Eclipse TD712z Mk2 Standmount Speaker Review - review discussion

I wouldnt buy those if they where £100 tbf, why do high end speakers have to look utterly terrible?
 
I wouldnt buy those if they where £100 tbf, why do high end speakers have to look utterly terrible?
They don't have to look bad and many look quite decent. We can always ignore those that look horrible, or where the woodwork is shoddy, etc.
 
Each to their own.. it looks like a lifestyle speaker for those with very deep pockets. Im sure there are cheaper speakers that sound just as good or better?

I thought the B and W PV1D subwoofer was an expensive bowling ball...now this thing...a much more expensive rugby ball...
 
Last edited:
Each to their own.. it looks like a lifestyle speaker for those with very deep pockets. Im sure there are cheaper speakers that sound just as good or better?

I thought the B and W PV1D subwoofer was an expensive bowling ball...now this thing...a much more expensive rugby ball...

You should hear single driver speakers before making your mind. You might like sound signature.
 
You should hear single driver speakers before making your mind. You might like sound signature.
At £6500 I wouldn't expect anything less than amazing sound.

I have heard single speakers, including in a car driven by class a amps, but not of this price bracket.
 
If i had £6,000 i would rather put it in a pile and burn it, then have these fugly speakers in my living room.
 
I think they look really interesting, I am glad they exist, but I wouldnt want them in my home. I would love to hear them though.
 
You should hear single driver speakers before making your mind. You might like sound signature.
I owned Quad ESLs for years - but that's "single driver" done right :) . My ML Spires have an integral active woofer, allowing them to reach 29Hz at -3dB.

The Eclipse TD712z Mk2 states 35Hz at -10dB, with https://www.denso-ten.com/business/technicaljournal/pdf/33-2.pdf page 14 showing a low of 50Hz at -4dB (and a +6dB peak at 1.5KHz), As such, it requires a separate subwoofer, even to handle various common instruments properly. I'm not sure that really counts as a "single driver" speaker when considered as a satellite as a sat-sub setup, but of course, that's a question of definition.
 
I love them. They look suitably different to the tedious nature of the oblong box.

And I’m also possessed of a pair of floor standing single driver speakers at the mo’ using a pair of Jordan’s new drivers.

They are fantastic sounding. The clarity is astonishing.

And... I’ve measured them to 42hz, flat with REW.

they were all over the place above around 8khz, but Dirac sorted that out easily and they became my favourite sounding speaker.

I thought active x-overs were top class, and good ones are.

But none at all is a wonderful thing.

I‘d own these in second., if someone were to give me a permanent loan of £7000 and a Lyngdorf 2170.
 
Have spent a bit of time with these and wow - the speed and timing is exceptional. Imaging off axis is a bit of an issue, but what an exciting listen!

If you want to hear everything then they're worth an audition. Again, the speed and grip these speakers have is amazing.

As noted above, they do need a sub to provide their best (and the Eclipse sub is a BIG box and very boring looking). Personally I think they look amazing in black, but not a fan of the silver.

Totally different sound to the one I have, but could happily swap - would need to add a good amp though, which puts the price roughly in the same ball park as my current active speakers (which don't need a subwoofer!)
 
the design looks familiar; looking forward to seeing a pair mounted on a contemporary vehicle....
1-1937-Chevrolet-Master-DeLuxe-Headlight.jpg
 
they were all over the place above around 8khz, but Dirac sorted that out easily and they became my favourite sounding speaker.

Don't wish to veer too far off topic but DIRAC/ARC seems to allow speakers that have some exceptional strengths (e.g. amazing dynamics, detail monsters, fast-reacting etc) yet unbalanced frequency response, to sound great, such as speakers like these Eclipse.

Come the day when most of us are using some form of room correction, we'll need to be more analytical when choosing/auditioning speakers so that we, somehow, ignore frequency response irregularities (at least up to a point) and listen out for other performance aspects that we covet. Such an approach would surely widen our speaker choices too. Personally, I'd struggle with that because I'd find it difficult to get past an unbalanced tonality - it's the first thing that tends to strike me. Interesting times ahead though.
 
Don't wish to veer too far off topic but DIRAC/ARC seems to allow speakers that have some exceptional strengths (e.g. amazing dynamics, detail monsters, fast-reacting etc) yet unbalanced frequency response, to sound great, such as speakers like these Eclipse.

Come the day when most of us are using some form of room correction, we'll need to be more analytical when choosing/auditioning speakers so that we, somehow, ignore frequency response irregularities (at least up to a point) and listen out for other performance aspects that we covet. Such an approach would surely widen our speaker choices too. Personally, I'd struggle with that because I'd find it difficult to get past an unbalanced tonality - it's the first thing that tends to strike me. Interesting times ahead though.

Yes, I agree.

Since I discovered Dirac and what it can do, I can’t imagine doing without room correction.

If and when I can afford it, I’ll be using 5 or 7 of the Jordan speakers for a Home Cinema set up and a Dirac processor. Probably the Nad version.

The clarity and speed of the things is just astonishing on first listen.

There’s a myth going about that room correction alters the ‘sound’ of your speakers.

Nonsense of course, but it might well impede a faster uptake of things like RP, Dirac and ARC.

That would be shortsighted imo.
 
If and when I can afford it, I’ll be using 5 or 7 of the Jordan speakers for a Home Cinema set up and a Dirac processor. Probably the Nad version.

I've just seen the prices. :eek:

And there was me thinking a line array pair would be good!
 
I've just seen the prices. :eek:

And there was me thinking a line array pair would be good!

Yup. Not at all cheap.

I’m told the Fostek equivalent is quite cheap, but not as ‘sophisticated’ sounding.

Never sure what that means.

But... a though just popped into my head... if they are really cheap I could make a pair with all this time to myself. Then compare the two.

I shall find some details.
 
I’m told the Fostek equivalent is quite cheap, but not as ‘sophisticated’ sounding.

Tangband also make cheaper full-range drivers. No idea if they're any good though. The response above about 5 - 8kHz always looks scary:


Clearly, these type of full-range units can have some special properties, typically lighting fast reflexes, but unless some form of room correction, together with bass support, is used, they don't really cut it as full range transducers (though the use of multiple units could negate the bass problem). Surely the best solution would be to allow an AMT tweeter (which will likely move faster at >5kHz anyway) to take care of the HF's and let a bass box take bass duties (or even a sub with a well-behaved upper bass, like the BK XXLS400).

Vastly reduced Doppler distortion of midrange frequencies, improved power handling, better HF response (quicker too), lower overall distortion, higher SPL's and cheaper than a line array of full-range drivers. Use an active crossover (with linear phase?) so that power amps are still directly connected to all drive units. Is there a down side?
 
Tangband also make cheaper full-range drivers. No idea if they're any good though. The response above about 5 - 8kHz always looks scary:


Clearly, these type of full-range units can have some special properties, typically lighting fast reflexes, but unless some form of room correction, together with bass support, is used, they don't really cut it as full range transducers (though the use of multiple units could negate the bass problem). Surely the best solution would be to allow an AMT tweeter (which will likely move faster at >5kHz anyway) to take care of the HF's and let a bass box take bass duties (or even a sub with a well-behaved upper bass, like the BK XXLS400).

Vastly reduced Doppler distortion of midrange frequencies, improved power handling, better HF response (quicker too), lower overall distortion, higher SPL's and cheaper than a line array of full-range drivers. Use an active crossover (with linear phase?) so that power amps are still directly connected to all drive units. Is there a down side?

...only the the fact that I’m too lazy to put it all together I suspect.
 
The more I look at these and read about them, the more I want a pair.

Ideally, a pair of these, a Lyngdorf 1120 and a pair of these subs


But that, alas, is dreaming for now at least.
 
some significant time ago I heard the forerunner to these (I presume the mk1's) at the old manchester hifi show (oh practical hifi, whyever did you stop these shows). it was a 5.1 setup powered by the mighty Sony TA-DA9000ES receiver and for me, it was by far the best thing at the show. the sound was truely stunning and I personally would love to have a set. The price, room needed and WAF are however a problem but I love them.

One point I would make is that I wish the cones were all black, which would then make them look like jet engines. white with a black dustcap very much takes them into the giant eyeballs territory...
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom