Computer Audiophile review with measurements

[ragwo]

Here's a review of Gold Phantom with measurements. 
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/re...view-r654/

[Mr_Bill]

Not my kind of review - long on description, technical and measurements, but short on comparison and listening eval.

[MountainGuy]

Here's a review of Gold Phantom with measurements. 
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/re...view-r654/

Thank you for the link.  I find it an excellent review, something I've been waiting for due to the measurements provided and comments.  I also find that it confirms two things that I wished the Phantom had:
1. EQ of some time.
2. More importantly, time alignment.  While I have not read any reviews measuring time alignment, I've always suspected that the Phantoms are not fully time aligned. My other set of speakers are single drivers with its inherent time alignment and the Phantom just felt a bit less than natural which I have always thought to be due to time alignment issues. 

Thanks!

[ogs]

So Golds are not time aligned either! The step response looks very much like the White Phantom (which I have listened to and measured in my own room). Somewhat disappointing considering that Devialet has put effort into making the Gold 'audiophile' and had experience from White and Silver when it was developed.

[Hifi_swlon]

The review left me cloudy in a few areas. I'm really unsure whether he liked their spherical shape or not, whether he felt their off-axis response was good, and whether he felt they were full range and generated decent bass from a small size. I don't think he mentioned those aspects once?

[ragwo]

He is clearly stating that the off axis response is very good, the speakers are full range and the bass is exceptional for such a small speaker. He believes the spherical shape is (part of) the reason for the good off axis performance. If he thinks the spherical shape is pretty isn't very relevant, that's a matter of subjective taste. He states that his normal speakers are black and big as refrigerators.

Have we read the same review?

[Andrzej]

So Golds are not time aligned either! The step response looks very much like the White Phantom (which I have listened to and measured in my own room). Somewhat disappointing considering that Devialet has put effort into making the Gold 'audiophile' and had experience from White and Silver when it was developed.

I know only two loudspeakers perfectly time aligned:

Manger (exceptional from this point of view): http://www.manger-msw.de/en
You may find there long discussion about time response: http://www.manger-msw.de/en/discover/abo...al-reality

Quad: ESL63 (still unbeatable - design from 1963 !)

Source localisation and low listening fatigue are important.


Since Phantoms are fully digital, it should not be too difficult to adjust delays between transducers. Perhaps designers were only interested in frequency response ?

Waiting for improvement within next release...

Best,

Andrzej.

[Hifi_swlon]

Have we read the same review?

Yes, but I feel we don't share the same sense of irony.

What I was getting at is, it was quite a repetitive review....

[ogs]

So Golds are not time aligned either! The step response looks very much like the White Phantom (which I have listened to and measured in my own room). Somewhat disappointing considering that Devialet has put effort into making the Gold 'audiophile' and had experience from White and Silver when it was developed.

I know only two loudspeakers perfectly time aligned:

Yes, and my own re-built speakers

Seriously - there are a few time coherent speakers available. Vandersteen is one brand worth mentioning, Green Mountain Audio another and the full range single driver designs like Voxativ, Omega Speakers, Fujitsu Ten and Audience. In addition we see that new active speakers use DSP for filters and correct the time domain. Kii Three and the new active Dynadio models are good examples. And of course the LS50W.
Unfortunately none of the 'big' names like YG, Magico, B&W and others make time coherent designs.

[ragwo]

Have we read the same review?

Yes, but I feel we don't share the same sense of irony.  

What I was getting at is, it was quite a repetitive review....

Irony? Never heard of it