Fluance Signature Series Speakers Preview

[speakerman39]

Did SonicCraft redesign the crossover or did they use components with the exact same measured values? I can understand components with tighter tolerances making a sonic difference but I'm not drinking the cool-aid that different material types of capacitors change the sound which btw sounds like the same BS audiophool snake oil for expensive power cords, interconnects and cables.

You know I have several speaker designers explain to me that changing/copying a crossover with much better components is NOT a good idea. They went on to explain that using better components changes the efficiency of the speakers and thus must be re-adjusted into the design.

I am sure there are also other considerations that must be taken into account when improving crossover designs such phasing, impedance, and etc. Maybe Dennis Murphy can shed more light on that as I am by no means a loudspeaker designer. In fact, I don't even play one on tv.....LOL!!!!!

Cheers,

Phil

 

[speakerman39]

Thanks, it helps to know the per!


Which Fluance did you get? The floorstanders?

If the Fluance beats your RBH's, that is impressive indeed!!!

Very much looking forward to you follow-up!

Kurt, I would NOT hold my breath on that one. Very highly doubtful that the new Fluance speakers would be better than RBH. But, I would like to see how they stack up against the Sony Core speakers. My bet is, the Sony's would be better. Time will tell.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[M Midnight]

Kurt, I would NOT hold my breath on that one. Very highly doubtful that the new Fluance speakers would be better than RBH. But, I would like to see how they stack up against the Sony Core speakers. My bet is, the Sony's would be better. Time will tell.

Cheers,

Phil

Well speakerman39, those where my findings after 10 hours of listening and constant switching back and forth to compare to the R55TI's with my favorite complex recordings. The signature floorstanders offered better bass across the board, a much clearer sharper/focused sound image top to bottom and i was able to hear a lot of detail's that were glossed over before or just plain inaudble on the R55TI's. So what does that tell you speakerman39? What other conclusion should i come to after those findings?

 

[KEW]

Kurt, I would NOT hold my breath on that one. Very highly doubtful that the new Fluance speakers would be better than RBH. But, I would like to see how they stack up against the Sony Core speakers. My bet is, the Sony's would be better. Time will tell.

Cheers,

Phil

No worries on that!
I am skeptical by nature.
However, right now, M. Midnight's comments are the most we have to go on. The fact that he has both these and the RBH's in his home at the same time is great, because I have heard the RBH's and I'm really interested in hearing what aspects of the Fluance beat/equal/lag behind the RBH's.

Soon enough, we should (hopefully) hear more from:

Boogeydown:

using Vienna Acoustics' Mozarts. They're a third of the size. So far, Signatures have a much harder to find soundstage.

Brian Mowka:

Looks like I might as well get these as well and do a full on shootout between the Elac f5's/Fluances SS towers/Rbh R55ti's.

 

[Seth=L]

This is getting intriguing. I'm not going to buy them but I'm wondering if these could put Fluance on the map.

 

[gene]

I just got my set in for review. They are massive! My friend has a pair of E55Ti's at his house (the first rev). I may bring these over there to compare after I shake this damn Flu.

 

[Swerd]

There's been some discussion about a crossover point of 6,500 Hz for a 2-way speaker made with a 5" woven glass fiber mid woofer and a 1" dome tweeter set in a modest wave guide. Why did the maker choose such a high crossover frequency? Is it a good idea or not? There has been some good discussion about this, and also some misinformation. There were several suggestions from various people, listed below. I followed them by my own opinions.

• Running 5" mid woofer up to 6.5 kHz would make for beaming. My opinion is yes, without any doubt, such a speaker would beam and generate, at best, a small stereo image.
  
• To allow using a cheap tweeter. There are plenty of cheap tweeters that can go as low as 2.5-3 kHz.
  
• Mistaken brochure. Always possible, especially if it was originally written in a foreign language.
  
• Good choice? wide band driver? While not impossible, I think this is unlikely. It requires a lot more info about that 5" mid woofer before I'd agree its a good choice.
  
• Crossover point is irrelevant ?!?! Whaaat ?

So, how do you choose a crossover frequency? Let's limit this to a 2-way speaker, but the same thinking applies for any multi-driver speaker.

First, and most important, find out what the unfiltered (no crossover) frequency response curve of the mid woofer looks like. Make sure this is done while the driver is mounted in the intended cabinet. All drivers have a so-called breakup frequency, called that because the cone material stops moving as a single piston, and its surface flexes instead.

This can sound really bad. Here's an example of a frequency response curve showing prominent break-up.

It peaks at just short of 5 kHz, but begins slightly above 3 kHz. The important thing to learn is how high can the mid woofer go? I would say, no higher than 3 kHz.

That graph only shows the on-axis response. If similar FR curves are made 30°, 45° and 60° off axis, what happens? The off-axis curves will show at what frequency the FR begins to fall. The more off-axis, the lower the FR begins to fall off.

For good imaging, with a wide stereo image, the 30° off axis sound should be within 3 dB of the on-axis sound. So, I'd guess that a good crossover point for that woofer might be about 2 kHz, perhaps as low as 1.5 kHz.

Once you know what crossover frequency is required by the woofer, then you can choose a tweeter that can handle frequencies that low.

In the case of that Fluance 2-way speaker, I really worry about a 5" glass fiber mid woofer playing up to 6.5 kHz. Glass fiber is known for having large break-up peaks. Unless this is a specially designed wide-range driver, modified so the break up peak has been moved well above 6.5 kHz, I think it would sound bad.

 

[M Midnight]

I just got my set in for review. They are massive! My friend has a pair of E55Ti's at his house (the first rev). I may bring these over there to compare after I shake this damn Flu.

YES it is a big heavy speaker indeed, what are you thoughts so far sound, build quality etc?

 

[speakerman39]

Well speakerman39, those where my findings after 10 hours of listening and constant switching back and forth to compare to the R55TI's with my favorite complex recordings. The signature floorstanders offered better bass across the board, a much clearer sharper/focused sound image top to bottom and i was able to hear a lot of detail's that were glossed over before or just plain inaudble on the R55TI's. So what does that tell you speakerman39? What other conclusion should i come to after those findings?

Oh, I am NOT doubting your findings at all. To be honest, I have never heard a Fluance speaker or RBH/EMP-TEK. I just find it hard to believe from what I have read in the past. But, perhaps Fluance hit a home run with their new speakers? Personally, I would like to see how the Fluance speakers compare to the Sony Core.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[speakerman39]

I just got my set in for review. They are massive! My friend has a pair of E55Ti's at his house (the first rev). I may bring these over there to compare after I shake this damn Flu.

Looking forward to it Gene. Hope YOU get to feeling better soon. The flu is no fun.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[3db]

Kurt, I would NOT hold my breath on that one. Very highly doubtful that the new Fluance speakers would be better than RBH. But, I would like to see how they stack up against the Sony Core speakers. My bet is, the Sony's would be better. Time will tell.

Cheers,

Phil

I'm lost... I thought M Midnight was comparing the Fluances to Polks, not RBH. Isn't R55TI a Polk model designation? Where did RBH spring in here?

.....

Found it. I think its time I go home

 

[speakerman39]

I'm lost... I thought M Midnight was comparing the Fluances to Polks, not RBH. Isn't R55TI a Polk model designation? Where did RBH spring in here?

.....

Found it. I think its time I go home

No, the R55Ti is an RBH design. The Polks are not being compared. The comparison is between the RBH R55Ti's and the new Fluance speakers. I hope that sooner or later the Sony Core speakers can be compared as well. But, from the sound of it the new Fluance speakers may be true GIANT killers. They certainly look the part.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[3db]

No, the R55Ti is an RBH design. The Polks are not being compared. The comparison is between the RBH R55Ti's and the new Fluance speakers. I hope that sooner or later the Sony Core speakers can be compared as well. But, from the sound of it the new Fluance speakers may be true GIANT killers. They certainly look the part.

Cheers,

Phil

Thanks Phil... I did find my mistake. *LOL* I'm going home. Have a great weekend.

 

[Brian Mowka]

Yes, get well soon gene. USPS says Fluance ss's will be delivered Monday. Breaking in Rbh r55ti's as we speak. I'll try to post my initial thoughts after dome break in time next Wednesday/Thursday.

 

[Newguy52811]

Did SonicCraft redesign the crossover or did they use components with the exact same measured values? I can understand components with tighter tolerances making a sonic difference but I'm not drinking the cool-aid that different material types of capacitors change the sound which btw sounds like the same BS audiophool snake oil for expensive power cords, interconnects and cables.

Did SonicCraft
redesign the crossover or did they use components with the exact same measured values? I can understand components with tighter tolerances making a sonic difference but I'm not drinking the cool-aid that different material types of capacitors change the sound which btw sounds like the
same BS audiophool snake oil for expensive power cords, interconnects and cables.

They redesigned the center channel in a way but used the exact same values in every other channel. Believe you me, before I had them redone, they were basic speakers. No imaging or detail. These speakers themselves right now sound like a concert hall. No fooling whatsoever.

 

[Newguy52811]

It sounds like this is a secret only you are privy to.

