 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.111.63.129
http://sumikoaudio.net/sonus/reviews/SF_guarneri_mennto_HFN_3-07.pdfThe original Guarneri had a really flat frequency response. Also, if you note in the review above, both L&R speakers had the same FR. This rules out defective units.
How can a speaker with such a compromised FR response represent an improvement over the older speaker ?
Follow Ups:
No dynamics, no real frequency extension. Very pretty. Very overpriced. Very crappy sound.
-L
A friend who used to own and love a pair of Guarneri Homages upgraded to Guarneri Mementos. I haven't heard his GMs but this friend is one of the few local audiophiles whose ears I can trust and he says the GMs sound more extended in the freq extrems, smoother, more refined, are more detailed, are more dynamic and have a lot more bass and punch than the GH. I believe him. I haven't heard his setup but I am very familiar with the Strads and since the GM shares roughly the same tweeter and a similar but larger Audiotechnology midwoofer, I would expect rougly similar if somewhat downscaled improvements. Otoh ... I think the GH probably sounds richer/warmer from top to bottom and no doubt some GH fans would miss that ...
Reading it again, I have to say that’s about as bad a review as I’ve ever read. I find it simply irresponsible and wasteful. Why bother if your discussion is so weak. Has it gotten so bad that pretty pictures and a bit of technical info is enough for very expensive gear? Even Hi Fi Plush isn’t that bad – yet.The main thrust seems to be: “it shure is perty, ain’t it?” That’s just crap.
yeah ken kessler's full of it
I'd be curious for a Stereophile review, too. Those measurements weren't very detailed. Nevertheless, putting a 1st order x'over on a metal cone driver -- that's gotta be a first. It must have some serious proprietary damping ...
As I'm sure everyone has figured out by now, these mid-bass drivers are sourced from Audio Technology, and they are poly cones. Here is a nice link to a faq from their site: http://www.audiotechnology.dk/iz.asp?id=4|q|195|||
So, I wonder how much time KH actually spent with the speaker to mistake what is very obviously a poly cone for an aluminum unit.As for the crossover, Sonus faber has not used a pure 1st order in many, many years, but rather what they refer to as a "1st order attenuated"
If you check out the response curve of the SEAS Ll5RLYP metal cone you'll see it starts to drop off naturally around 2Khz and then has a sharp peak around 7Khz if I remember correctly.
One can get a 2nd order slope out of this with just a coil in series and a notch filter. It's essentially a first order topology for the woofer but ends up with a second order slope on the woofer.I think Joseph audio uses a similar and larger metal cone in at least one of their speakers. Hopefully I will be corrected if I am wrong. They approach it differently and use their "infinite slope" which is something like a 60db/octave slope on the woofer. This squelches any need for a notch filter in the first place.
Bill
Don't equate 1st order phase/time coherent with small number of parts crossover. Be it first or 48db a crossover can have supporting circuits (phase correction, notch filters, impedance compensation).Probably not metal anyway, looks Skanning.
yes but Thiel does an enormous amount of passive equalization first to control the metal resonances which is why their crossovers are so complex which you wouldn't expect with 1st order crossovers.
The acoustic order does not equal simple xover.
I'm not so sure that it does have a metal cone. That would be a *huge* shift for Sonus Faber, who have always used polypropylene or paper cones for their woofers. In the main text, Ken Kessler talks about the woofer quite a lot but doesn't mention an aluminum cone. The only place it is mentioned is in Keith Howard's measurements sidebar.But when you look at the picture of the driver, it looks more like the old poly cone Dynaudio drivers. You know, where the dust cap attaches to the cone there is a series of circumferential slots. So I'm thinking that KH just made a mistake and that it really is just a poly cone.
I could be wrong, though...
I am pretty sure you are right, Charles. The vents around the dust cap are very reminiscent of Dynaudio or Skanning.
Taking another look, you’re right. I bet they’re poly made by Skaaning (who founded Dynaudio originally). True, they could use a trap for the break-up mode but I assumed they didn’t since the reviewer mentioned a minimalist crossover.I’ve never seen a truly minimalist (or null) crossover on any midbass other than a poly cone (since they typically lack any break up mode unlike paper and everything else).
I am talking about a review with measurements. That should answer a lot of questions.SF does know how to design flat speakers. The Cremona, Strad., Amati are relatively flat. So this one is a mystery.
Thanks for all the comments...lots of information there.
