Q Acoustics 3020 speakers -- My Insight

[Pogre]

I really like these shootouts you do Zieg. If they're fun to read, they're probably fun to do also. Every time a new set of speakers show up you get that "I just got a new speakers" feeling and I'll bet you're already wondering how they'll measure up. I might, maybe start doing this too. If I can find good deals and resell or gift when I'm done it might really be feasible. I can start on the lower end of the budget. AND I already have a pair of reference speakers. My little Promonitor 1000's. I'll try to best them for $100 or less. This might be fun!

My son has a pair of Deftech SM55's set up in his room too I could do shootouts with.

 

[zieglj01]

I really like these shootouts you do Zieg. If they're fun to read, they're probably fun to do also. Every time a new set of speakers show up you get that "I just got a new speakers" feeling and I'll bet you're already wondering how they'll measure up. I might, maybe start doing this too. If I can find good deals and resell or gift when I'm done it might really be feasible. I can start on the lower end of the budget. AND I already have a pair of reference speakers. My little Promonitor 1000's. I'll try to best them for $100 or less. This might be fun!

$118 is the cheapest for testing at this point -- The Sony Core, a hard one to trump under $150
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SSCS5-3-Driver-Bookshelf-Speaker/dp/B00O8YLMVA

Pioneer BS-22 can be livable -- but the Sony is clearly better.

There is only one set of speakers that sells for under $100 that I can tolerate in house for a while, and they are the JungleRoc -- however, better if you open them up and line the walls with Sonic Barrier damping.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-2-Way-Bookshelf-Speaker-Pair-200W-JungleRoc-Audio-Vidsonix-Compare-199-NEW-/350402685120?epid=1941788015&hash=item5195a0a8c0:g:Tr8AAOSw0JpV5IaG

https://www.parts-express.com/sonic-barrier-1-2-acoustic-sound-damping-foam-with-psa-18-x-24--260-520

The Fluance will be here Monday

 

[zieglj01]

OK the challenger, the Fluance Signature bookshelf speaker has arrived to take on the Q Acoustics 3020 bookshelf speaker. The Fluance arrived double-boxed, which is cool. The vinyl walnut looks good except for the slight crease on the side walls which they could have done a little better in smoothing the wood outside as they curved the walls back -- however, still not really an eye sore. The front panel has a gloss black finish -- in sealing it to the front baffle, there is still a slight gap from the front baffle -- however no air leak and not really an eye sore unless you want to put your face up close and stare at it.

I removed the back terminal cup to look at the crossover and inside -- the crossover looks to be second order on both the woofer and tweeter -- with 2 coils, 1 electric cap, 1 poly cap, and 1 resistor. There looks to be a small curve brace just under the tweeter, however no cross brace. The internal damping is poor, that is not much with the thin batten -- maybe enough to blow your nose about 3 times. I can not believe that this damping is doing much to control back waves. The engineers must have been having lunch with the Polk people.

If the Fluance happens to win and I keep them, then I will have to go inside and treat the inside cabinet. The speaker did do better on the door-knock test compared to some of the other budget-friendly speakers. On a quick sound test for the 12 round show-down, the odds seem to be in favor of the Q Acoustics by 65%

Here is a slide show and some pictures with the Q A
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?action=gallery;area=slideshow;album=24407;start=167685

 

[Pogre]

It does appear the packing was sufficient. Double boxing is a good thing, I agree. The last couple of side by side pics of the 2 I like the look of the Q Acoustic. BUT... How do they sound? Zieg is on the case!

I'm genuinely curious to hear your impressions. I keep hearing about Fluance here and there, but haven't had an opportunity to check any out.

 

[zieglj01]

It does appear the packing was sufficient. Double boxing is a good thing, I agree. The last couple of side by side pics of the 2 I like the look of the Q Acoustic. BUT... How do they sound? Zieg is on the case!

I'm genuinely curious to hear your impressions. I keep hearing about Fluance here and there, but haven't had an opportunity to check any out.

The sound test is coming -- however, the Fluance could use more damping inside from the early so-called warm-ups. I always like to give a speaker 13.24678 minutes to break in -- as one should at times keep both sides happy. I will say at the moment they really do not seem to be out of phase.

 

[zieglj01]

BUT... How do they sound? Zieg is on the case!

