Morel sound Demo Virtus vs Virtus Carbon Nano
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 лют 2023
- Get the best test tool for car audio the iRTA2 here
www.dandftooldrawer.com/irta2
Get your shirt here www.dandfswag.com
Visit Dean and Fernando's Tool drawer for a all your install tool needs
www.dandftooldrawer.com
If you like what we do, support the show at Patreon-
/ fivestarcarstereo
Our Social links if you want to keep up with us
Facebook- / fivestarcarstereo
instagram- / 5starcarstereo
Dean- / deanbeyett
Fernando- / mr_lopez13
twitter - / 5star_carstereo - Авто та транспорт
![Lp. Последняя Реальность #107 РОДНОЙ ДОМ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3QKzKUlHM/mqdefault.jpg)
This was unnaturally informative. I do not think I've seen a better, more thorough comparison anywhere else. Thank you for this!
I listened to this with my eyes closed for a while clicking back and forth to try and hear the differences and A just sounded more clear and like it had more depth. Great video by the way.
I'm late to the party as usual, but I heard a significant difference between the two sets, most notably in the lower midrange/upper midbass region, with "Speaker A" (Nano Virtus) being "fuller" and more even in this region in relation to the lower midbass and high frequencies.
But there were also differences in the midrange and especially the tweeters. I listened using HiFiman HE1000 V2 Stealth headphones connected to a Mytek Brooklyn Bridge II DAC/Headphone Amp.
What I would have really liked to have seen is a Frequency Response Measurement Graph for each speaker set from your AudioControl DM-RTA using a full bandwidth, Lossless Pink Noise track. But only revealed AFTER we had listened to all of the comparisons. That would confirm and validate our subjective listening impressions and provide better correlation.
But just judging from the unfamiliar tracks that were used in the demo and your recording quality, I would choose the newer, thin Nano Carbon Virtus set. So good job Morel. 👍 They are a bit more expensive though, right?
I also have a few questions:
1. Was a HPF applied for the "bottom" of the midwoofers at some frequency below 80Hz? I'm guessing no, but just want to verify.
2. What Size or Internal Volume are the Enclosures that were used, AND are they Sealed or Ported?
In addition, when "recording" speakers in a typical room, the microphone placement in regards to its height in relation to the tweeter height is critical.
The majority of manufacturers state that the reference position for measuring or "recording" their small 2-way standmount or "bookshelf" speakers is with the microphone centered at the tweeter height. However, if the speakers use a waveguide or horn for the tweeter, the reference position will usually be mid-way between the tweeter and the midwoofer...i.e. at the bottom edge of the waveguide.
So, in this demo, the balance of the High Frequencies in relation to the Midrange and Midbass could be audibly affected by the difference in the tweeter height of the two sets in relation to the microphone height. Just something to keep in mind for future demos of this type. 😉
To confirm this, try measuring just one speaker with the microphone centered on the midwoofer, and then again with it centered on the tweeter, and see the results.
One other suggestion when switching between "A" and "B" during listening tests is that the Duration between switching should be 10 seconds or less due to our poor aural memory. This has been proven in professional, controlled scientific listening tests.
In addition, instead of identifying "A" and "B" by speaking out loud and disrupting our concentration, it would be much better to remain silent during the instantaneous switch and indicate "A" vs. "B" with simple Text in the video image.
But I think that it's really interesting and valuable to hear these types of "A" vs. "B" comparisons, especially keeping it a "BLIND" test so that we don't have any visual confirmation or expectation bias while listening. So keep it up! 👍👍
For more information on that, Search the Interwebs for "Audio Musings by Sean Olive: April 2009"
The "B"'s have it! “A” was a bit colored (over emphasized lower midrange), whereas B was a tad flatter and more accurate, highs, as expected were the same. If you like that forward, colored mid, "A” - flatter, more detailed accurate throughout the mid-bass region, then “B”. Great demo!
I’ve always had doubts about the nano’s mid bass because of how shallow they are. Thanks for clearing that up. Great video.
You bet
I like the new Nanos! They have good mid bass but seem to have more presence, more real.
I found "A to be a little flatter, and "B to be slightly brighter. But in both cases, the left channel had a slight DB bias.
When I put my Tempo's in my car, I was in a hurry to have my system done, and the installer didn't have the Virtus to demo. Of course hindsight is a female dog.
Thank you gentlemen.
A is louder at the expense of clarity. B is the winner to my ears. Now send me a pair for proper evaluation in my system!!!🤣
Crossing over at 120 with Virtus 402s to take some of the pressure off the under seat mid bass units in my BMW. They have a shallow enclosure so they can't go that loud. using 7 inch Goldwoods at 120 down to 80 and 1 Sundown Audio SA8 in the trunk at 80 on down. I use a dayton audio in the center dash for sub frequencies as well, and 3 1/2" Peerless Tymphany full range speakers on the rear deck.
