Phantom Resolution....anyway to improve...?

[MountainGuy]

I have posted a fair bit about the problems I have with the Phantoms stability but this can be figured out. 

There is only one other rub with the Phantoms - resolution.  I realized that many of you here rave about the Phantom as coming close to your mega kilo buck systems that cost quite a bit more than the Phantoms. However, I'm not hearing that for one reason - resolution.  I really want to believe those who rave about how closely the Phantom match you megabucks system but currently our ears hear differently.  So it's a matter whether to trust other comments or our ears.  This post is to see if we can reconcile the difference. 

Testing the Phantoms with Tidal's highest setting over the wireless Spark, it sounds nice but is clearly and significantly less resolved than my existing system.  The Phantom's does sound very very coherent (timing & phase?) but the resolution simply feels pretty typical of most good mid range speakers.  My wife who has very good ears heard it right away though she still things that Phantom's coherence is excellent.   So microdynamics of drum strikes, guitars plucks, bowed instruments etc are just not as transparent or real.  This is also very much true of the bass frequencies, not just the trebles.  Edges of a note simply simply does not start and stop and stop as quickly. 

The most recent firmware upgrade a few weeks ago seemed to improve this substantively but the gap is still considerable. 

Questions: 
1. Am I the only one that feel this? 
2. Anyone figure out a way to improve the resolution? 

Thanks!

[ondastar]

MG: Complexity abounds with the SQ of the component train of your reference system vs the SQ of your Devialet configuration. If you can describe your reference system and listening environment perhaps the gang can offer some experience based suggestions.

For example, David Wilson (and his top retail guys) do active ear based "voicing" of his speakers for new customers in the customers actual listening room, (and provide the detailed instructions for DIYers). The process takes hours in most cases, and for instance millimeters of toe in toe out variation can make the difference between pristine clarity, magnificent soundstage and diffuse mud... ditto with corner adjacencies, and distances to listeners etc.

Post V 1.4.1.12 I spent hours fiddling with Phantom placement variations and the Dspeaker trying to achieve the benchmark sound of my Wilson/Levinson reference system (24/192 sources in both cases), and I am subjectively about 10% away... and this may be as good as Devialet can get. However, with their Expert products R&D and accumulated speaker SAM profiles, I'll bet we see fold in improvements to the Phantom DSP program as the system matures.

[AlanD]

So microdynamics of drum strikes, guitars plucks, bowed instruments etc are just not as transparent or real. 

The most recent firmware upgrade a few weeks ago seemed to improve this substantively but the gap is still considerable. 

Questions: 
1. Am I the only one that feel this? 
2. Anyone figure out a way to improve the resolution? 

Thanks!

I think the resolution is not as good as my TAG McLaren speakers but that the response is more realistic.  Using bowed instruments as an example, the sharpness and microdynamics that can be heard on my TAG McLaren are not reflective of the real-world sound in a concert hall.  In the concert hall, there is a roll-off of these high frequencies.

I felt as if the firmware upgrade made a difference also but it ended up being "breaking-in" because Devialet confirmed that there was no modification to the sound profiles.

Based upon the log-sweep, I think the Phantom's tweeter is much more sensitive to placement that other speakers so you really need to have it at ear level for maximum resolution.   So I would reallly focus on positioning for now.

If you're running optical input instead of streaming, you can eq up the 16kHz range.

[davidadamson]

For what it is worth, I find my Phantoms all round better than my Quad ELS and Martin Logans Theos.
Caveat I say all around every speaker I have ever listened to has a distinct sound signature so it always difficult to compare. I have heard BBC bookshelf speakers sound sublime in the correct room.
I miss certain aspects of the Quads which are a very unique speaker but all in all for placement, coherence , punch and all round exceptional sound I will take the Phantoms ( silver), however my Quads are keepers and in storage!

[MountainGuy]

Thanks to all. Keep them coming.