Not really a secret. The question is why does B&W crossover their tweeter at 4KHZ, and why does B&W also use Mundorf Capacitors if electrolytic and film caps didn't make a difference.

 

[Newguy52811]

You know I have several speaker designers explain to me that changing/copying a crossover with much better components is NOT a good idea. They went on to explain that using better components changes the efficiency of the speakers and thus must be re-adjusted into the design.

I am sure there are also other considerations that must be taken into account when improving

crossover designs such phasing, impedance, and etc. Maybe Dennis Murphy can shed more light on that as I am by no mean a loudspeaker designer. In fact, I don't even play one on tv.....LOL!!!!!

Cheers,


Phil

I'm not trying to push my beliefs on you. You either believe or you don't. When I bought the Fluance Speakers, I was highly disappointed as I've grown up with much more expensive speakers. Redoing of the crossovers brought them above any par that I've could have imagined. BTW. SonicCraft has a program called LSPCAD, for Loudspeaker designing. I'm pretty sure they can redisign the crossover without jacking too many things up.

 

[Sandro Schreiber]

I thought I'd share the discount code I used and has been shared at AVS. it's "signature70" and I was able to order the signature towers with $70 off. I'm a WA resident so total of $689.84 out the door with the code. Hoping to receive sometime next week... should be a great basement set

 

[Newguy52811]

There's been some discussion about a crossover point of 6,500 Hz for a 2-way speaker made with a 5" woven glass fiber mid woofer and a 1" dome tweeter set in a modest wave guide. Why did the maker choose such a high crossover frequency? Is it a good
idea or not? There has been some good discussion about this, and also some misinformation. There were several suggestions from various people, listed below. I followed them by my own opinions.

• Running 5" mid woofer up to 6.5 kHz would make for beaming. My opinion is yes, without any doubt, such a speaker would beam and generate, at best, a small stereo image.
  
• To allow using a cheap tweeter. There are plenty of cheap tweeters that can go as low as 2.5-3 kHz.
  
• Mistaken brochure. Always possible, especially if it was originally written in a foreign language.
  
• Good choice? wide band driver? While not impossible, I think this is unlikely. It requires a lot more info about that 5" mid woofer before I'd agree its a good choice.
  
• Crossover point is irrelevant ?!?! Whaaat ?

So, how do you choose a crossover frequency? Let's limit this to a 2-way speaker, but the same thinking applies for any multi-driver speaker.

First, and most important, find out what the unfiltered (no crossover) frequency response curve of the mid woofer looks like. Make sure this is done while the driver is mounted in the intended cabinet. All drivers have a so-called breakup frequency, called that because the cone material stops moving as a single piston, and its surface flexes instead.
View attachment 17388

This can sound really bad. Here's an example of a frequency response curve showing prominent break-up.

It peaks at just short of 5 kHz, but begins slightly above 3 kHz. The important thing to learn is how high can the mid woofer go? I would say, no higher than 3 kHz.

That graph only shows the on-axis response. If similar FR curves are made 30°, 45° and 60° off axis, what happens? The off-axis curves will show at what frequency the FR begins to fall. The more off-axis, the lower the FR begins to fall off.

For good imaging, with a wide stereo image, the 30° off axis sound should be within 3 dB of the on-axis sound. So, I'd guess that a good crossover point for that woofer might be about 2 kHz, perhaps as low as 1.5 kHz.

Once you know what crossover frequency is required by the woofer, then you can choose a tweeter that can handle frequencies that low.

In the case of that Fluance 2-way speaker, I really worry about a 5" glass fiber mid woofer playing up to 6.5 kHz. Glass fiber is known for having large break-up peaks. Unless this is a specially designed wide-range driver, modified so the break up peak has been moved well above 6.5 kHz, I think it would sound bad.

The crossover points are dedicated to the ultimate result of having a flat frequency.

 

[Swerd]

I'm not trying to push my beliefs on you. You either believe or you don't. When I bought the Fluance Speakers, I was highly disappointed as I've grown up with much more expensive speakers. Redoing of the crossovers brought them above any par that I've could have imagined. BTW. SonicCraft has a program called LSPCAD, for Loudspeaker designing. I'm pretty sure they can redisign the crossover without jacking too many things up.

Don't take it personally if we doubt you. You can believe what ever you want. This is a public forum and there are many readers who want to learn something about audio. So, if you make extraordinary claims of how changing brands of capacitors makes an audible difference, show us some extraordinary evidence to go with that claim.

LSPCAD is an excellent crossover design tool. But like any software, it isn't automatic. The operator still has to make the right choices. Those redesigned crossovers may be good if they actually are an improvement over the original design. But that would be due to the design of the crossover, not the brand name of the capacitors.