The original version (B) seemed to have a crisper sound in higher frequencies and better punch in the middle bass region….I actually thought the carbon mid bass would be more pronounced because of its dome shape and more area of cone that’s exposed
A had more bass extension...more warmth for me...B sounds nice, but not as good to my ear as A...alittle more hollow...missing some the low extension...maybe not as much mid....I like the tweeters for both...love the sound...reminds me of sennheiser hd600 headphones....looks like Morel will be my next speakers.
During the bonus track I felt that the Carbons (B) had more definition between the highs, mids, and lows over the original Morel's. Both are great like you said Dean, but I may go with the new version for that separation. Thanks for the demo guys!!!
You were wrong. The carbon was (A).
The Nanos sounded like they were very slightly colored. They had a slightly more reverby sound and were just a little bit warmer. Both sounded great and I wouldn't notice a difference if wasn't back to back. Even then it was still hard to tell.
The nano’s would have gained a bit on the bottom end because it was placed on the table. They should have stood them both up on the table.
@@perfektindustries8952 yeah but the speaker on top was still on a solid surface that was also on the table. But I first thought they should of done them vertically as well. As long as the mic was between the 2 , does not make a difference.
I really couldn't tell much of a difference between the two until that last section with the direct AB switching. I felt that the nano carbons were slightly warmer, but the regular virtus had a bit more extension into the sub-bass. I would be curious if the nano carbons run into power handling limits first
The tweeters sound to me exactly the same. It's very resolving, maybe a little
bit on the bright side for some people. But I like it bright. The bass control on B is more controlled, fuller, cleaner. Guessed right, but was surprised by a so shallow midbass!
Before I looked at the reveal, I wrote down what differences I heard between the two. A/ Virtus had more of a sharp 5k sound to it. More sub bass, but less mid bass. B/ Nano Had less sub bass, but more mid bass. There was a better natural accurate midrange, perhaps the carbon material shining through. I tend to like smooth natural mids and highs, perhaps morel makes a standard depth carbon mid bass. I think the Nano sound best, but would need a good install and tuning to blend with sub at 80hz.
I liked B because it seemed fuller and lower than A, probably blend with subs better, but A seemed more punchy. Both sounded great, can only imagine the complete 3-way
Difficult to figure out any difference but the nanos are definitely sounding better at the midbass regionb and slight tad fuller at probably the 3k-5k mark. I have the virtus 602 but will have no problem recommending the nanos over these. Thank you both.
Thank you for your thoughts
The Nanos are what I'm looking at for installation into a 1967 Firebird. Little to no room available in the front.
Awesome job! But where are both models made in ? China?
I’m pleasantly surprised by the nanos.
The mid range of the new narrow are much much more vibrant and clear. The bass is punchier too, not as low tone as the regular style.
I think the new narrow sets are more of what you would want from a full range set. If you're more into the bassy/boom music go with the standard style.
A seems very warm and B seems much more dynamic. I prefer B
I haven’t got to the part where you showed which speaker is which. Until the last song I couldn’t hear that big of a difference. Once you started switching speakers in the middle of the performance, the differences become more apparent, although very subtle. Set B sounds slightly punchier with the “kick bass”, and the midrange sound slightly more dynamic. I predict set B is the nano and suspect the shallower design allows for more air in the enclosure which dampens the sound less.
Edit after the reveal: Well, I was wrong. I wonder if the magnet is the ultimate difference. I have long suspected that ferrite magnets can be more dynamic than neo magnets. But I don’t have any proof to support my claim. Either way, if given both sets, I would prefer the carbon nano’s because I can mount them almost anywhere much easier, like custom kicks instead of the door. That by itself is going to yield better results then component differences.
What receiver would you use for a home audio system if you wanted to hook up towers filled with car audio speakers?
I liked B better…seemed a little less “muddy” to my ears…I have Focal speakers in my car so the voice and high clarity is my preference but will say A had a little better mid bass in my opinion
I think A is filling in some missing frequency's in B. Almost like B has a mid scoop. I guessed incorrectly.
Liked the bottom set hoping that they were the morels which are nore affordable 😢
Is there a big difference using 2 ways or 3 ways on these set of speakers? Thank you.
Waiting for reveal but I think A seemed to me to play lower midbass better. Both sounded awesome. But I would choose A. Shocked that I liked A better. Great job on those nanos!
I have a AVH-P1400DVD and I don't know how to update it can yall help?