What was the methodology for the measurements, it anaechoice or inroom, it is on-axis (which I think it is), and what was the position of the mic in respect of the speaker, midway, tweeter axis, woofer axis. without this questions answered, it is hard to give robust criticism.Firstly, that curve shows a classic loudness curve compensation, as a result I think that overall response i.e. a broad dip in the upper midrange is exactly what the designer was aiming for, It has nothing to do with poor integration whatsover.
The reviewers comments correlate to the measurements to some extent, the bigger soundstage is due to broad dip in the upper range, and reading between the lines it will seem that the in the dispersion plots that the tweeter does in fact fill in to the sides. Other meassurements are necessary to get a complete picture. That said, for a speaker that is bound for life in 'minimalist' audiophile setup with no form of equalisation whatsover except the tube amplifier (in some cases), the FR is 'tuned' for the job.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
The FR measurements are disappointing as FR is for sure an important component of a speaker getting the correct tonality of instruments. However, it is unclear if this is only an on-axis response or is it a an integrated response over a wide horizontal listening window. Perhaps the power response or an in-room response would show a much flatter response than the one reported.If the speaker is in fact a 1st order x-over design then one can expect some pretty large off-axis variation in FR unless the drivers are VERY close together. My guess is that the dips fill in off-axis and the peak will for sure flatten out because the Ring radiator tweeter doesn't have nearly as broad a dispersion as the Esotar dome tweeter. This can be readily seen with other speakers using this kind of tweeter. My guess is that this speaker is not designed to have the speakers pointing right at your ears for flattest response and relies on the room siginficantly to smooth out the response. Not how I would choose to do it because I think designing to limit the room influence gives a more broadly applicable speaker.
In addition to FR though are things like distortion of drivers, compression, both thermal and dynamic and driver and cabinet self-noise. All of these things affect perceived tonal balance and transparency. None of these things are completely clear from this one measurement either. In stereophile JA measures each driver individually and then it is possible to see if cone break up is evident (as speculated here by the guy making the measurements).
Pinkus, there seems to be a widespread belief in audio land that just because something is newer and more expensive it must be better.
I own the original G's, and have heard the M's in my system. IMHO, the M's are not in the same league as the originals. If one looks at the new driver compliment, the tweeter is a ring radiator and the mid/bass unit is 5" driver sourced from Dynaudio.(I believe). The orignal uses the far smoother Dynaudio Esotar silk dome, with a custom Audiotechnologie mid/bass unit. The Esotar is still considered by many including myself to be SOTA in tweets.The mid/bass unit has drawn raves worldwide also. The x-over has been changed in the M to a single wire version( it's bi-wirable in the original) and apparently the box is the same.
IMHO, SF cheapened the parts in the M and bought themselves a refresh of the line.
Measurements are instructive, perhaps in this instance very instructive.
Hunh? Sonus faber has not used Dynaudio drivers in many, many years. The mid-bass unit in Guarneri is a modern version of the Audio Technology driver used in the original Guarneri and sourced from Audio Technology. As for the tweeter, it is shared with Amati Anniversario and Stradivari, albeit tuned differently in those designs. The cabinet is different in tuning and construction.Cheapened parts to buy a refresh of the line? Pretty cynical.
Patrick,
Audiotechnology is owned by Mr.Skaaning, one of the founders of Dynaudio. The Esotar is a Dynaudio driver that is used in the G.(Original version)
Pretty cynical? Have you listened to both versions like I have?
Hi Davey,Sure. I've set them up in about 7 different systems in 6 different rooms. Enough variables to know the speaker pretty well. In any meaningful way, it is a superior speaker to the original Guarneri. That being said, I could live with the original Guarneri for the rest of my life quite contently because it makes music. The Memento is also a consummate music maker, but the system that you build around Guarneri will in all likelihood be different than the system that you build around Memento. As I'm sure you've noticed, most all drivers used in Sonus faber models are customized units. Dynaudio no longer offers these services, which is why Sonus faber has been working with other driver vendors. I would agree that the Esotar is a wonderful tweeter when used correctly. Mr. Skaaning was also the founder of Scanspeak, which builds the custom tweeter used in Memento.
Good listening,
Patrick
Patrick, That is interesting. In my system and with friends listening to the 'AB', we all prefered the original model.
Consensus was that the G vs. the M was the G was more refined in the area of timbre reproduction, the integration of the two drivers was less audible and the midrange was far more accurate.
