Audio Physic Step Plus loudspeaker John Atkinson April 2019

John Atkinson wrote about the Step Plus in April 2019 (Vol.42 No.4):

When Ken Micallef reviewed the Audio Physic Step Plus ($2599/pair) in our February issue, he found it relatively difficult to optimize the positions of this two-way stand-mounted speaker. However, once he'd done so, he noted that the Step Plus could produce "serious lower-register heft for such a small speaker," and that the pair of them "disappeared" as the sources of the sound, leaving only the instruments in space before him. Ken summed up by saying that the Step Pluses "proved overachievers to the nth degree," and concluded: "If you're in the market for a soundstaging and imaging champ that produces clear upper-range frequencies and solid bass fundamentals with almost any amplifier, the Audio Physic Step Plus should be numero uno on your list."

Fig.1 Audio Physic Step Plus, anechoic response averaged across 30° horizontal window on tweeter axis at 50" (red), averaged across 30° horizontal window centered 10° above tweeter axis (blue), both corrected for microphone response, with complex sum of nearfield port and woofer responses plotted below 310Hz.

However, when I measured the Step Plus, I found that there was a major suckout in the crossover region in the farfield response on the tweeter axis (fig.1, red trace). This suckout disappeared when the response was measured 10° above the tweeter (blue trace). If the Steps are placed on stands low enough that the tweeter is at least 8" below the listener's ears, the treble balance will then be even and flat.

The reason for this suckout on the tweeter axis is that while the drive-units are both connected in positive acoustic polarity, they're out of phase in the crossover region. Usually, with second-order crossover filters, either the tweeter or the woofer is connected in inverted polarity, to compensate for this lack of integration. (An alternative solution was featured in a speaker B&O marketed in the 1970s, which featured a "filler driver" to compensate for the missing on-axis energy.) But with both drivers wired in the same polarity, listening to the Step Plus above the tweeter axis pushes the woofer's output back in time compared with the tweeter's, and the two drivers now correctly sum in the crossover region.

Fig.2 Audio Physic Step Plus, spatially averaged, 1/6-octave response in JA's listening room (red); and of KEF LS50 (blue).

Given the contrast between Ken's praise and this anomaly in the Audio Physic's measured performance, I set up the review samples in my listening room on 24"-high single-pillar stands, which placed the Step Pluses' tweeters 34" above the floor and 4" below my ear height when I sit up straight. I began with the speakers in the positions where my usual KEF LS50s sound best. The red trace in fig.2 shows the Audio Physic's spatially averaged response in my room, generated by averaging 20 1/6-octave–smoothed spectra, taken for the left and right speakers individually using a 96kHz sample rate, in a vertical rectangular grid 36" wide by 18" high and centered on the positions of my ears. For reference, the blue trace shows the spatially averaged response of the KEFs in the same positions, with the levels normalized at 750Hz, where both speaker models have their highest output.

In the lower midrange and below, the Audio Physic has a little less output than the KEF, which suggests, as I said in the Measurements sidebar accompanying the original review, that the speaker needs to be placed relatively close to walls to best balance its lower frequencies with its upper midrange. The Step Plus both produces more energy between 1 and 2kHz than the LS50, and significantly more energy in the top two audio octaves. And while there's a small dip in the Audio Physic's crossover region compared with the KEF's response, this is not as deep as the anechoic response in fig.1 suggests. As long as you don't sit in the nearfield—in my room, the Step Pluses were 10' from my listening chair—the crossover suckout will tend to be filled in, as the missing on-axis energy is still radiated off axis.

So how did the Audio Physics sound in my room? Leaving them in the positions at which I'd measured their spatially averaged response and driving them with an Ayre Acoustics EX-8 integrated amplifier, I found their low frequencies indeed on the lightweight side. I then experimented with their positions, and ended up with each speaker some 15" from its sidewall; this brought up the bass. The low-frequency warble tones on Editor's Choice (CD, Stereophile STPH016-2) were reproduced at full level down to 80Hz, with then the 63Hz tone suppressed a little, and the 40Hz and lower tones inaudible. Even so, the bass drum and the left-hand register of the piano in Trevor Pinnock and the Royal Academy of Music Soloists Ensemble's recording of Erwin Stein's chamber-orchestra arrangement of Mahler's Symphony 4 (24-bit/192kHz ALAC files, Linn CKD438) were reproduced with just-sufficient weight accompanied by excellent definition.

The Step Plus does seem optimized for articulation, not just in the bass but also in the upper midrange, where the image of the voice of Sónia Grané, the soprano soloist in the Mahler's fourth movement, was both palpable and pushed a little forward at the listener. When a recording's balance already has forward upper mids, this becomes too much of a good thing. Monty Alexander's piano in "Just in Time," from The Good Life: Monty Alexander Plays the Songs of Tony Bennett (24/96 FLAC, Chesky SACD340), and Bill Evans's instrument in "Autumn Leaves," from Live at Art Lugoff's Top of the Gate (24/44.1 ALAC, Resonance RES 2012), were both too upfront at my preferred listening level. With the KEF LS50s, both pianos sounded in better balance with the supporting instruments.

