The first and the bigger thing that I like about them is that Anima is trying to use the vertical-horizontal configuration where the bell of the vertical horn serves as frame for horizontal channels. I love this idea and had a number of my own thoughts along this way never successful however.
Then there are the things in Anima that make me less comfortable.
I would like to see much high impedance for the speaker if a speaker claims 107dB sensitivity
The tweeter is sitting at 1.5K, first order. That is king of low crossover point for tweeter but it is OK. The problem that I see that with this time of the filter and a compression driver used I think the horn for the tweeter shall have around 700Hz mouth. I do not see in the Anima tweeter this mouth; it more strikes me as 3KHz mouth. So, I feel that for this crossover point the HF horn shall be larger, in this configuration there is even a great space for it. It is not to mention that larger/deeper horns will calm down a bit that Titanium dome.
The MF horn is fine BUT…. They claim 107dB sensitivity. This type of horn would give 6dB gains, which makes the 5” driver they use to have 101dB sensitivity. Where the hell they find 5” driver with 101dB sensitivity? I would like to have one as well. There is a “concern” however. The MF rolls off at 1.5K, which is VERY fact for 5” drivers that might work in this type of horn. Evan with no phase plug a 5-incher driver with resonant frequency above 200Hz shall be easily going to 7K. Why Manolis decided to roll it off to fast, particularly knowing that he has the underperforming lower knee in HF channel? This is very controversial as far as I can predict…
Sure the upperbass channel is the most problematic. Anima uses a 15” driver – a big mistake in my view. What Anima did is loading his 15” bass driver in a virtual a pipe – the same as Bruce Edgar does foe his mostly retarded clients in his NEW Titan design. The mouth of the Anima midbass is limited by a sanity of footprint. BTW, this floor-firing horn is a very good solution – it helps with time misalignment problems and it allows having ¼ or even 1/8 size of horn with less length problems. So, to have 15” bass driver automatically assures a relatively large throat of the upperbass horn. Let pretend that the throat is 10’ and the mouth like 150Hz. It I would say 4 feet long horn from 10” to let say 30” – you will not have a proper loading in this type of the horn – it is not a horn but a widening pipe where the 15” driver is shooting all the way throe, choking the mouth.
What I would like to see in Anima is to employ 6”-10” driver and to have 3”-5” throat. That would make the horn to go higher but they do have room in there. Furthermore if the do then this uncomfortable budge atop of the speaker will be much higher (3-2 feet) and much smaller. Then, only then, the Anima will have more properly operating upperbass. Sure it will screw up the whole esthetic of the speaker but it is what it is.
As guy point out, the upper knee of the upperbass channel, loaded to floor and crossed at 250Hz with first order is a bit too optimistic. The whole “melody range” looks like very underdeveloped in the Anima, id it was up to me then I would add a small direct radiator channel to care 100-400hz range. A small direct radiator channel of this range and 105-107dB sensitivity? Good lack to find it….
Sure, to sound more or less complete the Anima has to have a dedicated separate LF channel. I do not see it on the picture and there is no where mentioning of it. Perhaps they run the 15” driver with open back and the bulge is not a back chamber but a vertically fairing direct radiator and feel they try to pick some extra bass that does not cared by the upperbass hors? I do not know, it looks like the back of the upperbass is sealed, not to mention that a dipole with one side horn is VERY questionable implementation.
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche