I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system with a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the MoFi SourcePoint 8's behavior in the farfield and an Earthworks QTC-40 mike for the nearfield responses. I left the grille off for the acoustic measurements.
The SourcePoint 8's specified sensitivity is 87dB/2.83V/m; my B-weighted estimate was the same. The SourcePoint 8's nominal impedance is specified as 8 ohms, with a minimum value of 6.4 ohms. I measured the speaker's impedance magnitude and phase with Dayton Audio's DATS V2 system, but for consistency with Stereophile's presentation of impedance graphs for the past 33 years, I created fig.1 with the Audio Precision System One software. The speaker's impedance magnitude (solid trace) is greater than 8 ohms for almost all the audioband, dropping to 7.47 ohms at 120Hz. If this speaker is used with tube amplifiers, the significantly higher impedance in the treble compared with that in the midrange will tilt up the high frequencies. With the high average impedance, the equivalent peak dissipation resistance, or EPDR (footnote 1), is generally greater than 4 ohms, though it does drop below that magnitude between 197Hz and 341Hz, with a minimum value of 3.83 ohms at 242Hz. Even so, the SourcePoint 8 is an easy load for an amplifier.
The traces in fig.1 are free from the small discontinuities that would suggest the existence of panel resonances. However, when I investigated the vibrational behavior of the enclosure's side, top, and back panels with a plastic-tape accelerometer, I found a mode at 410Hz on the top and sides, another at 359Hz on the sides only (fig.2), and another at 355Hz on the back panel. These modes were all relatively low in level and had a high Q (Quality Factor), both of which will work against audibility.
The SourcePoint 8's impedance-magnitude plot has a saddle in the bass centered just above 50Hz, which will coincide with the tuning frequency of the two ports on the rear panel. The woofer's nearfield response (fig.3, blue trace) has the expected reflex notch at this frequency, and the summed output of the ports peaks between 30Hz and 100Hz (fig.3, red trace; both ports behaved identically). The ports' upper-frequency rolloff is clean. The complex sum of the woofer and port responses is shown as the black trace below 300Hz in fig.3. The boost in the upper bass is an artifact of the nearfield measurement technique, which assumes that the drive units are mounted in a baffle that extends to infinity in both vertical and horizontal directions. The SourcePoint 8's reflex alignment is maximally flat, in textbook fashion.
The MoFi speaker's farfield output, averaged across a 30° horizontal window centered on the tweeter axis (fig.3, black trace above 300Hz), is even, though with a slight excess of energy in the upper midrange and above 9kHz. There is also a slight peak just above 3kHz in fig.3, but the cursor position in the speaker's horizontal dispersion graph (fig.4) suggests that this presence-region peak diminishes to the speaker's sides. Other than that, the SourcePoint 8's radiation pattern in both the horizontal (fig.4) and vertical (fig.5) planes is well-controlled, with the expected narrowing above 10kHz.
Turning to the time domain, fig.6 shows the SourcePoint 8's step response on the tweeter axis. Both drivers are connected in positive acoustic polarity, with the tweeter's output arriving first at the microphone. The positive-going decay of the tweeter's step smoothly blends with the start of the woofer's step, which implies an optimal crossover implementation. Some ripples in the decay of the woofer's step might be associated with the ridge of delayed energy just above 3kHz in the MoFi speaker's cumulative spectral-decay (waterfall) plot (fig.7). (Ignore the apparent low-level ridge of delayed energy just below 16kHz, which is due to interference from the MLSSA host PC's video circuitry.)
Like the SourcePoint 10 I reviewed in February 2023, the MoFi SourcePoint 8 offers excellent measured performance.—John Atkinson
 | |||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||
COMMENTS
Thanks for your review and enthusiasm - it mirrors my own enjoyment when I heard them.
Your setup mentions 4-1/2 feet from the wall behind them. I assume this is to the rear baffle- correct?
This would be difficult for many rooms to handle- how adversely is the sound affected with positioning closer to the back wall?
Yes, I meant 4.5' from the rear surface of the speakers and I do appreciate that one may not be able to accommodate that in smaller rooms.
There's nothing magic about the rear spacing in distinction from any other since, at low frequencies, the radiation is omni-directional. In my setup, the side spacing was 3' and I'd expect that 3' would work well for the rear. However, in that case, I'd recommend changing the side spacing so that the two near boundary distances are different.
Great review! Mr. Rubinson consistently produces amazing reviews which are informative, easy to read, not holding back on weaknesses, and most importantly more objective because he often uses the same reference points/frame of perspective over his series of reviews. Compared that to some reviewers who are over-joyed over the fact they got an expensive gear for free for a set of period.
Just come out with any box with drivers in it, proclaim it is designed by the legendary Andrew Jones, and little audiophiles all over the world orgasm in their pants!
The "Andrew Jones" moniker feels more like marketing than anything else. If Andrew Jones is so exceptional at designing speakers, why did Elac, KEF or TAD not employ him for longer? Why does he jump around from contract to contract? Designing speakers for MOFI, which is primarily a record selling business, is not the most prestigious of assignements.
Show us on the doll where that dastardly Mr. Jones hurt you.
Have you actually heard these speakers? Or do you want to belittle them solely because you don't like the marketing tactic ("designed by Andrew Jones"). Are you saying speakers he designs aren't good because he has designed them for a bunch of manufacturers? As to why Jones "jumps around," or how prestigious a company he works for, those notions is irrelevant to whether he produces good designs. Also, for over 20 years MOFI has been owned by MusicDirect, an audio retailer; oh, they sell records, too.
Seems like the SourcePoint 10 has a bit deeper bass, a less linear frequency response, and wider dispersion?
Unless in a small room, seems like the SourcePoint 10 is better overall.
I own a pair of Andrew Jones Elac speakers & I'm happy with them. I've heard the displacement theory before but I believe it's a marketing ploy to differentiate these Mofis from his Elacs. Also, Kef's Uni-Q drivers have large displacement & achieve exceptional performance. So what the Mofis are uniquely offering to the US market is Tannoy (& Fyne) technology for the 21st century.
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 Stereophile