I'm genuinely curious to hear your impressions. I keep hearing about Fluance here and there, but haven't had an opportunity to check any out.

I pretty much know the sonic sound signature of the Fluance, but i do not want to ruin the suspense.

They are now in their 12 round battle, because the Fiuance box felt offended by someone in another forum who said that their inside looks like a bird house. So the Fluance being upset, told the Q Acoustics to get your bread-box in the ring.

One thing that I do notice about the Fluance is that its nose (phase plug) may be interfering with its over-all focus. So between the nose and heart (crossover network), the Fluance may be somewhat out of step at times. This is a somewhat interesting match, however the QA 3020 seems to have overall better coaching (design engineering). Now the question is will the Fluance get knocked out before the end of 12 rounds?

 

[zieglj01]

Well the battle has ended -- the Fluance didn't get knocked out, it got disqualified. To my ears they have some type of phase issues, and it is like some cancellation going on. The Q Acoustic 3020 is on another level and a better engineered speaker.

The Fluance tends to have some resonance issues due to poor damping -- they tend to have that typical budget mass market slightly coarse and grainy character. They have detail, but lack refinement, and definition and depth. They can also be somwhat nasal and congested sounding.

When listening to singers with known raspy like voices, such as Diana Krall -- the sound becomes more irritating, and the sssszzzz becomes more noticeable. Instruments sound good and there tends to be nice separation, but they tend to sound somewhat artificial and can sound somewhat sharp. The soundstage is there, but not as realistic as it should be. There tends to be some phase issues. It seems to me that the speakers need more crossover-work.

Now as far as phase and cancellations -- put on an old song like 'Papa Was A Rolling Stone' with that famous ping pong stereo effect, you start to notice some things -- things tend to sound off focus and detail tends to fade out.

The speakers all in all are more for surrounds and to be placed on or next to a wall -- when placed on stands in the room, there is only a little bass. They are on the level of the budget Klipsch and Polk speakers of the pass. However, they are better than the likes of the Micca 42X and the original Insignia speaker that were real popular and raved about.

However the Fluance does have potential, if one would put more work in them.

 

[Pogre]

That's disappointing. I really thought they'd do a little better. I'll not be suggesting them as a budget option anytime soon.

 

[shadyJ]

Well the battle has ended -- the Fluance didn't get knocked out, it got disqualified. To my ears they have some type of phase issues, and it is like some cancellation going on. The Q Acoustic 3020 is on another level and a better engineered speaker.

The Fluance tends to have some resonance issues due to poor damping -- they tend to have that typical budget mass market slightly coarse and grainy character. They have detail, but lack refinement, and definition and depth. They can also be somwhat nasal and congested sounding.

When listening to singers with known raspy like voices, such as Diana Krall -- the sound becomes more irritating, and the sssszzzz becomes more noticeable. Instruments sound good and there tends to be nice separation, but they tend to sound somewhat artificial and can sound somewhat sharp. The soundstage is there, but not as realistic as it should be. There tends to be some phase issues. It seems to me that the speakers need more crossover-work.

Now as far as phase and cancellations -- put on an old song like 'Papa Was A Rolling Stone' with that famous ping pong stereo effect, you start to notice some things -- things tend to sound off focus and detail tends to fade out.

The speakers all in all are more for surrounds and to be placed on or next to a wall -- when placed on stands in the room, there is only a little bass. They are on the level of the budget Klipsch and Polk speakers of the pass. However, they are better than the likes of the Micca 42X and the original Insignia speaker that were real popular and raved about.

However the Fluance does have potential, if one would put more work in them.

Perhaps their crossover needs a do-over like the Signature towers. The redone Signature towers were not bad to my ears, and they measured very well too.

 

[zieglj01]

Perhaps their crossover needs a do-over like the Signature towers. The redone Signature towers were not bad to my ears, and they measured very well too.

They do have potential, as you can hear and recognize that.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Perhaps their crossover needs a do-over like the Signature towers. The redone Signature towers were not bad to my ears, and they measured very well too.

If these things cost $100/pr, they might be worth working on. But considering all of the competition in this price range, the best you could hope for is a decent sounding speaker with no bass.

 

[zieglj01]

If these things cost $100/pr, they might be worth working on. But considering all of the competition in this price range, the best you could hope for is a decent sounding speaker with no bass.