Davidadamson, you have the Quad ELS and Martin Logan Theos - both of which are very fast in the transients, articulate, and high resolution in part due to the transients (at least that is how I interpret them). Did you A/B them side by side with the Phantoms? And did you not find the PHantoms lacking in transient speed and resolution in comparison? (For me, the Martin Logans in a smaller room had a disconnect between the woofer and panels, and the listening position was locked to one person - otherwise they would be keepers...)

[phantomaussie]

Is it really resolution or just frequency based  phase errors?  colouration can be Very pleasant but not quite reallity.   I know i  raved on about my 2 silvers "killing" my VonSchweikert  vr4.5s speakers. That was probably  ott but really the phantoms  do seem to "get out of the way of the music in a way i have not quite heard before. Every recording sounds differant - as they should do  if they are differant recordings .
 I feel More connected to the music on an emotional level,  and a physical level too with the phantoms. The pace riddim (!) and timing coupled with  that tight deep bass is special as is the sheer purity of the midrange.
 The soundstage tho is not as deep as my big system has  but is that depth another phase error related  consequence and not reallity?.

 I dunno but we are playing more music here these days with the Phantoms

 ymmv

[davidadamson]

What can I say, the quads are so different than any other speaker in the way the envelope you with a perfect coherent sound - alas no real bass
I totally agree with your take on the ML Theta, they look great, they are huge, they sound fabulous if you position them perfectly and you and only you are in the very narrow sweet spot.
So back to the phantoms at first awed by the bass dissappointing in the mid range and hurt by the highs.
Then something happened - they broke in? Then with the last firmware update they became smoother and more high end high and I believe they will continue to evolve. So I don't plan any more changes except to Phantom Mk II


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[andrewhollo]

I hope more people comment on this thread, because I also am wondering whether to add a second Phantom and replace my MSB DAC + SGR CX4 active speaker system. I've been happy with this system (which for me is very high end) but I don't find the listening entirely relaxing. I agree with Phantomaussie above who said that he's listening to more music than ever. I find I'm preferring to listen to my single Phantom over my $20k+ system.

I haven't done what MountainGuy is encouraging, to do a detailed analysis of what I listen to. I'd say if I did that the transients aren't as good with the Phantom and certainly I can't see how the soundstage would be. But, there's a something else there that works very nicely.

Andrew

[MountainGuy]

Andrewhollo, thanks for the comments.

I completely believe that comments like yours are authentic. At the same time, I am also staggered (not doubting, just staggered) that one would prefer one Phantom over a $20K system like yours. I wish I can be as enthusiastic. For me, lacking the resolution makes the system 'pleasant' but not as involving as the audio sounds 'reproduced' rather than 'real'. Real live acoustic instruments are incredibly complex, subtle and quick in their overtones. I listen to a live grand piano daily for example. So Phantoms are pleasant enough but never quite sounds 'real' dues to what I deem to be slower in the transients and medium resolutions. So the overtones are more 'smudged' together or 'less clear'. It just can't respond fast enough to reflect the reality of a soundboard going every which direction with crisp edges. The result is that the music is pleasant but less involving as I keep feeling that there is 'more music' hidden.

I believe that this is why two dealers I chat with told me privately that they deemed the Phantom less 'refined' than their regular Devialets driving good speakers.

Hope all that makes sense. My room placement is fine - I've had many speakers and have a sense of what works.

Anyways, love to hear more of your comments in dialogue. I'm not bashing Phantoms here - just want to hear more.

I will say that they are very coherent in the phase so that is very good.

[fgueho]

It seems to me that it is pretty logical that a small speaker has less resolution (or weaker sound) than a big one.
Nothing new here...
BUT what is important with the phantoms is that it is close enough.
What you gain is: less occupied space, less cables, lovely "design" speakers, etc.

If you NEED the best sound possible, the phantoms are not the answer.

The phantoms are a compromise (but a very good one).