posts
 
Freq response measured by a reviewer or by the manufacturer tells you little about how the speakers will measure in your room. So extrapolating some published freq response (measured in anechoic or quasi-anechoic condition) to someone's home environment is about as useful as putting bicycle tires on a Porche. Unless you do your listening on an anechoic chamber. FR measured in that manner doesn't take into account room modes, reflections, slap echoes, etc that we hear at home. And it tells you nothing about transient response, imaging, timbral correctness, etc. Why don't you consider these factors before posting a misguided response about "objective" lab measurement that has little to do with what we hear in the real word.
More to discover