Fluance Signature Series Speakers Preview

[gene]

Hi Gene Reversing the inputs to the upper pair of input terminals wouldn't change the phase of the tweeter in relation to the midrange. Both drivers would reverse in polarity, but stay in the same relationship with each other. And if you look at my before and after plots on the previous page, they show a dip at around 1300 Hz in the reversed plot, but not in the crossover region between the mid and tweet. I can try your experiment just to see what happens, but if the stock crossover really has second order slopes, reversing the upper input terminal wiring should just correct the woofer-mid crossover. It shouldn't affect the mid-tweet transition. BTW, the tweeter is already wired in reverse polarity to the mid, which would be correct if the mid-tweet cross is also 12dB.

Yea I was wondering if the polarity between the mid/tweet should actually be reversed but as you said if the dip isn't in the crossover region it probably doesn't matter. Still I'd be interested in at least trying it b/c curious minds want to know

BTW I checked my measurements again, the dip I measured was at 1300Hz not 2kHz. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[gene]

Hi Gene,
Crazy John here who has switched polarity a lot. I MIGHT be willing to do that, but I have not obtained re-assurance yet from Fluance as to this whole crossover issue, and am reluctant to "Break the Seal" and perhaps void my warranty, especially IF they make me send them back for any work. Would it just be to pull the ring, remove the tweeter and switch the wires to the tweeter only? I also have only a crude way to measure, nothing really scientific, so it would only be listening to my old ears. Might I hear the difference?
I like the idea, but do not want to void the warranty or ruin any changes at a real fix down the road.
Any ideas? Thanks for all you and others are doing, I do want the most out of these speakers.

Don't mess with it man. I agree, let Fluance take care of you and don't void your warranty. They seem very serious about fixing this issue and looking to tighten up their QC in the future.

 

[John Melnicoe]

Don't mess with it man. I agree, let Fluance take care of you and don't void your warranty. They seem very serious about fixing this issue and looking to tighten up their QC in the future.

Thanks Gene. Curious question: I obviously read your post, glad you pointed out the 1.3 versus 2.0 dip, but still-what seems interesting about your idea of tweeter reverse is WHY would the reverse cross you suggested raise up on the graph the 500 to 700 area rather nicely, yet then slightly DIP around 1.3? That almost makes it seem as if somehow the 1.3 dip COULD be raised back up, as I think it was before the cross wiring you suggested IF I read this correctly. I may be way off base as I do not really understand this stuff, but had to ask-being another curious mind. I would love to have Dennis's crossover-nice graph! Thanks for your advice, I will leave it alone and contact Fluance. Thank you Dennis for all your input on this thread also.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Reversing the midrange polarity avoids cancellation effects below 1 kHz, but it won't avoid other cancellation effects higher up if the crossover isn't designed to compensate for phase issues in the upper range. In order to get everything to sum properly, the slopes of the individual drivers have to be precisely shaped to maintain proper phase over a broad range. In this case, my guess is that the low pass filter on the woofer doesn't work well with the midrange high pass filter at the crossover point even when the midrange polarity has been switched. In my revised crossover, I cross much lower, and use a more elaborate woofer filter to fine-tune the slope. I still haven't figured out the stock board's circuitry--I get sea sick flipping the PCB over to try and see what's wired where, and what components are in parallel and which in series. So I can't experiment to see if there's a simple way to make more revisions on the stock board.

 

[John Melnicoe]

Reversing the midrange polarity avoids cancellation effects below 1 kHz, but it won't avoid other cancellation effects higher up if the crossover isn't designed to compensate for phase issues in the upper range. In order to get everything to sum properly, the slopes of the individual drivers have to be precisely shaped to maintain proper phase over a broad range. In this case, my guess is that the low pass filter on the woofer doesn't work well with the midrange high pass filter at the crossover point even when the midrange polarity has been switched. In my revised crossover, I cross much lower, and use a more elaborate woofer filter to fine-tune the slope. I still haven't figured out the stock board's circuitry--I get sea sick flipping the PCB over to try and see what's wired where, and what components are in parallel and which in series. So I can't experiment to see if there's a simple way to make more revisions on the stock board.

