initial impressions of Dali zensor 3

[gasolin]

I managed to find one measurement of the Zensor 3s. A Hi-Fi mag in Israel did a shoot out among standmounts with included FR measurements.

Frequency response: the result is relatively balanced, slightly inclined to the bright side, the speaker falls relatively low bass but do it in moderation.

Frequency response Off Axis: scatter sound a lot better than I expected, you can even listen to a 45-degree angled.

Impedance: Speaker easy for propulsion (minimum 4.8Ω) impedance relatively stable, the Port of the region aimed at 47Hz.

So, having the Z3 toed looking ahead at 90 degrees and not at the listener, would calm down the brightness.

Looks like they are designed to be listened off axis for a 5.1 setup. Not having very deep bass is simply because these are meant to work with a sub in 5.1. IMO it's good that Dali didn't do the nasty trick of boosting the 100Hz upper bass in order to fake deep bass. What is there is real.

Woow impressive that many speakers goes down to 4 ohm or lower,i would have liked it if google where able to translate the last box where it seems they got some scores, also more or less all speakers start to raise at 300hz and fall at 80hz.

Except for the high frequencys above 12-13khz the off axis is actually extremly good,harmonic from the zensor 3 and when you see the frequency responce above 10khz i think it's angled 90 degree (red line),you can understand why dali say don't angle them

 

[Blacksabbath25]

Thanks for the graphs Vladimir. What do the red, blue and black lines represent?

In the first graph, the different lines show the frequency response on and off axis. Further off axis listening has less bright high frequency. More direct listening on tweeter axis has more high frequency. If you tilt the speakers to be away from you slightly, you will get less bright sound.

In the second one, blue line is the FR of both drivers, the red is the port tuning, the black one being the resulting frequency response of both the drivers and the port.

This is the FR of the Zensor 5.1 system. The purple trace is for the Zensor 5 floorstanders, blue is the sub, green is the center and red are the Zensor 1.

There is an obvious hole in the midrange and harsh beaming high frequency. I think it's logical to consider the same voicing went into the Zensor 3. Looks fairly consistent thing in the Zensor range.

No breaking in or burining in will solve what is factory designed.

the dali 3s use the same bass driver as the zensor 5s floor standing speakers the bass drivers on the zendor 1s are smaller bass driver so not the same drivers

Not true the zensor 1 bass is the same as the zensor 5 all 5.25"

The zensor 3 has the same bass as zensor 7 all 7"

yes your right the 7'' drives do not come out of the 5s but they do come from one of the dali range speakers as i had the 1s myself and then they brought out the 3s which at the time i had read that they come out of one there floor standing speakers so they could make a much better bassy speaker as the 1s lacked this being under bassy so they used a bigger bass driver to get ove this issue

 

[Tibor]

Yes, the Zensor 3' treble can be a little sibilant and glassy sounding with bright electronics

 

[CnoEvil]

If the zingy nature of the treble doesn't settle down, you could try some Q Acoustics Concept 20s.

 

[robdmarsh]

Well, Iots of interesting comments and the frequency response graphs seem to throw some light on the sound I'm getting. I'll try to describe the sound and why I'm not happy with it. With the Flaming Lips album Yoshimi battles the pink robots (a dynamic and rhythmic test if ever there was one) it sounds like the speakers have been tuned to spit out every scintilla of treble detail and big sounds in the bass and percussion to impress the listener but it doesn't quite hang together. Then there's a sort of smoothness to make them sound sophisticated - it's a kind of weird combination. With the Celestion's the detail is there (perhaps less sparkly) but the speakers just get on with delivering the whole picture of the song and there is a thrilling bite and punch which always surprises me for such small cabinets. The Dalis, though bigger and deeper, don't have that excitement.

Then again this is just my ears and if it was the other way round I had the Dalis for years I'd probably be used to their sound and find shortcomings in the Celestions. Oh but... I've just put the mkii back on the stands and there's that sweetness... (sigh)

 

[CnoEvil]

I replaced my Zensor 3's with Concept 20's and they are a considerable upgrade in every dept. The Zensors are good but not amazing (for the price), the Concepts are.

They are the best speakers (by some margin), that I've heard, in and around their price.

 

[robdmarsh]

Thanks CnoEvil. I suspect you're right. I'll give them a try. Can't afford the stands though

 

[CnoEvil]

Can't afford the stands though

One step at a time.

FWIW. I still have some original Celestion SL6 kicking about...warm, smooth, inviting sound, if a bit unexciting....they need an amp with serious welly to come alive.

 

[robdmarsh]

Do you have the stands with the Concept 20?

 

[lpv]

I think the OP description of the sound coming from Zensor 3 is what I've experienced.. hole in the midrange & thin top end.. I would also add boxy bass.. nothing special.

