Dali Rubikore 8 Loudspeaker Review

[shadyJ]

​

I have always enjoyed DALI’s speakers on the occasions that I have heard them, whether it be their very affordable offerings or their ultra high-end KORE speakers. DALI has been around for about 40 years, so they have learned a thing or two about designing a loudspeaker, and it’s no wonder that they are so enjoyable. However, I haven’t ever had the chance to review a traditional loudspeaker by them. I did review their OBERON 7 C, but that was merely a part of an active system that centered more around their Sound Hub than the speaker itself. Today, this changes with the RUBIKORE 8 loudspeakers that I have in for review. While the RUBIKORE 8 is more like a ‘typical’ loudspeaker from DALI, compared to most tower speakers, there are some major departures from ordinary design. At $12k/pair, these are high-end loudspeakers, although DALI has both much cheaper and far more expensive towers to choose from. So then, what does DALI bring to the table for this not insignificant sum of money? Read our full review to find out…

READ: DALI RUBIKORE 8 LOUDSPEAKER REVIEW

 

[ryanosaur]

Thank you @shadyJ . It looks to be a very intriguing design concept.
It is certainly interesting how the measured response is so choppy looking in the woofer territory with what would appear to be indications of some directivity mismatch. While I assume this doesn’t hit audible levels which affect performance, in today’s world of easy access to measurement rigs it is a bit surprising they didn’t tidy that up a bit more.

 

[shadyJ]

Thank you @shadyJ . It looks to be a very intriguing design concept.
It is certainly interesting how the measured response is so choppy looking in the woofer territory with what would appear to be indications of some directivity mismatch. While I assume this doesn’t hit audible levels which affect performance, in today’s world of easy access to measurement rigs it is a bit surprising they didn’t tidy that up a bit more.

I don't see a directivity mistmatch in the woofer's range? Not sure what you are referring to.

 

[ryanosaur]

I don't see a directivity mistmatch in the woofer's range? Not sure what you are referring to.

Maybe I misspoke… I was referring to the unevenness in the measured woofer behavior which really stood out to my eyes at 1000-2000, including the ‘wasteband’ at roughly 1400.
As I said, I don’t expect this affects audible performance, as it also is mostly prevalent at the outer periphery of listening axis, though the ripples are very prevalent throughout the range of the Speaker. (Perhaps this is an artifact of the XO network?)

 

[TLS Guy]

I don't see a directivity mistmatch in the woofer's range? Not sure what you are referring to.

I just don't understand modern speaker designers. That is a really expensive speaker, and although good, it is not that good. It is a big speaker and yet starting to roll off at 60 Hz. In my view it is overcomplicated. By that I mean it has an excessive number of crossovers. You can see there are some issues with each of the crossovers in your excellent data. Not really gross issues, but issues nonetheless. A simpler design would have avoided some of these.

I think a much better job could be done with just three drivers. UK designers are going back to their roots. Falcon acoustic are now making the KEF B139 again and volt have excellent wide FR mid range domes available.

So a KEF B139 crossed to a volt dome at 500 Hz and then crossed to a good 3/4" tweeter at 4 KHz would almost certainly result in a better speaker. There would be no crossover in the speech discrimination band and the 3/4" dome would avoid serious beaming issues. The KEF would allow for an F3 around 30Hz, and in a TL you can get an F3 of 27 with second order roll off. You could produce that in a nice cabinet for less than 12K! It would produce better measurements than the speaker under review.

 

[shadyJ]

Maybe I misspoke… I was referring to the unevenness in the measured woofer behavior which really stood out to my eyes at 1000-2000, including the ‘wasteband’ at roughly 1400.
As I said, I don’t expect this affects audible performance, as it also is mostly prevalent at the outer periphery of listening axis, though the ripples are very prevalent throughout the range of the Speaker. (Perhaps this is an artifact of the XO network?)

I think you are talking about the ripples that come from acoustic reflections and diffractions from the cabinet. That stull isn't really audible and should be ignored unless they are really severe.

 

[mtrot]

I just don't understand modern speaker designers. That is a really expensive speaker, and although good, it is not that good. It is a big speaker and yet starting to roll off at 60 Hz. In my view it is overcomplicated. By that I mean it has an excessive number of crossovers. You can see there are some issues with each of the crossovers in your excellent data. Not really gross issues, but issues nonetheless. A simpler design would have avoided some of these.

I think a much better job could be done with just three drivers. UK designers are going back to their roots. Falcon acoustic are now making the KEF B139 again and volt have excellent wide FR mid range domes available.

So a KEF B139 crossed to a volt dome at 500 Hz and then crossed to a good 3/4" tweeter at 4 KHz would almost certainly result in a better speaker. There would be no crossover in the speech discrimination band and the 3/4" dome would avoid serious beaming issues. The KEF would allow for an F3 around 30Hz, and in a TL you can get an F3 of 27 with second order roll off. You could produce that in a nice cabinet for less than 12K! It would produce better measurements than the speaker under review.

Yeah, that's always been my problem with the previous Rubicon and the new Rubikore towers. To me, it's just way too much money to spend for the bass performance you get. Many people buying nice looking speakers in this price range do not want to fool with subs in their pretty rooms.

 

[gene]