[kfr01]

Exodus Audio Kit 2641 Review


(Exodus Audio Kit 2641 tower, shown with an Exodus Audio Kit 61 bookshelf and unfinished external crossover)

The Exodus Audio Kit 2641 is a 3-way tower design.  The design features the excellent Usher Audio 9950C-15 tweeter, a high-end CSS WR125 midrange, and two of the unique Adire Audio Extremis 6.8 drivers.  The tower is front-ported and tuned to 30hz.  

The Motivation
Prior to the Kit 2641, I built both the 2-way Exodus Kit 61 bookshelves and the single-driver CSS FR-125S-based bookshelves.  As you can read in my review on this circle of the FR-125S, I was impressed with the midrange detail, speed, and clarity.  However, the single-driver design was not for me.  I felt like too much was lost on both the bottom and top ends.  I still feel like the Kit 61 bookshelves are some of the most capable bookshelves around, but the allure of added bass response and the possibility of added midrange detail were too much for me to resist; I had to try the Exodus Audio Kit 2641 tower design.

The Build
Building the Kit 2641 was relatively painless.  The instructions provided by Exodus Audio were straightforward and clear.  The interior of the cabinet was built to specification.  The exterior was slightly wider and deeper, as I doubled-up the MDF on the sides and rear of the enclosure.  To mitigate undesirable diffraction effects, I used a wide 45-degree bevel cut on the sides and top of the enclosure.  The inside of the cabinet was coated with fiberglass resin, lined with rubber-backed carpet mat, and stuffed with acousta-stuff.  The end result was a very heavy and very dead cabinet.

The Sound
Complete is the first word that comes to mind when describing the Kit 2641’s.  This complete nature may be attributed primarily to the adept bass response of the Kit.  The dual Extremis drivers, very fast woofers (see http://www.adireaudio.com/Files/TechPapers/WooferSpeed.pdf), tuned to 30hz and handling all frequencies from the bottom to the 700hz crossover point, pump out clean bass and midbass effortlessly.  This clean and accurate bass that blends seamlessly into the upper octaves separates the 2641 tower from almost all commercial offerings under a couple grand per speaker.  Many speakers have decent midrange and treble response.  Not many speakers can stay flat, clean, and composed under 40hz.  The Kit 2641 can and does.  

The bass isn’t the only mention-worthy frequency range of the 2641.  In this design, a 3-way, the CSS WR-125 midrange is given a chance to shine.  The result is amazing midrange detail at all volume levels.  Beware, however, because this midrange detail is revealing for good and bad.  On excellent recordings this midrange detail can move the listener and create an amazing “live” feel.  On poor recordings, listener mileage will be directly tied to the listener’s patience with poorly engineered music.  

The treble, provided by the Usher tweeters, is exactly what it should be.  It is neither overly soft nor overly hard, but balanced and smooth.  Crisper highs are obtainable, but one would be hard-pressed to find an all-around better tweeter at this price range.

Examples
Hillary Hahn -  Bach Concertos – 2003
One of the first albums I listened to straight through on the Kit 2641, I intended to only give a few tracks on this CD a short listen.  Before I knew it, an hour was gone and I had thoroughly enjoyed this album in a way I never had before.  The midrange detail leads to amazing instrument separation and imaging, making live-recorded music something special.  Hillary’s violin was reproduced as sweet, strong, and lifelike.  

Norah Jones & Peter Malick – New York City – 2003
Next I wanted to hear some vocals.  The 2641’s nailed them.  Norah’s voice was reproduced as sultry and accurate; I was able to close my eyes and feel as if I was in an intimate jazz club setting-Norah right in the center, and Peter plucking away at the guitar behind her.  

Metallica – Symphony & Metal - 1999
I’m not a big Metallica fan, but this recording, featuring the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra as directed by Michael Kamen, is quite a test for most loudspeakers.  The bass is hot and heavy, and so many instruments are playing that lesser speakers tend to turn to mush at any appreciable volume level.  The design of the Kit 2641 never faltered.  The hot bass guitar was cleanly reproduced.  The drums provided thump and rhythm, and the wonderful San Francisco Symphony was still quite audible and distinguishable over Metallica’s trashing.  Bass-heavy tracks from this CD took my breath away when reproduced with the 2641’s.  I just wanted to keep turning up the volume knob because it was very fun to feel like I was at the concert.  The bass was deep and full enough to ripple through my pant legs and hit my chest as if I was there.  The rest of the music kept up too.  Amazing.  