They are bought good speakers but il with A... The details is more lively than speaker B... and When the next track play I notice the big difference of the midbass freq response.... anyway they are good speakers but i go for speaker A
I think the midbass was the same. However, the highs on A seem to be more clear and brighter than on B.
Thank you
Deciding on drivers for a 2011 RAM 1500 and the front doors have an obstruction which limits the mounting depth considerably. I felt like the originals have a little more bottom but I’m glad to say that I felt the Nanos had a punchier attack on kicks especially with the bonus track. I’m May be wrong but it seems as though Morel drivers need ample amplification to demonstrate their true potential. I’m wondering if they will let me purchase one pair as well as one “single” for a center channel front stage. My feeling is that I should probably choose a coax driver for the center channel as opposed to a mid-bass driver because I m really looking for a special vocal presence up front. RAM Alpine system actually has a mounting position for a center channel but it is for like a 3.5” so I’m trying to decide if I should first experiment with 3 of their smaller drivers in the factory locations (L-C-R) and see if that brings the magic. If not, the Nano is shallow enough to fabricate a 6.5” installation. Still not sure if it would be better to create the center channel front the left and right wiring or run the center off of its own dedicated channel from the amp. It’s not in the budget to buy everything at once ( subwoofer and rear door 6x9’s) so I will try to get the front stage as good as possible first and build from there. I produce songs for all genres so I need a system that will give me goose bumps when I listen to Sade, Sting or James Taylor and shake my mirrors when I listen to Wu Tang, Led Zeppelin, The Lox
and Public Enemy !!! I have a headache. I hope Morel can cover all of the bases as I am really digging the brand’s approach to audio as a whole. Thanks for the post !!!
@BlackSolaris-xm5vv
I'm also a musician with a home recording studio and have been into car audio for over 30 years. Morel can certainly cover all of your speaker needs.
But for a proper Center Channel implementation to work, you are going to need a standalone DSP or DSP-Amplifier that has a true Center Channel Upmixing algorithm such as the Audiotec-Fischer HELIX series with "Real Center", or a processor such as the old JBL MS-8 that used Logic-7, or previous generation Alpine Status F # 1 system or PXE-H800 DSP.
You can't simply sum or mix a bit of the L & R channels together to derive your center channel and expect good results. Yes, you will have a solid (Mono) Center Image, but you will destroy the stereo soundfield and imaging from far left to right.
Home theater AVR receivers use licensed surround processing such as Dolby Atmos, DTS HD, Auro 3D, Spatial Audio, et cetera in order to derive the unique center channel information, and the same is needed to properly implement a center channel in car audio.
And yes, ideally you want the same frequency range or speakers used in the Center Channel as the Left & Right channels, or a center that can reach down to at least 150Hz in order to cover the majority of the lowest male vocal range.
For your RAM's front L & R door midbass or midwoofers, I would suggest the Stereo Integrity 6.5" TM65 MK IV which are amazing but only have a 2.5" mounting depth (wait for a good sale). These will fit even in most of the shallow OEM door locations if they are mounted using a proper thickness custom front baffle mounting ring. Check the SoundsGoodStereo web site for custom mounting rings.
The 8" S.I. TM8 midbass drivers are also just 2.5" deep, if you can fit that diameter in your doors and can do a 3-way front left and right "front stage" setup (midbass/midrange/tweeter).
Otherwise, go with these 2-way 6.5" Morel Nano Carbon Virtus components. Either way, put some of your budget towards good acoustic and resonance control damping products (typically referred to as "Sound Deadening" here) to treat at least the front doors. Some good brands are ResoNix Sound Solutions, Dynamat Xtreme, Stinger Roadkill Ultimate, Second Skin, and SoundSkins.
It's extremely important to seal all of the openings and holes in the door sheetmetal where the midwoofers are mounted in order to completely separate and isolate the front & rear sound waves of the speakers in the door. If the front and rear sound waves of the speaker cone are allowed to interact or "see" each other, it will cause significant cancellation nulls in the lower midbass region as well as erratic, uneven frequency response overall (comb filtering).
The "Sound Deadening" products also help to prevent vibrations, rattles, buzzes, and resonances that will destroy the imaging cues and draw your attention down to those speakers instead of keeping the soundstage up above the dash.
In addition, the single most important component that is needed in order to recreate a proper spectral balance and tonality, solid up-front bass, and a high/wide/deep soundstage in a vehicle is a GOOD DSP unit!
A good DSP that is PROPERLY tuned can even make the OEM stock speakers sound 100% better, and this will scale up even further with better speakers and good amplification that provides plenty of headroom.
Alpine recently released their OPTIM8 DSP-Amplifier unit that includes a microphone and will Auto-Tune your system for you in about 10 minutes on average.
