Stand Loudspeaker Reviews

Acora SRB loudspeaker Associated Equipment

Sidebar 2: Associated Equipment

Digital source: MBL N31 CD player/DAC.
Analog source: Clearaudio Performance DC Wood turntable with Tracer tonearm and Talismann MC cartridge.
Preamplification: Boulder 508 MC/MM phono preamplifier.
Amplification: VAC Sigma 170i integrated amplifier; MBL N51 integrated amplifier; Soulution 330 integrated amplifier.
Cables: Ansuz Acoustics D2, AudioQuest NRG, and Morrow Audio (interconnects and other cabling).
Accessories: AudioQuest Niagara 1000 Low-Z Power Noise-Dissipation System with NRG 10 power cord, and Vodka Ethernet cable, Critical Mass Systems Maxxum equipment racks, Zanden Audio AT-1 proprietary foam bass traps/tubes (corners, 2×), AP-1 proprietary foam acoustic panels 4× 35.5" H × 23.75" W × 1.5" D (removable and custom-attached to PVC frame).
Room: 18.5' × 17.5' × 12'.—Julie Mullins

COMPANY INFO
Acora Acoustics Corporation
165 Milner Ave.
Scarborough, Ontario, M1S 4G7
Canada
(647) 812-3933
acoraacoustics.com
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
MZKM's picture
Submitted by MZKM on December 22, 2020 - 11:54am

The excellent lateral dispersion shows what you get with good drivers. The frequency response however is crazy, that minuscule port being the main culprit in the bass; as for the recess between 1kHz and 5kHz, no clue.

ejlif's picture
Submitted by ejlif on December 23, 2020 - 12:37am

that the first pair came wired out of phase.

remlab's picture
Submitted by remlab on December 23, 2020 - 8:28am

I would secretly get myself a computer based measurement mic to cover my ass:-)

Kal Rubinson's picture
Submitted by Kal Rubinson on December 23, 2020 - 1:34pm
Quote:

If I was a reviewer for stereophile I would secretly get myself a computer based measurement mic to cover my ass:-)

Some of us do make measurements and that is not a secret.

remlab's picture
Submitted by remlab on December 24, 2020 - 5:23am

It also might be a good idea that John tests first to make sure that the device is operating as it should before the reviewer gets it. It's kind of an unfair burden placed upon the reviewer and pretty unfortunate when it happens.

Kal Rubinson's picture
Submitted by Kal Rubinson on December 24, 2020 - 7:07am

I disagree. Such a reversal would permit the test results to influence the reviewer. Knowledge and interpretation of the measurements would create bias (positive or negative) in addition to the unavoidable bias due to visual assessment and personal expectations.

Even when I do make measurements myself, I do so only if I am trying to analyze some issue or anomaly and only after a suitably long period of listening. On the other hand, I regard the publication of JA's test measurements after my review is written as a necessary check on my subjective impressions.

Finally, I do not see a need for JA to do "quality control" for the manufacturer. The reviewer is acting as a consumer in receiving, unpacking and installing the device and should be at least as capable as the typical consumer in assessing whether the device is proper operating condition. If they cannot ship a proper device to a reviewer, they certainly are not more likely to ship a proper device to a consumer.

remlab's picture
Submitted by remlab on December 24, 2020 - 7:39am

It would not influence the review if it was kept a secret by JA.
As far as quality control goes, the manufacturer would still get nailed by JA for the initial problem in the review, so it's really no different. At least the reviewer doesn't have to spend weeks or months agonizing over something that's ultimately irrelevant. After all, JA did allow the mistake to be corrected by the manufacturer.
If you really want to do it based on what you said, it should not be allowed to be corrected by the manufacturer, and the original(in this case, unpublished) measurements should stand.

Kal Rubinson's picture
Submitted by Kal Rubinson on December 24, 2020 - 8:16am

I will tactfully decline to respond directly but we should always strive to be completely candid about what we experience with a review product regardless of the order of events.

remlab's picture
Submitted by remlab on December 24, 2020 - 8:42am

Happy holidays! Everyone stay safe!

PeterG's picture
Submitted by PeterG on December 23, 2020 - 9:25am

Very interesting review of a novel product, but left me with more questions than answers. It sounds like the listening was kind of mixed, and this is compounded by lack of comparisons to other speakers. Add in a $15K price tag and no US dealers on their website to help with an audition make make these a tough sell.

Julie Mullins's picture
Submitted by Julie Mullins on December 29, 2020 - 1:44pm

Thanks for your comments, PeterG. Part of the reason why I didn't get into comparisons was because the granite material (and other design aspects) made these rather unique; it didn't seem there were really any other "comparable" speakers...rather an apples-to-oranges situation.

eugovector's picture
Submitted by eugovector on December 23, 2020 - 9:53am

I don't know if they were first, but Status Acoustics/RBH has had a model for several years made out of granite: https://rbhsound.com/statusacoustics/products_vocefina.php

Julie Mullins's picture
Submitted by Julie Mullins on December 29, 2020 - 1:34pm

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Ronny's picture
Submitted by Ronny on January 2, 2021 - 7:43am

The danish speakers are called “Jern” which means iron in Danish. If they had been called somthing sounding like “Jörn” it would have been spelled “Jørn”. The o with umlaut(the two dots) is not used in Denmark but for instance in Sweden and Germany.

fjhuerta's picture
Submitted by fjhuerta on November 6, 2021 - 6:08pm

I know there's personal preference and all that, but there's no way this speaker can sound good. It's terribly designed, and it deviates from flat frequency response on axis, and its in room performance is probably the worst I've sen on these pages.It's what I'd expect a novice DIY builder to come up with after a very bad first project.

John Atkinson always finds polite ways to say "this speaker is terrible" if you know how to read his measurements, and I find his unbiased, no nonsense technical analysis invaluable. But to me, it seems reviewers will never, ever say anything bad about any piece of gear, no matter how terrible it is.

A well trained ear can lock up all on any (or all) of the imperfections shown on JA's measurements, and assume the speaker is badly designed. That reviewers on this magazine apparently would praise just about anything if it costs more than $10K is very, very troublesome, indeed - either their hearing is shot, or there's something else going on.

X