The imaging was similar in both speakers with the original able to
produce slightly more depth.
Your remarks show why it is probably a good idea to hear speakers in your own setup. BTW, what different kind of system would you suggest for the M? We noted that both speakers are fairly power hungry, so low powered tubes need not apply.
Hi Davey,I've had very similar experiences to yours over the years with different components and speakers. Memento certainly is happier with more power than Guarneri, and I would not use low powered tube amps (as lovely as they can be.) I would show up with a few hundred watts to drive them, and as long as the electronics are reasonably neutral, the field of choices is wide open.
Patrick
Hi Pinkus.I am pretty sure what HiFi News are measuring is an artifact of the 6 DB/Octave filter.
They have such an enormous overlap that the drivers cancel and subtract one and another over a big frequency band.
I am pretty sure that if the measurements were done at a lower height, or if the speaker had been tilted further back, they would have measured much better.
It goes for all speakers with 6 DB/Octave filters that they have big suck outs and peaks in their vertical frequency responses. Whether this is an effect or defect is open for debate. My gut feeling is that is a defect, and high slope filters should be used at least with non coaxial drivers.If the suck out seen in the HFN review is caused comb filtering like I guess it to be, then obviously the in room curve will look much nicer than one would guess from the measurements published. But it will also imply the Sonus Faber will “beat” Bose’s 901 in its ratio of direct versus reflected sound!!!! At least in the frequency range above 3000 Hz because there hardly is any direct sound from the new Guarneris.
Best wishes from Denmark.
KlausDK.
I can confirm from listening to my own 1 generation Guarneris that they sound better from a fairly low listening position.
Looking at that response curve, one can only arrive at the conclusion that the design here is fundamentally flawed. As the lab analyst himself states, that Alpine landscape of steep peaks and valleys speaks loudly of "poor integration of the bass-mid driver and tweeter through crossover" which to be sure "may serve to disguise some break-up resonances" in the driver cone. That might help in giving a first impression of some kind of faux liveliness.Shocking, in fact, for a model this expensive. Like Kessler says, "Be ready for surprises." Where were all the engineers? The golden ears don't seem to work.
But he himself is happy that the model now comes in that rare red finish he has always coveted, rewarding it with the maximum rating possible and declaring his adoration for the speaker that's "still the prettiest...on the planet."
Compare only with the first one of the two models Klaus offers as a counterpoint (K+H 0300), and that just about tells it all. No need to go further. What are they going to offer us next in nice candy wrappers and with a price tag from Tiffany's? It's a sad world.
TL
...
Antonio Melo Ribeiro
I'm not sure where this HiFi axiom came from, but-"If it sounds great and measures bad, your measuring the wrong thing. If it sounds bad and measures great, your still measuring the wrong thing."
How was the pair measured?
nt
I suggest that a third axiom is added to the list"If it sounds great and measures bad, you don't know what to listen for"
Klaus
Tip of hat to Werner for that bit of my knowledge.
Being a SF addict, I must admit being perhaps biased.This debate reminds me of a debate that raged in the mid '70s in certain specialized magazines in Germany re measuring performance of AR speakers (they were the craze in those times, yet certain measurements looked terrible). What turned out in those times was that - unless you compare one-to-one exactly in the same conditions - you can measure practically anything. Essentially you measure the test setup, one of the elements of which is the speaker.
L.
Sir Arthur Eddington said of this, that the more we learned about the universe the more we saw our own footprints.
- Sonus Faber don't know how to build loudspeakers
- Ken Kessler doesn't know what to listen forThe latter nicely demonstrates his total lack of competence.
£6500 is about 9500 Euros. For much less money you get much better speakers like
or
Klaus
Hi KlausRAllow me to put some passive loudspeakers into the equation.
Good old KEF seems to produce better and better measuring speakers.20 Years ago Kef and B&W were fighting for the same market segment, now their ways have parted and B&W seems more and more to produce the Sonus Faber way, with all its disadvantages (and advantages?), like slow (6-12 DB/Octave) slope frequency networks, in combination with drives of very different dispersion characteristics at the crossover points. While Kef seems to think, (rightly so I believe!) that better speakers can be developed with measurements, more measurement, and then further measurements.