I was wondering about your crossover points. Interesting explanation, (I almost get part of it). Will it be likely that a better flat response curve by Fluance will also improve sound as your cross over did? Does the actual quality/expense of the parts make a huge difference, if you care to share?
Curious minds want to know, thanks.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

If Fluance can flatten out the response, I'm sure it will sound better, assuming the proper phase relationships among the drivers are approximately as they should be. I don't think the cost of the crossover parts themselves will have much impact on the sound. Since Gene has a curious mind, I just measured my second Fluance speaker with the midrange reversed, and the tweeter also reversed from what it was in relation to the midrange. That completes the possible combinations of rewiring that can be done in the field. The results are close to working, but no banana. That dip at 1300 Hz does in fact fill in somewhat, which suggests that the tweeter still has significant output in that region, and cancels the woofer or midrange output in that area unless you reverse its polarity. However, you also get a bumped up region in the mid-highs that is fatiguing in fairly short order. The plot is above.

 

[John Melnicoe]

View attachment 17772 If Fluance can flatten out the response, I'm sure it will sound better, assuming the proper phase relationships among the drivers are approximately as they should be. I don't think the cost of the crossover parts themselves will have much impact on the sound. Since Gene has a curious mind, I just measured my second Fluance speaker with the midrange reversed, and the tweeter also reversed from what it was in relation to the midrange. That completes the possible combinations of rewiring that can be done in the field. The results are close to working, but no banana. That dip at 1300 Hz does in fact fill in somewhat, which suggests that the tweeter still has significant output in that region, and cancels the woofer or midrange output in that area unless you reverse its polarity. However, you also get a bumped up region in the mid-highs that is fatiguing in fairly short order. The plot is above.

Thanks Dennis, very interesting indeed.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Here's my final report on the Fluance Mod. And as they say, all's well that ends. If any of you have ever caught Wheeler Dealers on the Velocity channel, this turned out to be a little like their rebuild of the 1956 Citroen. I thought I had come up with a successful Xover that smoothed everything out, but when I hooked the board up to the second Fluance (which I hadn't measured before except with lots of connections reversed), there was a 5dB dip in the mid treble. After lots of trouble shooting, I started over by measuring the individual drivers and importing the plots into my Fluance file. It predicted exactly what I was getting. As it turns out, the native response of the two midrange drivers diverged by 5 dB toward the top end. So I designed a new crossover for the second Fluance, and both are happily playing upstairs. They sound clean as a whistle, with lots of wham and slam. And they're very efficient.

I am frustrated that I couldn't come up with something that might have general use. In addition to the complexity of my design, I don't know which, if any, of my Fluances is the real deal. The crossover(s) might or might not work well in other samples. I would show you a pic of the stock crossover and one of the mods, except the file is too big even compressed.

 

[Swerd]

As it turns out, the native response of the two midrange drivers diverged by 5 dB toward the top end.

I am frustrated that I couldn't come up with something that might have general use. In addition to the complexity of my design, I don't know which, if any, of my Fluances is the real deal. The crossover(s) might or might not work well in other samples.

I wonder what kind of variation you might see if you could measure 20 randomly selected Fluance midrange drivers? Quality control costs money if you reject all the drivers that aren't within spec.

Another example of how cost becomes more than the expense of the raw materials alone. Quality assembly, inspecting for, and rejecting failures all adds to the cost.

 

[slipperybidness]

I wonder what kind of variation you might see if you could measure 20 randomly selected Fluance midrange drivers? Quality control costs money if you reject all the drivers that aren't within spec.

Another example of how cost becomes more than the expense of the raw materials alone. Quality assembly, inspecting for, and rejecting failures all adds to the cost.

Yup, scrapping product is about the worst thing you can do in manufacturing...........