But what about that crossover-region suckout? The dual-mono pink-noise track on Editor's Choice did sound hollow if I slumped in my chair—I needed to sit up very straight for the treble to sound evenly balanced with this signal. Compared to the KEF LS50, the Step Plus's top octaves were more airy. Billy Drummond's ride cymbal in my recording of the Jerome Harris Quintet playing Duke Ellington's "The Mooche" (16/44.1 ALAC, from Editor's Choice) sounded suitably swishy. This track also revealed the stability and precision of the Step Pluses' stereo imaging, the small differences in the positions of the trombone and alto saxophone readily apparent—as was the way the image of the vibes stretched from far left to center stage, as I'd intended when mixing this track. Surrounding the musicians, the subtle ambience of Chad Kassem's Blue Heaven Studios was unambiguously evident.

So while the quasi-anechoic frequency measurement did reveal a potential problem, it won't become an audible problem as long as the Audio Physic Step Pluses are used on stands that place their tweeters sufficiently below the listener's ear height. The speaker's forward upper midrange might make system matching more tricky than usual, but as long as the Step Plus is placed close enough to walls that its lightweight low frequencies can benefit from some boundary reinforcement, it offers just enough bass. Ken Micallef basically called it correctly.—John Atkinson

COMPANY INFO
Audio Physic GmbH
US distributor: VANA Ltd.
2845 Middle Country Road
Lake Grove, NY 11755
(631) 246-4412
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
tonykaz's picture

are the foundation of the Audiophile existence because of their superb Driver technology, design and build quality.

A nice representative Small European Loudspeaker will cost out around $2,500. Even the phenomenal Genelec 8020 Active Loudspeakers, made in Europe, will cost under $2,500!

But Audio Physic pretends to be German while sourcing in China.

Too bad for the replacement driver assurance program.

Yet another disappointment.

Tony in Michigan

Bertie Bucket's picture

Their speakers come with a 10 year warranty so that should give any normal buyer peace of mind.

Those who have hangups about Asians need not apply.

tonykaz's picture

.... Peace of Mind, it's sell-out worrisome.

Especially since Europe already is the Loudspeaker Driver Highest Authority.

It would be understandable if a Cayln built loudspeakers with DynAudio Drivers, that would be logical, not the other way around.

For this Decade and probably the next Decade, I will be discouraging the "Asian" Out-Soucring Concept among Manufacturing that I have influence in, the Transportation Industry.

HighEnd Audio becomes Low End throwaway mid-fi when it goes Asian. ( for now ).

Cayin is the exception, as is Woo which is USA Based and not at all Chinese.

Tony in Michigan

georgehifi's picture

All Audio Physic's even going way back when they started that I've heard, do this disappearing act really well, whether stand or floor mount. What is the measurement or construction parameter that is important that makes this happen. Seems like Audio Physic has whatever it is nailed down.

Cheers George

ok's picture

..Audio Physic (mostly Step and Tempo 25/Plus) iterations of this particular midrange/tweeter/cabinet configuration over the years and I can subjectively confirm JA’s prediction that their top surface should see slightly below the listener’s ears for optimal HF performance. This peculiarity is mainly due to a somewhat upward-shooting tweeter combined with a deliberately poor off-axis response (no more than 30 degrees flat thanks to cone driver and steep foam ring) that is further highlighted by the grills which tend to create some 3db drop at about 8KHz. They are excellent for near field and almost immune to HF room reflections for far field auditioning; however they do need considerable rear estate for enhanced soundstage accuracy and deep bass response as KM has already pointed out. By the way woofer's aluminum phase plug can dissipate an awfully lot of heat in case of amplifier clipping (not recommended!) so no worries about chinese: my neighbours would dismayingly attest that these drivers are virtually indestructible :-}

Bogolu Haranath's picture

Elac Navis active, self-powered bookshelf speakers ($2,000/pair) were very favorably reviewed in the latest issue of TAS ....... They don't need a power-amp ....... The reviewer said that, he would recommend them for product of the year award :-) .........

doak's picture

Haven’t heard these speakers, but really want to... and possibly own a pair.
Thanks for the heads up on the TAS review.

Bogolu Haranath's picture

In the on-line Audiogon discussion forum, one of the commentators says he compared the sound of the Elac Navis bookshelf with the sound of KEF LS-50 wireless and, he preferred the sound of Navis bookshelf (both models are active self-powered speakers) :-) .........

AaronGarrett's picture

The Audio Physic/ Pass Aleph combo at Singer in 1996 made me an audiophile! EDIT (Actually I misremembered -- it was Stereo Exchange. I am now an old audiophile with a faulty memory!)

Bogolu Haranath's picture

Welcome to the 'audiophiles with faulty memory' club :-) ..........

jimtavegia's picture

I would expect better performance in terms of pure value. Andrew Jones and many others do a great job for under a grand. In the right room these might float someone's boat.