Juno Reactor – Labyrinth – 2004
After having some fun listening to the bass from the Metallica CD, I had to listen to some electronic music-just to experiment.  Some of the music on this Juno Reactor CD can be heard on the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions soundtracks.  The electronic bass is faster, deeper, and more dynamic than natural instruments can easily create.  The result is a great CD of two channel tracks good for testing a speaker’s ability to reproduce home theater-like material.  I laughed after listening to only a few short tracks from this CD.  The depth of the bass and the ability to push the Kit 2641 quite loud with no noticeable compression or distortion is awesome to behold.  

Michael Buble – It’s Time – 2005
After listening to the previous couple CD’s just for fun, I went back to a CD that I actually listen to on a regular basis.  This CD pulled it all together, it has some great big-band passages, vocals, and is excellently recorded.  I had no complaints.  Complete is again the first word that comes to mind.  I can’t describe or place my finger on one sound that I wish the 2641’s would have reproduced differently.  I was able to sit back and smile; I think I’ll be satisfied with these speakers for some time.  

For the $1,000 a pair (finished) price tag, the value these speakers offer simply can’t be touched-I don’t think anything else is even close.

[Kevin Haskins]

Thanks for the review.   They look great and it sounds like the cabinet construction is top-notch.  

Mind if I copy some of this over to the web site?

[kfr01]

No need to thank me, but you are welcome.  I am very pleased with the speakers and was simply conveying my honest impressions and experience.  

I just entered my review on your website.

Karl

[Kevin Haskins]

You went out of your way to share your experience.  You didn't have to do so.  I just thought a thank you was appropriate.  

[Kyle R.]

Very nice review Karl.  Many people looking at DIY speakers and subs are quite hesitant about building them because they cannot hear them first and for many its a leap of faith.  With reviews like yours it helps those that have never ventured into the DIY world.

[Nick V]

Would you mind offering some comparisons to other similarly priced speakers that you have owned (or with which you have reasonable experience)?

I always have a hard time with the frame of reference of these reviews. I currently own GR Diluceo speakers, PSB Stratus Minis, and Paradigm Monitor 11's. The PSB's are part of a budget 2 channel system while the Diluceo's are the mains in my HT and the Paradigm's are the rears. I currently run my system with no centre channel although I do have a Paradigm CC-370.

My ultimate goal is to have a fully matched 5.1 system (eventually 7.1 but it's not critical at this point) and great 2 channel sound. I was considering moving the Monitor 11's to my bedroom and moving the diluceos to the rear of my ht. Then I would buy speakers from RAW with a similar matching tweeter and good bass. Possibly HT 8's or RA-8's but the more I look at this option it is looking very expensive.

With the money I would spend on that I could move the Diluceo's to a dedicated 2 channel system and buy an entirely new Exodus system consisting of 2641's, 641's and the matching centre. I already have a sub that I'm reasonably happy with, the Mirage BPS-400.

Basically just trying to figure if I would be happy with the exodus models as I have a separate passive pre and 2ch Rotel amp in the HT along with a Denon DVD-3910 and I would continue to do a significant amount of 2ch listening in this system.

I'm guessing the 2641's fit in somewhere between the Paradigm Monitor 11's and the GR Diluceos, but some other comparisons would probably help me out.

Still makes me feel a little sick thinking of purchasing speakers without ever hearing them, even considering how happy I am with the Diluceos.

Nick

[kfr01]

Nick:

I haven't been able to A/B any speaker other than the Kit61 with the 2641s.  However, when I had my Kit61s up, I went on a bit of a listening tour to a few dealers in the cities my wife and I visited for work this summer.  I took notes on the following products.  All are in the same lowish price range, except the KEF Ref. 207, which I listened to just for fun.    Keep in mind that I was trying to demo small towers and bookshelves to decide where the Kit61s fell in the scheme of reasonably priced commercial products.

This list included:

Polk RTi6 Bookshelf
Polk LSi9 Bookshelf
Energy Connoisseur C-5 Tower
B&W 705 Bookshelf
Mirage Omni-60 Bookshelf
KEF Q11 Tower
KEF Reference 207 Tower
Paradigm Monitor 7 Tower

I listened to the Paradigm Monitor 7's, which actually seem to have almost the same specs as the 11s.  The Kit61 was more complete, had better and cleaner bass response, and imaged better.  As I said in my review, the 2641 retains all the positive aspects of the Kit61 but improves the bass and midrange detail and impact.  Remember, the Monitor series is actually a pretty inexpensive commercial product.  The build quality is decent, but the driver and crossover parts don't come anywhere near the quality of the components used in the Exodus kits.  Build a very inert cabinet, and the reasons for going DIY are readily apparent.