 

[John Melnicoe]

Here's my final report on the Fluance Mod. And as they say, all's well that ends. If any of you have ever caught Wheeler Dealers on the Velocity channel, this turned out to be a little like their rebuild of the 1956 Citroen. I thought I had come up with a successful Xover that smoothed everything out, but when I hooked the board up to the second Fluance (which I hadn't measured before except with lots of connections reversed), there was a 5dB dip in the mid treble. After lots of trouble shooting, I started over by measuring the individual drivers and importing the plots into my Fluance file. It predicted exactly what I was getting. As it turns out, the native response of the two midrange drivers diverged by 5 dB toward the top end. So I designed a new crossover for the second Fluance, and both are happily playing upstairs. They sound clean as a whistle, with lots of wham and slam. And they're very efficient.

I am frustrated that I couldn't come up with something that might have general use. In addition to the complexity of my design, I don't know which, if any, of my Fluances is the real deal. The crossover(s) might or might not work well in other samples. I would show you a pic of the stock crossover and one of the mods, except the file is too big even compressed.

Hi Dennis,
Just a quick question. Was that 5 dB dip on a wide frequency scale, or a real narrow dip? Is it big time bad, or a small but 5 Db dip in a narrow area where perhaps one could somewhat adjust it on a receiver? I know the issue of variance is a bad thing either way, just curious how wide it was, and where it was. Too bad, as it sounds as if the sound quality was rather good with your 2 separate crossovers. Shoot. Thanks for comment, John

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Hi Dennis,
Just a quick question. Was that 5 dB dip on a wide frequency scale, or a real narrow dip? Is it big time bad, or a small but 5 Db dip in a narrow area where perhaps one could somewhat adjust it on a receiver? I know the issue of variance is a bad thing either way, just curious how wide it was, and where it was. Too bad, as it sounds as if the sound quality was rather good with your 2 separate crossovers. Shoot. Thanks for comment, John

The two samples had a different profile between 1 khz and 4 kHz. The first one had a smaller peak at 1k, and didn't tilt down as much by the time the response got to 4 kHz. The second had more variation between the peak and the final dip at 4k. Nothing that could be adjusted easily on a receiver, and not a horrible variation. But it was enough to make the difference between a flat response and a not great response with the same crossover.

 

[Hocky]

I guess that could explain why some of us think that the sound is decent and others think that it is very recessed and bad.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I guess that could explain why some of us think that the sound is decent and others think that it is very recessed and bad.

I doubt very much that you would pick up on the difference with the stock crossover, since it's all over the place to begin with. Differences in reactions to the stock Fluances may be due to differences in owner experience with speakers in general, or perhaps some of the Fluances really did have the midrange wired correctly to begin with.

 

[John Melnicoe]

The two samples had a different profile between 1 khz and 4 kHz. The first one had a smaller peak at 1k, and didn't tilt down as much by the time the response got to 4 kHz. The second had more variation between the peak and the final dip at 4k. Nothing that could be adjusted easily on a receiver, and not a horrible variation. But it was enough to make the difference between a flat response and a not great response with the same crossover.

Thanks Dennis, this is all interesting. I ended up with both lower and upper terminals reversed, as it "seems better" that way, but who knows? Hopefully Fluance will at least come up with a more stable and proper crossover unit for us folks with the older Signatures. I like them but it sure seems like they could be a bit better. I am awaiting a response from Fluance to my earlier call about a remedy in the future if they do find issues, and they did assure me IF any problem or a fix arises, they would make it right as to my speakers. Your efforts and that of others will hopefully help us owners to get the best out of these speakers. Thanks again.

 

[KEW]

Yup, scrapping product is about the worst thing you can do in manufacturing...........

From a "this week's budget" standpoint, but not for the long haul benefit of the company.
There is a reason why Fiat failed in the USA in the 80's and Toyota captured so much of the market.
But then, people don't track quality performance of speakers like they do cars.
At the same time, Fluance's effort to make it into the "big-time" with their flagship Signature Series is not looking too good right now!

 

[Swerd]

… Fluance's effort to make it into the "big-time" with their flagship Signature Series is not looking too good right now!

