| Related products: | Reference 3A Episode Loudspeaker |

The Episode, the latest addition to the Reference 3A speaker lineup, may be fairly summed up as the Grand Veena’s smaller brother. Positioned between the Veena and Grand Veena it is said to offer an easier amplifier load and greater sensitivity. The Episode uses an 8" full-range version of the Grand Veena’s 6.5" main driver, but the 1" tweeter, the Murata super-tweeter, and the Bybee Quantum Purifier are common to both.
To describe the Episode’s design as a two-way box speaker with a super tweeter would be superficial at best. Its raison d’être is a wide-range driver featuring a flared woven-carbon-fiber cone similar in shape to that of an exponential horn, except that the degree of flare is even more extreme than that, and is denoted as “hyper-exponential” by the folks at Reference 3A. The rationale for the flare is to improve high-frequency response. The wide-range driver is operated wide open without a low-pass filter. Measured by itself on axis (by disconnecting the tweeters), its frequency response was reasonably flat to 5kHz with extension to about 10kHz without evidence of any significant breakup resonances. Beyond 10kHz, the response starts rolling off quickly and exhibits a “last-gasp” breakup mode centered at around 14.5kHz. Wide response and no crossover network translate into uniform phase response and excellent time domain behavior. The fly in the ointment for any wide-range driver is treble dispersion. The phase plug helps some, but even so, moving the microphone to about 10 degrees off-axis produced a dramatically different frequency response with a gentle roll-off starting at around 2kHz.
Measured full-range, by reconnecting the tweeter and super tweeter, the Episode produced a surprisingly uniform response at 10 degrees—even better than that measured on the tweeter axis. While the on-axis response highlighted a slightly hot treble range, off-axis the response gelled, producing one of the most uniform response curves I’ve measured to date at my listening seat. Not surprisingly, the owner’s manual recommends that the speakers “be positioned straight out to the general listening area with the tweeters on the outside and no toe-in to the listening position.” This raised an eyebrow initially as I am accustomed to optimizing the soundstage by tweaking three parameters: distance to the rear wall, spacing between the speakers, and toe-in angle. In fact, the classic approach is to toe-in speakers so that the tweeter axes intersect in front of the listening seat. That worked very well with the Esoteric MG-20s, so naturally I felt that one of the available degrees of freedom was being taken away from me and I was determined to experiment in this regard anyway. What I discovered was that while a toe-in did help expand soundstage width and depth, the resultant sound wasn’t as smooth and a bit too hot in the treble for my taste. Since the 1" tweeter rolls in around 3kHz (a first-order network), when listened to off-axis (e.g., 10 degrees), it contributes most of the upper midrange and presence region output at the listening seat. I think that this is preferable—cleaner-sounding relative to having the wide-range driver contribute much in the way of direct sound over these octaves. Conclusion: The folks at Reference 3A know what they’re talking about. I suggest that you closely abide by their set-up recommendations.
The 1" tweeter features a silk dome and a copper Faraday ring. It is built to Reference 3A’s specifications in Asia and is currently modified in-house for more controlled back-chamber pressure-release to minimize dome breakup modes. The Murata super-tweeter features a spherical piezoelectric diaphragm and is actually advertised as a “harmonic enhancer.” It presents a bit of an enigma in that it kicks in around 19kHz and its range extends to over 80kHz, well beyond the limits of human hearing. Precious few of us can hear anything above 15kHz, and with some program material (standard Red Book CD), there is absolutely nothing above 22kHz anyway. So it’s fair to ask if there’s a benefit to such a device. When I reviewed an earlier stand-alone version of this super-tweeter some years ago, I found its effect to be addictive. It helped bridge the gap between live and reproduced music. When I disconnected the super-tweeters, the effect was akin to turning off the lights—the presentation became darker and less present. It stands to reason that, in the context of the Episode, the Murata adds a dose of sonic Viagra to what otherwise would have been a soft and laid-back treble range.
Comments
The importer, Divertech, has in its lineup tubed components. I have found that among importers, the speakers and the electronics will generally match.
Take Wilson speakers, for example. Used with tubes, they can sound pretty good (I've owned WATTS, back when their impedance dropped (and still may, for all I know) to less than 1 ohm in the treble). But with solid state -- which is what they were designed with (I knew Dave back then, and was in Novato several times and saw the workshop: Spectral DMA-50 amp, Rowland Coherence 1 preamp, both components with complementary colorations. The Spectral,highly extended treble (I believe HP termed it "hot" and REG concurred, although he {REG} liked the amp) and the Coherence, soft above the upper midrange (exactly where the Spectral WASN'T soft) and able to extend the WATTs treble where it fell off (around 15k, if memory serves me) worked well together.
Same here. Divertech imports ASL, which I own. Stands to reason that they're going to import speakers and electronics that complement each other. One would be a fool to do otherwise. No surprise, then, that Dick found tubes to work best.
What surprises me is that the speaker, after a review like this -- certainly not bad, but after reading the following, one wonders how it achieved an Editors Choice award.
To wit: "However, there was occasional trouble during loud program peaks, at which point the upper midrange and presence regions congested and turned hard and shouty." Does that seem like something that merits an Editors Choice award?!?
Do NOT misunderstand: I think the Reference line is excellent, and am not making any judgments on them, as I haven't heard them. I'm merely astonished that something gets picked for an award that has what TAS, in the past, would have roundly condemned a speaker for having, yet these days, can still give it an Editors Choice Award.
Can someone at TAS help me understand this? I'm definitely not gettin' it.