 

[knaithrover]

If the zingy nature of the treble doesn't settle down, you could try some Q Acoustics Concept 20s.

I replaced my Zensor 3's with Concept 20's and they are a considerable upgrade in every dept. The Zensors are good (for the price) but not amazing, the Concepts are.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I do think you have a point here Thompsonuxb. I've been pretty critical about various modern budget speakers I've heard and even not so budget. What do you think are the attributes of a modern speaker vs older models?Listening to my Dalis right now one thing I would say they are is smoother, but to my ear not in a good way. This is especially surprising as they are reviewed as having an exciting sound.

This maybe a bit controversial.....but here go's.

Older designs 'radiate' bass the boxes resonate more and are actually involved in the overall sound.

The bass is 'coloured' gives a sense of a 'warmer' fuller bass that reinforces and under pins the lower midrange.

Newer designs use stiffer more rigid enclosures better internal bracing.
The bass is pushed via the driver more without the 'box resonance' similar to the midrange - you actually get a more accurate bass aka 'leaner bass' without bloom.

My suggestion to you is don't assess the Dali's with music you know and love but to go get something new, something you've not heard before.

Listen exclusively to the Dali's then after a week maybe put the old boxes on.

You may think they sound muddy.... Try it.

 

[robdmarsh]

Thanks Thompsonuxb. Interesting idea, I'll try it. Do you have any experience with the Dali Zensor 3 yourself?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Thanks Thompsonuxb. Interesting idea, I'll try it. Do you have any experience with the Dali Zensor 3 yourself?

Heard the 5's in a demo with amps from the £ 700ish bracket thought they were a 'fun' speaker, a young persons speaker.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I replaced my Zensor 3's with Concept 20's and they are a considerable upgrade in every dept. The Zensors are good but not amazing (for the price), the Concepts are.

They are the best speakers (by some margin), that I've heard, in and around their price.

It always amazes me how our preferences differ.

I find the Q speakers woefully limited at both ends of the spectrum.

Over the Xmas down by my sister inlaws I had the chance to listen to her old Mission 731's - my first speakers.

They still sound very impressive and sound much bigger than they are.......

They'd give active monitors a good run in a desk top set up, I'm sure.

 

[Vladimir]

I do think you have a point here Thompsonuxb. I've been pretty critical about various modern budget speakers I've heard and even not so budget. What do you think are the attributes of a modern speaker vs older models?Listening to my Dalis right now one thing I would say they are is smoother, but to my ear not in a good way. This is especially surprising as they are reviewed as having an exciting sound.

This maybe a bit controversial.....but here go's.

Older designs 'radiate' bass the boxes resonate more and are actually involved in the overall sound.

The bass is 'coloured' gives a sense of a 'warmer' fuller bass that reinforces and under pins the lower midrange.

Newer designs use stiffer more rigid enclosures better internal bracing. The bass is pushed via the driver more without the 'box resonance' similar to the midrange - you actually get a more accurate bass aka 'leaner bass' without bloom.

My suggestion to you is don't assess the Dali's with music you know and love but to go get something new, something you've not heard before.

Listen exclusively to the Dali's then after a week maybe put the old boxes on.

You may think they sound muddy.... Try it.

The petite 1994 Celestions are nothing like the 1966 hollow plywood crates Altec Valencias. *acute*

 

[CnoEvil]

It always amazes me how our preferences differ.

I find the Q speakers woefully limited at both ends of the spectrum.

Have you heard the Concept 20s, or just the lesser models?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

It always amazes me how our preferences differ.

I find the Q speakers woefully limited at both ends of the spectrum.

Have you heard the Concept 20s, or just the lesser models?

Not sure which model.

But may have been the..... Actually they look pretty similar so I can't say.

The ones down in Bristol on the end of some expensive kit sounded as bad as I've heard - they were £169 or so it said on the door.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I do think you have a point here Thompsonuxb. I've been pretty critical about various modern budget speakers I've heard and even not so budget. What do you think are the attributes of a modern speaker vs older models?Listening to my Dalis right now one thing I would say they are is smoother, but to my ear not in a good way. This is especially surprising as they are reviewed as having an exciting sound.

This maybe a bit controversial.....but here go's.

Older designs 'radiate' bass the boxes resonate more and are actually involved in the overall sound.

The bass is 'coloured' gives a sense of a 'warmer' fuller bass that reinforces and under pins the lower midrange.

Newer designs use stiffer more rigid enclosures better internal bracing. The bass is pushed via the driver more without the 'box resonance' similar to the midrange - you actually get a more accurate bass aka 'leaner bass' without bloom.

My suggestion to you is don't assess the Dali's with music you know and love but to go get something new, something you've not heard before.

Listen exclusively to the Dali's then after a week maybe put the old boxes on.

You may think they sound muddy.... Try it.

The petite 1994 Celestions are nothing like the 1966 hollow plywood crates Altec Valencias. *acute*

 

It still applys the Celestion have paper cones the Dali's have man made materials - if you can find a cross section diagram on the net you'll see what I mean.

The Dali's probably have denser plywood panels too.......

 

[Thompsonuxb]

By the way Rob, you don't mind me calling you Rob.....

If you take up my suggestion please do comeback and let us know what you conclude......

 

[CnoEvil]

Not sure which model.

But may have been the..... Actually they look pretty similar so I can't say.

The ones down in Bristol on the end of some expensive kit sounded as bad as I've heard - they were £169 or so it said on the door.

The Concept 20s are a big step up in performance from the 2020s....even though it's "only" the cabinet that's changed.

 

[Vladimir]

I do think you have a point here Thompsonuxb. I've been pretty critical about various modern budget speakers I've heard and even not so budget. What do you think are the attributes of a modern speaker vs older models?Listening to my Dalis right now one thing I would say they are is smoother, but to my ear not in a good way. This is especially surprising as they are reviewed as having an exciting sound.

This maybe a bit controversial.....but here go's.

Older designs 'radiate' bass the boxes resonate more and are actually involved in the overall sound.

The bass is 'coloured' gives a sense of a 'warmer' fuller bass that reinforces and under pins the lower midrange.

Newer designs use stiffer more rigid enclosures better internal bracing. The bass is pushed via the driver more without the 'box resonance' similar to the midrange - you actually get a more accurate bass aka 'leaner bass' without bloom.

My suggestion to you is don't assess the Dali's with music you know and love but to go get something new, something you've not heard before.

Listen exclusively to the Dali's then after a week maybe put the old boxes on.

You may think they sound muddy.... Try it.

The petite 1994 Celestions are nothing like the 1966 hollow plywood crates Altec Valencias. *acute*

It still applys the Celestion have paper cones the Dali's have man made materials - if you can find a cross section diagram on the net you'll see what I mean.

The Dali's probably have denser plywood panels too.......

Epic.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

I do think you have a point here Thompsonuxb. I've been pretty critical about various modern budget speakers I've heard and even not so budget. What do you think are the attributes of a modern speaker vs older models?Listening to my Dalis right now one thing I would say they are is smoother, but to my ear not in a good way. This is especially surprising as they are reviewed as having an exciting sound.

This maybe a bit controversial.....but here go's.

Older designs 'radiate' bass the boxes resonate more and are actually involved in the overall sound.

The bass is 'coloured' gives a sense of a 'warmer' fuller bass that reinforces and under pins the lower midrange.

Newer designs use stiffer more rigid enclosures better internal bracing. The bass is pushed via the driver more without the 'box resonance' similar to the midrange - you actually get a more accurate bass aka 'leaner bass' without bloom.

My suggestion to you is don't assess the Dali's with music you know and love but to go get something new, something you've not heard before.

Listen exclusively to the Dali's then after a week maybe put the old boxes on.

You may think they sound muddy.... Try it.

The petite 1994 Celestions are nothing like the 1966 hollow plywood crates Altec Valencias. *acute*

It still applys the Celestion have paper cones the Dali's have man made materials - if you can find a cross section diagram on the net you'll see what I mean.

The Dali's probably have denser plywood panels too.......

Epic.

the Dali 3 cabinets are made of MDF and the bass drivers cones are made out of wood fibres

 

[robdmarsh]

It's interesting what people are saying about materials both for drivers and cabinets. I've heard people on this forum say they won't go near metal dome tweeters but the Celestion 3 have metal tweeters and their treble is the sweetest and most naturally unforced I've heard (between Wharfedale diamond 220, Rega rs1 and Dali Zensor 3). The mid/ bass cone is probably 5.5 inches, the cabinets are small but the low end is agile and punchy, not particularly deep of course, but neither do they try and "fake" deep. The Regas, which I'm selling tomorrow, are small and light and sound small and light (albeit quite pleasant and refined sounding). It just seems to me they hit a real sweetly balanced speaker with the 3mkii and they go so well with the Marantz m-cr 603. By the way, some of these went for £28 the other day on Ebay! I feel like telling people to hunt some down and give them a listen just to confirm I'm not imagining things and that I'm madly sentimental about them.

 

[Vladimir]

It's interesting what people are saying about materials both for drivers and cabinets. I've heard people on this forum say they won't go near metal dome tweeters but the Celestion 3 have metal tweeters and their treble is the sweetest and most naturally unforced I've heard (between Wharfedale diamond 220, Rega rs1 and Dali Zensor 3).

Don't mistake audiophile physics for real physics despite the first being most prevalent in this niche hobby.