The closer you get, the better it looks!
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
March Audio Sointuva AWG Bookshelf Speaker Review by ERIN's Audio Corner
- Thread starter Penelinfi
- Start date
The closer you get, the better it looks!
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Yeah, seals tolerate quite a bit before letting go:
How about these Seal brand, tyre speakers? Lots of poise, grip and great stop/start dynamics.
These seem like a good deal if you are outside the North America, but for comparable spend, would readily go for Philharmonic BMR HT towers.
OP
Penelinfi
Senior Member
- Thread Starter
- #45
Even in Aus they are a consideration.These seem like a good deal if you are outside the North America, but for comparable spend, would readily go for Philharmonic BMR HT towers.
The BMR speakers will be a different presentation however so you should possibly decide if you want super wide dispersion (philharmonic) or more focused dispersion (March Audio)
Also, if in a larger room vs smaller one. The tower will be able to output more bass and with its wider dispersion, is likely better away from side walls. Understand March has a tower now too, but it is pricey compared to the Philharmonic.
I've pondered the comparison at this approximate price point as well.These seem like a good deal if you are outside the North America, but for comparable spend, would readily go for Philharmonic BMR HT towers.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...rch-audio-sointuva.26085/page-18#post-1790093
Sokel
Master Contributor
No comparison in my book and in terms of construction BRM's look way more professional with no tolerances,etc.These seem like a good deal if you are outside the North America, but for comparable spend, would readily go for Philharmonic BMR HT towers.
(I admit I'm biased in terms of size,I consider BRM's the absolute minimum,both cabinet and drivers )
March really needs to lose the nameplate or move it to the back. Really spoils the effort to offer a premium look for the speaker.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
It's subjective.
To me, the BMRs look like a cheap mismatched DIY disaster in a try-too-hard cabinet. The entire front baffle just 'looks' wrong and where is the grille to hide this visual fiasco?
The Sointuvas need an optional grille, now he has established himself as a speaker designer. At first, a grille-less speaker is fine, but at least bury some magnets and offer the option. God knows, that Purifi driver is hideous and the horn tweeter (waveguide) is about as sexy as Borat...
Steve Dallas
Major Contributor
A little correspondence from Alan Marsh to Erin
:
Alan March
Hi Erin
Many Thanks for the review, it's an honest and very accurate description of the speakers.
I just wanted to comment and explain our philosophy regarding the directivity/dispersion of the speaker.
What I have found is that many speakers (far too many IMO) have too much sound power in the 2 to 8kHz region which tends to lead to a bright sound. People should understand that this effect happens even if the on-axis frequency response is flat. This becomes fatiguing, especially so when listening loud. I note your comments on inadvertently listening too loud with these speakers
The potential issue with wider directivity is that it pumps more high frequency sound power into the room. The sound power response will be flatter, and hence the in-room response will be flatter. It’s a fine line to where this becomes too flat and the speaker starts to sound bright and fatiguing.
So, it’s a compromise you have to choose. Our philosophy is to make the sound power and DI as smooth as possible and pay great attention to the slope of the In Room Response. At the end of the day it's a judgement call, there is no definitive right or wrong answer. Some will prefer the wider and more diffuse soundstage of wider dispersion speakers (at the potential risk of too bright and fatiguing sound), and some will prefer the more precise placement, less diffuse soundstage of a narrower directivity speaker.
At the various HiFi shows we exhibit at we get frequent responses from the public saying they could listen all day to the speakers. They are non-fatiguing but with all the clarity and detail you could ever wish for............along with questions of "where is the sub-woofer"?
Thanks again!
Alan March
March Audio.
Erin's Audio Corner
5
Understood and thank you for replying. I know some manufacturers (KEF and a couple Andrew Jones designs as well as one of the Ascend Acoustics) will purposely tilt the on-axis response to "make up" for the flat directivity in the HF. Always trade-offs.
I have found this to be absolutely true, and it is why I gravitate toward KEF speakers. I can listen all day without every experiencing fatigue. I find myself turning my Revels down after an hour or so due to the overdone brightness in the reflections. Fortunately, the room they are in is treated, which helps.
Sokel
Master Contributor
Borat and an obelisk in Vatican is the two things I will never unsee (and at least Borat is not out of place! )
The room and speaker placement play a major role. Imo, fatigue is an overused term and likely oversimplified as it relates to speakers. Music content can play a role too and just seems a cop out when flowery subjective terms are used to describe speaker performance. The problem is we all have a notion of what the reviewer means but it actually may be caused by various conditions (which may be different for each individual or situation).
Towards the end of Directiva r1, we were "voicing" the speaker. Voicing IS an exercise in listener fatigue btw! Not sure of the source, but a team member shared this...
He had the admirable goal of ensuring we used common terms. At the time, I laughed at the quantity of terms and did not really take notice of the y-axis scale. Am not sure the author did either as they seem rather grotesque in retrospect. I still find the sheer number of terms fatiguing.
He had the admirable goal of ensuring we used common terms. At the time, I laughed at the quantity of terms and did not really take notice of the y-axis scale. Am not sure the author did either as they seem rather grotesque in retrospect. I still find the sheer number of terms fatiguing.
Last edited:
Philharmonic tower has nice-looking grille covers btw and agree the drivers are best covered.
Last edited:
Great looks . Purifi knows what they're doin
really nice and classy IMO
Below I am comparing their similar sized Philharmonic BMR Monitor to the Sointuva AWG. BMR is a great example of wide dispersion will create a bright sound. We can see that the Sointuva AWG sound power is much flatter as is the in room response.
Plus the BMR distortion and compression problems. That tweeter can't handle power. No metric is smooth. The off axis differs from the on axis. To me all these issues are the differentiation between an OK speaker and a great one.
As for comparing the Sointuva AWG to a much larger BMR Tower speakers, for which there is no Klippel data (Philharmonic), we have no idea how it actually performs.
Plus the BMR distortion and compression problems. That tweeter can't handle power. No metric is smooth. The off axis differs from the on axis. To me all these issues are the differentiation between an OK speaker and a great one.
As for comparing the Sointuva AWG to a much larger BMR Tower speakers, for which there is no Klippel data (Philharmonic), we have no idea how it actually performs.
No doubt the Sointuva is well done but does not mean the BMR monitor is poorly done (notably when it is less than half the price). So, most of the performance diff is due to more expensive components and not engineering talent.
I recall Dennis paid Erin to do spins for his products and felt an EAC review might appear biased. Some of the spin results are posted on the Philharmonic site if you are interested, but difficult for the Sointuva to compete with the larger speaker with double the Purifi woofers. As I have heard what Directiva r1 can do in my home theater, the bass is impressive. For home theater (and some music), would not forgo a subwoofer though. In smaller room, could easily go without one.
Imo, from a purely technical perspective, the more interesting comparison would be March's tower versus the Philharmonic one.
Similar threads
- Poll