Yes, bass is timid -- the Sony for sure has more bass -- and the Pioneer even more bass.

 

[KEW]

Perhaps their crossover needs a do-over like the Signature towers. The redone Signature towers were not bad to my ears, and they measured very well too.

What was the circumstance for the towers you tested? Did Fluance know they were being shipped for review?
(Rant on!)
You'll have to excuse my cynicism, but this is a company that does not seem to R&D their product very well (as reflected by the performance of the original sig tower AH began to review and, now, the bookshelf). They do not seem to be able (or care) to maintain quality control (as demonstrated by Dennis Murphy's crossover design that needed to be designed custom for the left and right speakers because the drivers were so inconsistent). They do not seem to care much about reputation (as demonstrated by their willingness to continue selling the "faulty towers" for months).
Their restitution program required the customer to have saved the original packaging and happen to check in on their website (or be a regular on forums) to find out about it. I don't believe they reached out to registered buyers (but correct me if I am wrong on this point)!
The ones I had did not have a "Made in China" label, but did have a little cloth Maple Leaf tag by the terminals as if deliberately trying to look like they are made in Canada.
All of this, together, makes me wonder if they would have entered the redesigned crossover into production if it added much more to the manufacturing cost, and no crossover is going to overcome the QC problem of inconsistent drivers. That is a hit or miss proposition.
So, I have to wonder if they actually reworked production, got their QC under control, etc.
The fact that they have not done anything to test/correct these bookshelf (which were made at the same time and presumably by the same "designer") leads me to believe they really don't care as long as they are getting people's money. All companies have to make a profit to survive, but some respect their customers and consider that part of their long term strategy.

I reviewed these speakers back in January with similar findings, but I hoped that once they got the towers ironed out they would turn those same resources to fixing the bookshelf sigs. Obviously Fluance does not see worth in that. Remember, this is their flagship product!
(Rant off!)

 

[speakerman39]

Yeah, KEW had a similar experience with these very same speakers. That is enough for me. Especially, given what happened when Gene first tried to review the Sig towers. The intentions are good, but the execution is poor at best. Like Pogre said above, I also will no longer recommend these as it looks like the Sony Cores own the less than $200 category imho. Above $200, then Dennis's AA monitors rule the roost. Just saying.......


Cheers,

Phil

 

[shadyJ]

What was the circumstance for the towers you tested? Did Fluance know they were being shipped for review?
(Rant on!)
You'll have to excuse my cynicism, but this is a company that does not seem to R&D their product very well (as reflected by the performance of the original sig tower AH began to review and, now, the bookshelf). They do not seem to be able (or care) to maintain quality control (as demonstrated by Dennis Murphy's crossover design that needed to be designed custom for the left and right speakers because the drivers were so inconsistent). They do not seem to care much about reputation (as demonstrated by their willingness to continue selling the "faulty towers" for months).
Their restitution program required the customer to have saved the original packaging and happen to check in on their website (or be a regular on forums) to find out about it. I don't believe they reached out to registered buyers (but correct me if I am wrong on this point)!
The ones I had did not have a "Made in China" label, but did have a little cloth Maple Leaf tag by the terminals as if deliberately trying to look like they are made in Canada.
All of this, together, makes me wonder if they would have entered the redesigned crossover into production if it added much more to the manufacturing cost, and no crossover is going to overcome the QC problem of inconsistent drivers. That is a hit or miss proposition.
So, I have to wonder if they actually reworked production, got their QC under control, etc.
The fact that they have not done anything to test/correct these bookshelf (which were made at the same time and presumably by the same "designer") leads me to believe they really don't care as long as they are getting people's money. All companies have to make a profit to survive, but some respect their customers and consider that part of their long term strategy.

I reviewed these speakers back in January with similar findings, but I hoped that once they got the towers ironed out they would turn those same resources to fixing the bookshelf sigs. Obviously Fluance does not see worth in that. Remember, this is their flagship product!
(Rant off!)

I doubt very much that Fluance altered their product they sent in for review specifically for that review. That would be an awful lot of effort for not much payoff, especially when they can just modify the existing crossover without adding that much more expense to the entire manufacturing process to make them all better. I can't speak for other aspects of their operation. I can only relate my experiences. The Signatures towers are good. They aren't perfect, but they are a hell of a deal for 700 shipped.