To make a long story short.  The same applies for every speaker listed in my above list except the KEF Ref 207.  I've gone over these in a personal e-mail.  Because I need to get some work done, I'll just copy some of that in.  

>The Energy speakers had more bloated and less accurate bass. This might
>actually be desirable if you are a rap or home theater "boom" fan.
>
>The B&W was very dry through the midrange, especially the vocal region, as
>the volume was increased.
>
>The Polk LSi9 was not quite as rich and complete sounding. Vocals were excellent. Maybe even a bit better than the Kit61. The
>highs were similar, perhaps a little more sparkle (brightness) to the LSi9.
>The midbass/bass of the Kit61 and the overall image of the Kit61 pushed it
>over the LSi9 for me.
>
>The Polk RTi bookshelves were easily outclassed in just about every way.
>
>The Mirage was very open with excellent air and highs, but lacking
>everywhere else.
>
>The KEF Q11 tower was unimpressive. The speakers "added" something I
>couldn't quite put my finger on in the lower vocal region. Perhaps it was a
>straight up frequency response problem, perhaps it was audible distortion,
>perhaps it was cabinet resonance. I wasn't impressed.
>
>The Paradigm Monitor 7 is a good tower that does a -good- job of a lot, but
>an excellent job at nothing.
>
>Klipsch horns have never sounded good to me.
>
>Only the KEF Reference 207 tower was clearly better at almost everything
>than the Kit61. It should be. It retails for over $4k a speaker.

With the 3-way design, the Extremii being dedicated to bass, wonderful detail of the CSS WR125S, and the Usher tweeter crossed over higher, the contest between the KEF Ref 207 and the 2641 would be much closer.  I'd have to take another listen.  

I guess I should also mention this about the KEF demo - it was run on a very expensive Denon universal player and all Sunfire Signature stuff.  Far better equipment than anything I listened to the other speakers on or own myself.

My guess is that the improved bandwidth, off-axis response, and xbl^2 enabled drivers of the 2641 will push it above either the Diluceo or the Monitor 11.

[saphoto]

I just sold my paradigm monitor 11's after completing the 2641's. Took a listen to them before they were gone, and the 2641's bests them in every area. Not that they were bad, I enjoyed them for a year and a half. The 2641's have more detail accross the board & extension. Bass is much fuller & more articulate. Quite a bit more detail in the mids, full but not harsh. And more detail in the highs. I would say that the highs are richer, but not brighter. To me the 11's had more air, but it was not so musical. Different cymbals and horns sound more natural, not fatiguing on the 2641's. Mids are smoother & lifelike, yet fuller. Some mids in my 11's had glare or a hardness which was probably distortion of some sort (steel string guitar when plucked hard). The 2641's don't have that problem, no audible grunge. The bass goes low, but is tight. It can start & stop on a dime. I just watched a blues concert, Lightning in a Bottle, and the guitar & vocals were stunning in clairity and dynamics. I'm only running two channels now, maybe this isn't the best point of reference for you.

[Kevin Haskins]

I think you guys have nailed my impressions on the head.    The lack of higher order distortion products in the midrange and the listen ability is largely influenced by the WR-125.   It is an idea driver to work with in terms of having large smooth bandwidth outside of the midrange.    The Usher is smooth and detailed, which I've found a terribly difficult balancing act.    It's hard to get both because detail usually means you have to sacrifice some listenability.  