Just have a look at the measurements taken in Stereoplay of the new Kef Reference 203.2
http://www.gp-acoustics.de/Reviews/pdfs/Stereoplay/Reference_203_2_Stereoplay_04_07.pdf
And then see them confirmed in a for me unknown magazine called Video
http://www.gp-acoustics.de/Reviews/pdfs/Video/Reference_203_2_Video_05_07.pdf
I happen to be owning a pair of Sonus Faber Guarneri Hommage, maybe I should convert to a pair of Kef 205.2?! Hmm maybe so…
Best wishes from up here north.
KlausDK
better.
There is another K&H model which is excellent and costs the same (or slightly less). That model is better in many ways.
The model in the pic is the 300D, there is another (cheaper) version without the digital inputs, which for the rest is the same and also measures the same. Both are better than the Sonus Faber in terms of accuracy, neutrality, price/performance-ratio and perhaps more.
Klaus
"Both are better than the Sonus Faber in terms of accuracy, neutrality, price/performance-ratio and perhaps more"You have confirmed this in direct, head to head, listening sessions? If not then I don't think you can make this claim except perhaps on paper. You will grant that not much can be made from this one curve, won't you? I mean it is not clear if it is on-axis only and at what distance (important for a 1st order xover). The in-room response could very well be very flat. You also have no idea what the distortion levels are for this speaker nor do you know the levels at which the onset of thermal compression occurs or dynamic compression. Finally, you have no idea whether the driver and cabinet colorations are better or worse than your K+H speakers.
If you have done direct comparisons between K+H and this speaker then I will listen to what you have to say, otherwise you are speculating with precious little information about the SF speaker.
The review provides distortion figures (90 dB, 1m) which are-30 dB at 100 Hz
-60 dB at 1 kHz
-50 dB at 10 kHzThe K+H produces at 95 dB, 1m
-55 dB at 100 Hz
-60 dB at 1 kHz
-70 dB at 10 kHz
As Floyd Toole once said, the single most important measurement is amplitude on-axis. I suppose that Hifi-News measures just that because what else would they measure when presenting one single graph. They measure distortion at 1m so I suppose that they also measure amplitude at 1m.The in-room response very much depends on the room. A speaker measuring absolutely flat anechoic could measure desastrous in-room. So in-room is meaningless unless you have precise acoustically relevant details about that room.
We have only that single graph and given my previous experience with speaker manufacturers I'm sure that SF would not provide any measurements when asked.
Frankly, I do not need to compare the speakers to know that I prefer the K+H. They come at about 36% of the price of the SF and you get the power amps.
Klaus
"As Floyd Toole once said, the single most important measurement is amplitude on-axis."That is one philosophy but I know other designers who think power response is more important.
"They measure distortion at 1m so I suppose that they also measure amplitude at 1m."
You may be right but do you think a measurement of a 1st order xover designed speaker will give an accurate picture of even its on-axis FR at say 3-4 meters? Hardly. Also, being a 1st order design the height axis is important...especially when the measurement is made so close up.
"The in-room response very much depends on the room. A speaker measuring absolutely flat anechoic could measure desastrous in-room."Naturally Klaus and this is my whole point. In this case a flat on-axis FR is not worth a hill of beans if it has poor dispersion characteristics and the resulting in-room response sucks. By contrast, this speaker, which measures not so good at 1m at god knows what height, might have a beautifully flat smooth in-room response in a small to medium sized room that it was obviously designed for.
"Frankly, I do not need to compare the speakers to know that I prefer the K+H. They come at about 36% of the price of the SF and you get the power amps."
To each his own but remember there is no such thing as a free lunch and if they are throwing in the amps at that price one has to wonder about the sound of said amps.
Sound at listening position is a combination of direct and indirect sound. The direct sound is strictly the same as in the anechoic chamber so anechoic measurements will tell you what you need to know. The designer has full control.Indirect sound is depending on the off-axis radiation and how that radiation is modified by the room. The off-axis radiation per se is a matter of design, can be measured under anechoic conditions, again the designer has full control. Then comes the listening room: my previous room was acoustically asymmetric, acoustically very hard surfaces on one side, more absorptive and diffusive surfaces on the opposite side. Furniture on one side, no furniture on the opposite side. Even with good on and off-axis response such a room will mess things up and very much so.
The designer obviously has no control whatsoever about the room. He can design for a room but he then has to provide detailed specifications of how that room has to look like.
So in-room response still is very much meaningless unless detailed information about that room is provided.
When I look at the various SF models reviewed by Stereophile some off-axis responses suck big time.