As for the bookshelf speakers, maybe they aren't as good as the ones that zeig compared them too, but just how bad are they really? I would want to measure them to see. They are not very expensive, so I wouldn't expect perfection. I am willing to tolerate a few flaws at $200 a pair. It sounds like the pair you owned had a manufacturing defect. You want to know how you can make them change their ways for the better? Explain these problems to them. They will read your email and at the very least take it into consideration.

 

[KEW]

I doubt very much that Fluance altered their product they sent in for review specifically for that review. That would be an awful lot of effort for not much payoff, especially when they can just modify the existing crossover without adding that much more expense to the entire manufacturing process to make them all better. I can't speak for other aspects of their operation. I can only relate my experiences. The Signatures towers are good. They aren't perfect, but they are a hell of a deal for 700 shipped.

As for the bookshelf speakers, maybe they aren't as good as the ones that zeig compared them too, but just how bad are they really? I would want to measure them to see. They are not very expensive, so I wouldn't expect perfection. I am willing to tolerate a few flaws at $200 a pair. It sounds like the pair you owned had a manufacturing defect. You want to know how you can make them change their ways for the better? Explain these problems to them. They will read your email and at the very least take it into consideration.

So, they did know it was being submitted for review.
Do you know how much it cost to modify? What makes you think it is not that much?
I too doubt they altered the product just for the review, but they did hire a competent crossover designer to make corrections, so it is a pretty good bet they had a prototype pair or two of corrected speakers to send out for reviews if they are so inclined. As I said, I know I am being cynical and certainly hope they would not do this, but they have chosen to neglect Design, QC, they continued to produce and sell the towers for months knowing they were fundamentally flawed, and they disregarded concerns that the bookshelf might have the same problems.
These are all issues of philosophy/values and the people running the show there made conscious choices to run things as they have. If I write them a letter, they may give me a good sounding response, but I do not expect them to change their philosophy/values. I think the only thing that would do that is a monetary penalty associated with their philosophy. There may be a long term penalty, but short term, since they are primarily targeting entry level consumers, they are not likely to have many people like Zieg, Gene, and Dennis who could decisively recognize there was something wrong. Sure, there will be a few, but not enough to cut very deep into their profits.

 

[zieglj01]

Zieg, Gene, and Dennis who could decisively recognize there was something wrong. Sure, there will be a few, but not enough to cut very deep into their profits.

Most people will be happy with them -- as they will not buy them with audiophile mentality in mind. However, they list a suggested price of $299 -- use to sell for $249 -- now selling for $199. While I did not expect them to be perfect, I expected them to be competitive sound-wise with the Sony, Cambridge, the lower QA 2020i, and at least hang around the Pioneer BS-22.

They are better than the likes of the Bic Venturi -- but they are not as coherent, or cohesive as the Pioneer BS-22. My biggest gripe is phasing, resonance, and lack of bass (and they have 2 ports).

Now on a side note -- the inside of the port holes are covered with wire or thin plastic

 

[zieglj01]

OK -- the QA 3020 has one more challenge to go -- the contender is from Germany -- the Canton GLS 2 -- not the GLE lower model -- the GLS 2 is scheduled to arrive tomorrow. The winner stays and the loser says goodbye -- however, I am not buying into the $799 suggested retail -- more likely around $599 -- they are moving them out for $299 with less than $9.00 shipping.
http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/cantgls2blka/canton-gls-2-6-2-way-bookshelf-speaker-black-pair/1.html

 

[Dennis Murphy]

OK -- the QA 3020 has one more challenge to go -- the contender is from Germany -- the Canton GLS 2 -- not the GLE lower model -- the GLS 2 is scheduled to arrive tomorrow. The winner stays and the loser says goodbye -- however, I am not buying into the $799 suggested retail -- more likely around $599 -- they are moving them out for $299 with less than $9.00 shipping.
http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/cantgls2blka/canton-gls-2-6-2-way-bookshelf-speaker-black-pair/1.html

Frequency Response 33 Hz- 40 kHz. That's pretty impressive bass response from a slightly over .33 cu ft box with a 6" woofer. I wonder how they do that.

 

[shadyJ]

My guess is by using a 20 dB response window.