Metal cone midranges are often noted for their "air" and detail.   Metal cones suffer from cone break-up outside of their bandwidth that is well within the audible range.   Paper cones break-up also... they actually break-up earlier but their break-up is controlled over a wider range of frequencies and less obvious.  Typically metal cones have break-up modes that can range from 5-15db (that is a LOT) high outside of their bandwidth.   So... most people design a notch filter or use a VERY steep crossover slope to deal with it.   That is all fine and dandy but the cone is excited by music playback REGARDLESS of the filter used.   The distortion products from those break-up modes cannot be filtered out because the cone is excited after the filter and the distortion products at those points you just have to live with.   Some people may actually prefer having those distortion products and describe the driver as more detailed with more air around the instruments.   It’s hard to argue with subjective preferences but I’ve specifically always sought out getting a loudspeaker designed that I actually enjoy using with a range of music.   If it only does Jazz or rock or small group vocals then there is something wrong with the design in my opinion.   A speaker correctly designed should play back everything well with the obvious exception of poorly recorded material.    Actually.. it should play back poorly recorded material well also… it just plays it back as poorly recorded.     A speaker that gets harsh with louder volumes has high order distortion problems and you have to design with enough headroom to handle the peaks, not the average.

Another interesting point is that the XBL^2 motor has a much larger influence on the midrange at limited excursion levels than you would think.   Wiggins does a demo with a paper cone Eminence driver.   One has XBL^2 and the other is the standard overhung design.   The FR is pretty much the same, within production tolerances.   The T/S parameters are the same; all the soft parts of the driver are the same.   The only difference is in the motor technology.   The driver is run full range without a crossover network to eliminate the crossover as an interfering influence.   He mounts both drivers in the same box with a simple toggle switch to go back and forth between the drivers.    With GROUPS of people everyone picks out the XBL^2 driver with ease at low listening levels.   The non-XBL^2 driver sounds like it has more detail though... it has more high order distortion products and you hear them.   The levels of these distortion products are below what you would think is audible at normal listening levels yet everyone without a fault notices the difference.   This test is done blind... the audience doesn't know which driver is which and it’s evident with any number of recordings.   You don’t have to pick and choose which one to demo it with.

The 2641's subjective characteristics in the midrange are probably highly influenced by the combination of the lack of evil break-up modes (those that cause FR problems) of the driver and the motor technology.   The crossover also obviously has an influence but that is fairly easy to get right with patience and work.  

Another thing you will notice is that you can probably listen at higher levels than you did with your old speakers.   That is a function of the lower distortion... you play them louder because they don't sound like they are straining.

Thanks to both of you for contributing with your subjective experience.

[Nick V]

Thanks for the helpful thoughts. I have some level of experience with all but one of the speakers that were listed so that does help me out to some extent.

Kevin,

Is there anywhere where I can purchase finished, ready to play Exodus speaker models? Or would I have to get some cabinets built then assemble the speakers and crossover network myself? I really don't have the time or the tools to build my own cabinets.

[Kevin Haskins]

Nick,

At the moment we only have kits.   That is about to change.   Our warehouse is in an industrial park and our neighbor has a cabinet shop.   He is transitioning from doing site-built work for custom cabinets to trying to move into doing all production work in his shop (next door).  

We have been talking for the last couple months about having him build all our custom speakers.   There are a couple small matters that have to be settled but assuming he can do the quality of work we require I'll be having him build all of our custom cabinets.   I don't see it as a problem as the custom cabinetwork he does is an order of magnitude more difficult than building a speaker.  

One of the issues with building speakers is shipping them.   I've not found a packaging solution that UPS or FedEx cannot defeat.     Large heavy MDF enclosures just don't transport easily regardless of the packaging.   You have a bad combination of lots of weight and a soft material (MDF is soft and easy to ding).   Drop it from 3ft with any kind of packaging and you get damage.

Our solution for the heavier speakers will be to limit all shipping via freight carriers and palletized loudspeakers.   It's much more expensive than UPS or FedEx GND but I'm unwilling to spend my time fighting over shipping damage with UPS.    It also helps that the freight company is directly across the street.   I can throw a rock out my front door and hit their receiving dock.

There are others who have built custom cabinets for our customers in the past.   Most of these guys do quality work but I really like having control over the product and assembly in my hands... not someone else.   This will also simplify matters because we can take the order, assemble the product and ship all from one location.   You only deal with one vendor for the entire process.

[kfr01]

Since this thread has been partially about the comparison of the 2641 and other speakers....

After an afternoon dental appointment I had the rare opportunity to make it to the local av store before their 5:30 close time.  

They weren't busy so I spent quite a bit of time listening to some of my most familiar tracks on the Focal/JM Lab Cobalt $2,000/pr + 3-way towers.  

The focal tweeter provided the only part of the sound that was debatably close to that of the 2641.  The midrange, midbass, bass, detail, imaging, separation, cohesiveness, ----everything else----, I would say the 2641 easily  provided better.