Audio Physic Step loudspeaker Specifications

Sidebar 1: Specifications

Description: Two-way, ported, stand-mounted loudspeaker. Drive-units: 4" (102mm) plastic-cone woofer, 0.75" (19mm) metal-dome tweeter. Measured frequency response: 60Hz–20kHz ±3dB. Measured sensitivity: 84dB/W/m. Measured impedance: 5 ohms nominal; 3.3 ohms minimum.
Dimensions: 13" (330mm) H by 5.5" (140mm) W by 9" (229mm) D.
Serial numbers of review samples: 416A/416B.
Price: $1395/pair (1994); no longer available (2013). Necessary stands were available from Sound Anchors for $210/pair (1994). Approximate number of dealers: 15.
Manufacturer: Audio Physic GmbH, Almerfeldweg 38, 59929 Brilon, Germany. Tel: (49) 2961-96170. Fax: (49) 2961-51640. Web: www.audiophysic.de. US Distributor: Immedia, Berkeley, CA 94702 (1994); Goerner Communication, 91 18th Avenue Deux-Montagnes, Quebec, Canada J7R 4A6 (2013). Tel: (514) 833-1977. Web: www.oernercommunication.com.

COMPANY INFO
Audio Physic GmbH
US Distributor: Goerner Communication
91 18th Avenue Deux-Montagnes
Quebec, Canada J7R 4A6
ARTICLE CONTENTS
Share | |
COMMENTS
FSonicSmith's picture

Who is Jack English?

Separate and aside from that issue, what is it with S'Phile and minimonitors? While it is true that all of audio comprises compromises, I feel that for over twenty years S'Phile has unduly emphasized minimonitors. I blame JA prinicipally (how long were B&W SS's in his primary system?), and Tom Gillette secondarily. When, ever, have the reviewers or contributors of this fine magazine pointed out to and educated the reader that sound reproduction is not best considered in terms of frequency response, but based instead on energy production throughout the most important portions of the frequency spectrum? I was a long time owner of minimonitors and then I learned an important lesson; minimonitors excel at all the things that tend to distract away from the essence of the music. Things like pin-point imaging, soundstaging, wrap-around, halo efffect, and laser-like treble. At the end of the day, they are sound effects and not music. I would go so far (admittedly an extreme view to make a point) that for too many audiophiles, minimonitors incentivize the owner to set up their speakers incorrectly and to listen for all the wrong things. For those that have apartments or small listening rooms and for those that are on a low budget, they serve a great purpose. They do not deserve the emphasis they get in this magazine. 

volvic's picture

FSonicSmith, far be it from me to defend Atkinson and anyone else at S'Phile but most of us mortals live in compromised environments; small budgets, small rooms that necessitate the purchase of mini monitors.  I enjoy reading about mini monitors because I am sure like most people it is all we can afford and they are optimal for our listening environments.  Would love MBL's in my room and enjoy reading about them but get very excited when a mini monitor appears for review.  

FSonicSmith's picture

I conceded that many have small listening rooms and need minimonitors. Is that true of the majority of audiophiles in the US? Considering that the demographics demonstrate that the average reader of S'Phile is (educated guess) 38 or so and earns 100K or so, I don't think so. Let's put it simply; Stephen Mejias needs minimonitors, JA does not. Art Dudley, go figure, has his priorities right. It's about the essence of the music and not about particular facets of sound reproduction that give rise to the "gee-whiz, that's cool" response. The latter is very enticing. I learned.

John Atkinson's picture

FSonicSmith wrote:
Let's put it simply; Stephen Mejias needs minimonitors, JA does not.

I hate it when people put words in my mouth like this. You are erroneously assuming that your own needs and desires define everyone else's. A renowned audio engineer said it best decades ago: "Large speakers make large mistakes." Unlike you, I will sacrifice 2 octaves of bass extension and ultimate loudness capability in order to maximize midrange and treble purity and imaging accuracy and stability. That doesn't make me wrong; it just means my tastes and needs are different from yours.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

ms142's picture

... which I wish were true. I guess FSonicSmith lives quite far from a metropolitan center. Both my wife and I make six figures, and even if we don't have kids, I can't see myself living in a place that doesn't require minimonitors.

remlab's picture

..but if you don't know who Jack English is..

Anyway, that review was from 1994.

FSonicSmith's picture

The bad resolution photos should have been a tip-off. I usually catch the distinction between the posted-date and the original publishing date and didn't here. I feel like Roseann-Roseannadanna. Never mind. Well, mostly never mind.

volvic's picture

I thought your critique was based on mini monitors in Stereophile since 1994, guess the main thrust of your argument isn't lost whether it's 1994 or 2014, but I still like mini monitors.  

remlab's picture

You really should mark anything not current as historical. "Looking Back.." would be a good heading in bold face. To many people don't catch it and get confused. Personally, I love these period pieces. Keep it up..

X
Enter your Stereophile.com username.
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
Loading