You set the appropriate Crossovers for each speaker in the DSP and the measurement and auto-tuning process then applies Independent Levels, Time-Alignment (digital delay), and Parametric EQ to match a given Target Curve. Your Target Curve can be modified to suit your preferences.
But before you choose a DSP or DSP-Amplifer unit, you need to determine what playback source you will be using (OEM or aftermarket head unit or a DAP), and exactly how many INPUT and OUTPUT Channels your proposed system will require.
There are DSP units with just 6 Output Channels to 16 Output Channels, and 8, 10, or 12 are common as well.
HTH and good luck with your system!
I'd say the Carbon's have tighter and punchier bass whereas the regular nano has more sub bass. Slightly better mids for the carbon as well. I'd be happy with either but got the carbon because I need that super shallow driver.
I have the virtus 602, but am looking to upgrade to either the hybrids or the elate carbon. Would kind to see more comparison content like this. It's really hard to get a good listen and there are no dealers close to where I live to hear them live. Thanks!
Do they get pretty loud or more sq then anything?
@@cemoore32 they definitely get loud, but not obnoxiously so. SQ is definitely the emphasis. I'm looking to upgrade to a 3 way set, I'm leaning towards the hybrids unless I can figure out if the elates are worth the price jump. Too bad I can't hear them for myself anywhere near me
I would say Skip the hybrids as i have also made the same choice as you are planning.
@@Aakashh_Sharma I appreciate the input 👌
@@daleksec5109Did you end up going through with the upgrade?
IMHO, I prefer B....it's more cohesive; especially, on the first tune (the piano part). Seems A has a bigger difference between mids and highs (like a void). This is before the reveal so just a blind A-B.
I preferred the B.
Nano tiene buenos medios, pero lo noto más plano en su rango.
Me iría por los virtus.
Pero por supuesto que si no hay espacio es de lo mejor el nano.
I'll take nano carbons & sub over the other combo. Did not use headphones yet though.
I’m really sorry. Which set was A and which set was B?
I think the nanos performed great, i have them, so maybe im biased
All good, thanks
I could hear a difference when the laptop was being used.. then you switched sources and then it was hard to hear..
Nano had more reverb like someone else said. Maybe it was me but on the last song the upper midrange sounded louder on Virtous. .
Thank you
I preferred the sound of the nanos.
I think I’d be happy with either, . . .but B was more dynamic.
Wait, did I miss where you actually said which was A, and which was B??? But I do like A just a shade better.
I was hoping to figure that out at the end when the screen cam off 😏
I like B better as it sounds more open. It has risks of sounding thin iMHO but I like it better. So, B is Nano Carbon?
No, B is the Virtus 602. The thin nano carbon 62 is A
AWESOME DEMO......THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2 THAT I CAN TELL.....MOREL HAS MADE IT POSSIBLE TO MOUNT AN ANY DOOR SPACE CONSTRAINTS
B slightly deeper bass
Listening thru youtube on different types of headphones/earbuds/speakers that was recorded with a certain mic in a room with certain characteristics on-axis verses off-axis as they would be in vehicle. Kinda fun but a little pointless. If only we could do a double blind A/B test in a vehicle!
👍
Dean likes the Morel filters. I kinda find them look like Darth Vader's helmet ..... not pretty...
crazy B sounds better with percussion standing out very clear, sounding. A sounds good, but not as clear with detail.
More higher crossover
I like A better seemed brighter and more full
Thank you
The brighter one was B, the Virtus 602. The thin nano carbon 62 was A. which had a fuller bass but somewhat muddier.
A has a fuller sound overall to me..
Speaker b sounds not so sharp
B was more vibrant
I like B
Very obvious that the "regular" model has a superior tweeter, much cleaener. The woofer is also better since it both goes deeper, as we could hear during the final track, and isn't muddy in the low midrange like the flat/carbon one is. Sounds a bit muffled and simply cheaper straight up. Top speaker sounds SQ/high fidelity, bottom sounds like a good average kit, nothing more. ALso notable DB differences = surely different sensitivty rating (didn't check stats on them but the top speakers sound like they wand and can handle more power whereas the flat woofer kit does fine with less, even if "fine" sounds worse in terms of raw quality.) They do NOT sound similar. Difference is like the sound difference between an Audison (bit muddy midrange) vs Hertz (clear balanced sound profile) in midtier comparisions. (Voce vs Mille). Would never buy the carbon crap personally. They better be cheaper than the regulars considering they're straight up worse everywhere except in loudness at that given wattage.
Carbons sounded better to me on every track
it all sounded the same
Flat
We want to see install videos not reviews.