One could say, Fluance lacks nuance

 

[Justin Zimmerman]

I've had the Dennis Murphy crossover re-designed Signature Series speakers back now for almost a week. Just a quick reminder on something Dennis found. He did 2 separate crossover designs because the drivers measured differently between the 2 speakers. That in and of itself should be a bit of a red flag with quality issues at Fluance. I hope they can find a way to get past this, as I do think they are one of the best at providing bang for the buck in audio.

That being said, based on the rest of his comments, I was still very optimistic that at least my Signature Series speakers would be pretty good. I got these to serve as a simple 2 channel setup for my main living space. The room is a roughly 20x40 room with sloped ceilings, hardwood floors etc. A pretty challenging room from what I understand.

I hooked them to a Pioneer Elite VSX-90 receiver that I picked up a while back on sale. Seems like good bang for the buck but nothing too fancy.

I don't have trained ears when it comes to judging the overall quality of a speaker, but I know what I like. That's why I wanted these to begin with, as I have a full set of the XL series in my theater room and have truly enjoyed them.

That being said, here are my thoughts:

1. I can't really find any flaws in these speakers. They sound great across music , movies TV etc.
2. Based on the previous reviews- CNET in particular, I was listening for some of the same things they complained about, but didn't hear it.
3. Since I never heard these before Dennis got his hands on them, I have no basis for comparison, but I can only imagine that the work Mr. Murphy did to create these new crossovers made a significant difference in the sound quality.

I can't thank Dennis enough for the time he put in with this project, and I feel very lucky to be the recipient of a set of what are now "custom" speakers that I will enjoy for years to come.

 

[speakerman39]

I've had the Dennis Murphy crossover re-designed Signature Series speakers back now for almost a week. Just a quick reminder on something Dennis found. He did 2 separate crossover designs because the drivers measured differently between the 2 speakers. That in and of itself should be a bit of a red flag with quality issues at Fluance. I hope they can find a way to get past this, as I do think they are one of the best at providing bang for the buck in audio.

That being said, based on the rest of his comments, I was still very optimistic that at least my Signature Series speakers would be pretty good. I got these to serve as a simple 2 channel setup for my main living space. The room is a roughly 20x40 room with sloped ceilings, hardwood floors etc. A pretty challenging room from what I understand.

I hooked them to a Pioneer Elite VSX-90 receiver that I picked up a while back on sale. Seems like good bang for the buck but nothing too fancy.

I don't have trained ears when it comes to judging the overall quality of a speaker, but I know what I like. That's why I wanted these to begin with, as I have a full set of the XL series in my theater room and have truly enjoyed them.

That being said, here are my thoughts:

1. I can't really find any flaws in these speakers. They sound great across music , movies TV etc.
2. Based on the previous reviews- CNET in particular, I was listening for some of the same things they complained about, but didn't hear it.
3. Since I never heard these before Dennis got his hands on them, I have no basis for comparison, but I can only imagine that the work Mr. Murphy did to create these new crossovers made a significant difference in the sound quality.

I can't thank Dennis enough for the time he put in with this project, and I feel very lucky to be the recipient of a set of what are now "custom" speakers that I will enjoy for years to come.

Great! Thanks for sharing your observations. I bet they really do sound good. Especially, after Dennis got a hold of them. Consider yourself very lucky. I was even looking at these very closely. Now have the SVS Ultra Bookshelfs and am quite happy. Congrats!

Cheers,

Phil

 

[Swerd]

I've had the Dennis Murphy crossover re-designed Signature Series speakers back now for almost a week…

Justin

Thanks for your comments. It's too bad you never heard these speakers in their before state, but only a little. The difference might have been surprising, but that's academic now. Based on my own experience with Dennis's crossover redesign efforts for some older speakers I had, http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/the-vintage-jbl-west-coast-sound-becomes-the….25014/, you did the right thing. The story of these Fluance speakers and the crossovers is a really good example of just what a difference a good crossover can make.