Gold Phantom review - Steve Huff

[ogs]

It would be very interesting if someone would do some blind level matched ABX tests with a wide audience of the different iterations (white, silver, gold) and see if anyone could reliably tell the difference. My money would be on no.

I do not think this is correct. First of all ABX is flawed. Especially comparing loudspeakers. How would you compensate for the obvious problem of placing three pairs of speakers in the same room? Then the amplitude response of Golds is different. You'd hear it immediately. White and Silver is similar so at a normal listening level they might sound about the same, but I believe there is an audible difference there too.

I disagree. An ABX could be arranged. By stacking the phantoms on on top of each other the delta in placement would be no more than the delta between drivers of a regular speaker. So unless you are able to distinguish by ear the angular difference between two drivers of a speaker which is very unlikely I think the room can be made out of the equation. 

Concerning your second point about the difference of amplitude, this is exactly the kind of difference that you would be expected to be able to pick reliably in an ABX test provided of course that they are level matched, otherwise this is not proper ABX test.

Jean-Marie

With a large room and fair distance from listening spot to speakers this would work, I agree. Better with Phantoms as they are very small. You'd have to make sure the 'floor bounce' was well tamed as the three speakers would not have the same distance to the floor. Phantoms are not easily stackable though...

[Gremlin]

The point is, if it is not done, we won't know, as there is no other way to tell, and tales of "extended highs" etc, will only exist as legend.

[kameraguy]

I like Steves reviews "in general". As a photographer, I'm familiar with his camera gear reviews. They are pretty good to get someone an overall feel for how a product is. But his camera reviews often lack actual test measurements so that's where I look elsewhere for true specifics on how a product performs. His camera reviews seem more like overviews with initial impressions.

I feel the same for this Gold Phantom review. I get suspicious whenever a reviewer quotes a lot of marketing material or shares opinions as facts  without real tests to validate those claims.

Sorry, I know this is going to come off harsh. But since there were no test measurements to help us quantify any of the differences that should be quantifiable (i.e.: midrange fatness mentioned for the silvers), then this strikes me as less a review and more like an overview with initial impressions woven in.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Steve's time to share his (overwhelmingly positive in this case) overview and initial impressions, but from the standpoint of comparing the golds to the white and silver phantoms I feel he based his expectations from the marketing materials and went from there. As another example...the bass response. We all know the Golds can reach 14hz. But that's not at a volume level of 80. He doesn't even mention that in his review. That would mislead anyone who isn't at all familiar with Phantom specs.

i actually think most people on the forums here would make better reviewers for the Phantoms since we most-likely have spent more time discussing and researching the Phantoms out of critical interest than the more casual listener. But not many of us have the opportunity to simply buy a pair of golds and compare them side by side with the other Phantoms.

[Gremlin]

I agree. Totally lacking in objectivity and any insight, is how I would put it. I did not feel at all edified. A waste of cyberspace, really.

[Pim]

Strange. What I got from the review is that the guy is over the moon about how much fun he had listening to the Golds. And since having fun is the quintessential reason for this hobby (If you're in it for any other reason; get out!) this is one of the best reviews I've read in a long time. We're not picking parts for the next space shuttle here. We're talking about something to have fun with. And from what I get the Golds provide a lot of fun for those who own them. Keep the ABX testing for the important stuff in life, like medicine, and keep the fun factor for sound systems.

To give you guys some insight into where I'm coming from; I do my listening on two very different systems. My Od'A and Dynaudio C1's at home. Perfectly set up over many, many hours. And my iPod and Shure SE215 in ears at work. Due to my working arrangements I get to listen to the iPod more than my home system. Still I get as much enjoyment out of the iPod as out of my home system. I get goose bumps from the music. Not from the perfect (What is perfect anyway?) sound quality.

[NickB]

I find it quite interesting that Devialet get castigated for only using measurement to design their products, so obviously they are wrong for doing that. However a reviewer who does not use measurements is wrong as he only uses his funny flappy bits of flesh on the sides of his head.

Or could it possibly be that he enjoyed them that is jarring to certain people?

[kameraguy]

I find it quite interesting that Devialet get castigated for only using measurement to design their products, so obviously they are wrong for doing that. However a reviewer who does not use measurements is wrong as he only uses his funny flappy bits of flesh on the sides of his head.

Or could it possibly be that he enjoyed them that is jarring to certain people?

I feel this comment is solicited due to mine so I'll clarify my standpoint.

As with any Devialet owner and enthusiast, I "want" the Phantoms (gold/silver/white) to turn the market upside down. And if the golds are for "audiophiles", I'm sure most audiophiles will need to quantify their performance with actual test measurements because this is the standard for how other audiophile gear is reviewed and tested.

It's nothing new that many of us want "reviewers" to take actual test measurements against the Phantoms as people who may not already be familiar with the product can truly understand how they stack up compared to other produdcts in the market.

I dont believe we've seen such a review against the white/silvers yet. Let alone golds.

So from my standpoint as a stereo silver Phantom owner, I have no doubt the golds are superior to the silvers since we've discussed the golds in detail already. But how do you express that to an "audiophile" who hasn't already experienced the white/silver models? Then explain how much better the golds are? It'll take more than subjective commmentary is all I'm saying.

[MountainGuy]

I did ABX in my living room and adjusted for volume using a meter. Basically I paused the music, switched over, and adjusted the volume after testing with the meter to see how many clicks I needed to drop and riase before getting out of pause. About 5 seconds max - good enough for A/B. My finding was similar to Steve's in his review regarding the difference. The Golds do hit a point where I feel satisfied whereas with the Silver, I was always wanting a bit more speed and articulation. It's a subjective threshold. That said, I've also heard speakers with better tweeters than even the gold so know that it can be even smoother and detailed with much more expensive tweeters.

[Johnnydev]

A reviewer who is using spotify and sonos connect and make then a judgement ???

[Pim]

A reviewer who is using spotify and sonos connect and make then a judgement ???

My mate uses a Sonos connect and Emotiva amplification and it's clear as daylight that the speakers he drives with them, Magnepan 1.7, are amongst the most musical I've ever heard. I'm sure they will sound even better with a better front end but that the quality shines through despite the modest front end is really surprising. I suspect the same counts for the Phantom.