I don't mean to be critical, but at this price there must be excellent performance.

jbreezy5's picture

Spot on, Jim!

mumulaha's picture

I knew the measurement have it's flaw before purchase. But after I heard it in my room with correct placement, I am sold. 6moon's Srajan Ebaen bought Audio Physic Codex as his new reference speaker. I used to own Triangle Titus with same electronic.

Jason P Jackson's picture

Wavecor are a large, well known loudspeaker driver manufacturer with many of it's designs done by the engineers of another large, well known loudspeaker driver manufacturer.

Jason. P. Jackson

SpeakerScott's picture

Mr. Atkinson,

Would you ever consider adding baffle step correction to your nearfield measurements...or at the very least measure speakers using the ground plane method to eliminate this measurement error?

I understand that taking some of the massive mega-buck speakers to a parking lot or tennis court isn't possible, but there are several ways to mostly eliminate the emphasis shown in the measurements with modified technique.

Scott

John Atkinson's picture
SpeakerScott wrote:
Would you ever consider adding baffle step correction to your nearfield measurements...or at the very least measure speakers using the ground plane method to eliminate this measurement error?

Some other reviewers have done this, but the "correction" is arbitrary, given that every room will modify the "bass bump" to a different extent.

There are 2 ways of assessing a speaker's low-frequency output: 1) in an anechoic chamber, which represnts one extreme, and 2) using a nearfield measurement, which represents the other extreme. As using a true anechoic chamber is financially out of reach for an organization of Stereophile's size, I prefer to stick with the other extreme. This also has the advantage of being consistent for the past 30 years of speaker measurements published in Stereophile

The problem with ground-plane measurements is that you need a relatively large flat paved area in which to perform them, which is problematic given where I live. I have experimented, but ended up sticking with how I currently perform low-frequency speaker measurements, in the nearfield.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

SpeakerScott's picture

An anechoic chamber is well out of reach for me to! (Plus ones that get that low in frequency are rare.) I could only dream of having one, which is why I suggested the baffle step correction method. As you well know, when you measure nearfield you eliminate the reinforcement (or lack thereof depending on frequency) as the driver transitions from 4pi to 2pi space.

The process, if done correctly isn't arbitrary. I have compared the results for large towers, book shelves and even large pro-sound PA speakers to measurements I have taken using tennis courts or parking lots. In the case of the ground plane measurements I have actually taken the time to reverse the double height baffle step from the mirror image speaker and the results have been spectacularly accurate.

You could plot the more accurate method along with the old method for comparison It only takes a few minutes to do, it doesn't add significantly to the process of your entire measurement set but improves accuracy.

(I do know how long a full measurement set takes to make...I've done it more times than I can count.)

MiklD's picture

I auditioned Step 25 (the previous iteration without the ceramic foam and sundry tweaks) and was similarly impressed. Took home Sitara 25 (floorstanding 2.5-way version with an additional HHCM providing sub-500 Hz reinforcement) which provides a good half-octave of bass extension, while maintaining the sonic virtues of the bookshelf sibling. So this review provides some gratifying insight.

Interesting to see the wrinkles in the measured performance. Hard to put floorstanders on shorter stands though, maybe a raised platform for the listening chairs, and/or some DSP? I suppose to incorporate soundstage in the more objective realm some sort of standardised routine around one of those Chesky clap and footstep test recordings could be employed? That aside the range of individualised timbres delivered from diffent instruments (real and synthetic) is a complementary element to the legendary spatial qualities and ‘disappearing act’ and just as impressive.

I started the Sitaras with my venerable Krell KAV-300i and was very happy. I described the baby Krell’s untimely end in a comment pleading for Herb’s promised Micromega M-100 review (cat awoke from Class A/B warmed torpor and threw up into the venilation slots, no more input boards from Krell for that model, alas, and shameless pitch for Sydney’s Len Wallis Audio who tried valiently to find parts). A loaner Musical Fidelity M3i wasn’t bad at all, but I settled on the Micromega for more modern features and design and nice sound. Too nice though (soundstage didn’t quite open up and the bass lacked weight/authority/timbral richness and yes that may not be a real word) but remedied for now by running the M-100’s balanced pre-ouput to a Krell KAV-2250 from Ebay. Cobbling together satisfying sound on a tight budget has its moments, I guess (bid unseccessfuly for an Evo, them’s the breaks). With the right amp, the bass sounds deeper than it measures, so I’m not too surprised by Ken’s observations.

So no, as most readers here surely know (but not all commenters, it seems) speakers don‘t sound the same, amps don’t sound the same, and viva la difference (or the German equivalent for the Audio Physics).

Thanks also for the Irrisari, a nice discovery.

MiklD's picture

... and imaging. Looking at the Step’s cumulative spectral decay plot, it is unusually clean and fast to decay below 10 kHz even compared to a range of very good-sounding offerings reviewed here. Everything is pretty much done and dusted within a millisecond, while others take 2-3 times that. Wondering if this characteristic is a key reason for the soundstage, imaging and timbre differentiation I can also hear in the similar Sitara?

X