Klaus
Whether it sucks or not depends on how uniform the dispersion is. Wider is not necessarily better. Controlled and uniform (ie. limiting the angle) is usually better for a wider range of rooms. Dipoles have limited dispersion due to deep nulls at the sides (figure 8 radiation pattern). I have found they work better in a wider range of rooms because there is less side wall interaction.I have not seen the off-axis for this speaker so maybe it has a quite restricted dispersion (I have seen other ring radiator designs and at least this tweeter does not have a very wide dispersion).
I don't want to defend this speaker too far, however, because I don't think any of the SF speakers I have heard are SOTA. They sound good and look good but they are not at the pinnacle of reproduction IMO.
What in your opinion is a SOTA speaker ?Thanks
Reproduction as accurate as possible? Speakers using the most recent technology?A Ford Model T is certainly a nice car, in the technical context of a century ago.
In a world where machines are manufactured on a nano scale, where one can send videos around the world just by clicking on a button, speakers using passive cross-overs are certainly not state of the art.
If you go for state of the art and accurate reproduction, you have to think digital signal processing. There's only one or two handful of speakers using DSP, the benefits are obvious.
Klaus
Let's see from what I have heard:No-holds-barred:
Apogee Grand
Acapella Triolon Excalibur (think that is the right name) or other big Acapellas
Wilson X1 Grand Slamm or X2
Nola Pegasus reference (or extreme or whatever its called)
Genesis 1.1 or 200 models.Not quite no-holds-barred:
Odeon No. 32 (german horn speaker with wooden horns)
Lansche Goa (german speaker with ion tweeter) 100db/watt
Acapella Violon II (also german speaker with ion tweeter)
Soundlab U1, A1 or M1
Apogee Diva
Analysis Amphytron
Apogee Synergy (new apogee with 95db sensitivity)
Genesis 350se
Von Schweikert VR6 (haven't heard the newer models)
Martin Logan SummitAffordable and near SOTA:
Acoustat Spectra series (except the smallest 1100 model)
Smaller Apogees
Thiel CS 3.6 (only Thiel I truly love)
Martin Logan Prodigy or Odyssey
Martin Logan CLS I or IIz
There are a few more but that is a pretty good start.
Just curious, as a few years of preparatory work towards my next speaker purchase (which will provide the foundation of my system), I've been able to narrow it down to just a couple worthwhile candidates, among them models from K+H and ME Geithain.This one's the 0300(D), right? What are you thinking of? The 0500C is incontrovertibly one of the very best out there but in another price category altogether.
TL
...the amount of dust that clings to the strings? The red violin Guarneri Memento looks like it belongs in a museum. And, with the tilt-back, and tall stands, the GM takes up lots of space. If you're not ready for this type of aesthetic, there are many other speakers to choose from.I heard the GM with Classe' gear, and the sound was first rate. The somewhat slow loading time of the CD player kinda pissed us off, but that's not the GM's fault. Once the music started, it was clear that the GM leaves the old Guarneri Homage in the dust. The GM is just so much more lively and sure-footed, while at the same time preserving texture, believability, poise, and cohesion. Playing some Cover Girls had the effect of bringing us back to those high school dances. We forgot that this is 2007, and just started spinnin' round and round. And when "Promise Me" came on, my friend held out his hand as if he had a lighter, and damn well nearly tipped over. I think he imagined that he was holding on to a classmate, experienced that "Hey, she's better than I thought" surprise, and was trying desperately to cling to the moment.
How do you measure that magic? How do you measure how hard it is to clean this bugger? How do you measure the reaction of your wife when she comes in, and states matter-of-factly, "That thing is ugly?" For that matter, what measurement did we go by, when deciding whom to marry?
-Lummy The Seahorse
Maybe because they sound better than the older units?Measurements are interesting to see if they can back up what you hear sometimes, but I don't think they should be the only criteria for one's purchase decision. ( at least I don't )
I couldn't agree more. We all have hearing differences and deficienties. Go by your ears and you can't go wrong. Go by number and and it is all up for grabs. Think of the glowing reviews of some cars that made you buy them, the VW Rabbit comes to mind, and think of what you thought of them later. The question is if you are in this for the numbers on your equipment or for the music it creates for you. And by the way, if you don't go to live shows and know what instruments really sound like, you can never pick accurate speakers, just what you like, so why care what the numbers say about accuracy. (I am sure this opened a can of worms.)
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
