Franco Serblin Accordo Goldberg loudspeaker JA's Measurements

Sidebar 4: Measurements

I measured a different sample of the Franco Serblin Accordo Goldberg loudspeaker to those auditioned by Martin Colloms. Mine had the serial number 326. I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system, a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone, and an Earthworks microphone preamplifier to measure the quasi-anechoic frequency- and time-domain behavior in the farfield. I used an Earthworks QTC-40 microphone, which has a ¼" capsule, for the nearfield responses.


Fig.1 Franco Serblin Accordo Goldberg, electrical impedance (solid) and phase (dashed) (2 ohms/vertical div.).

The Accordo Goldberg's voltage sensitivity is specified as 87dB/2.83V/m. My B-weighted estimate, measured on the tweeter axis, was usefully higher, at 88.6dB(B)/2.83V/m. The Accordo Goldberg's nominal impedance is specified as 7 ohms, with a minimum value of 3.8 ohms at 5.5kHz. The impedance magnitude (fig.1, solid trace), examined with Dayton Audio's DATS V2 system, remained above 6 ohms from the low bass through the mid-treble region, though it dropped below 4 ohms between 4kHz and 8kHz. The minimum impedance was 3.8 ohms at 5kHz. The electrical phase angle (fig.1, dotted trace) is occasionally high, which means that the effective resistance, or EPDR (footnote 1), drops below 4 ohms in several regions in the bass and below 3 ohms between 2.3kHz and 5.6Hz and above 7kHz. The minimum EPDR values are 2.84 ohms at 109Hz, 1.81 ohms at 3.4kHz, and 2.1 ohms at 12.5kHz. The Accordo Goldberg is a relatively demanding load for the partnering amplifier.


Fig.2 Franco Serblin Accordo Goldberg, cumulative spectral-decay plot calculated from output of accelerometer fastened to the center of the longer sidewall (MLS driving voltage to speaker, 7.55V; measurement bandwidth, 2kHz).

Some very small discontinuities in the impedance traces imply the presence of cabinet resonances of some kind. When I investigated the enclosure's resonant modes with a plastic-tape accelerometer, I found a low-level mode at 375Hz on the longer convex sidewall (fig.2) and an even lower-level mode at 656Hz on the shorter, concave sidewall. It is extremely unlikely that this behavior will have audible consequences.

The saddle centered on 40Hz in the impedance magnitude trace suggests that this is the tuning frequency of the port on the speaker's rear panel. The blue trace in fig.3 shows the woofer's response measured in the nearfield; it has the expected notch at the port tuning frequency. The port's response, plotted in the ratio of the square root of its radiating diameter to that of the woofer (footnote 2), is shown as the red trace in fig.3. Its output peaks almost an octave higher than its tuning frequency, before rolling off cleanly, other than a low-level peak between 400Hz and 600Hz.


Fig.3 Franco Serblin Accordo Goldberg, anechoic response on tweeter axis at 50", averaged across 30° horizontal window and corrected for microphone response, with the nearfield responses of the woofer (blue), port (red), and their complex sum (black) respectively plotted below 350Hz, 500Hz, and 310Hz.

The black trace below 310Hz in fig.3 shows the complex sum of the woofer's and port's nearfield responses, taking into account both acoustic phase and the fact that the port is on the enclosure's rear. The peak between 70Hz and 140Hz will be due to the nearfield measurement technique, which assumes that the baffle extends to infinity in both horizontal and vertical planes. The Franco Serblin speaker's woofer tuning is maximally flat, but the low frequencies will sound somewhat lightweight without boundary reinforcement.

The sum of the Accordo Goldberg's nearfield responses in fig.3 is spliced at 310Hz to its farfield response, this averaged across a 30° horizontal window centered on the tweeter axis. There is a lack of energy in the lower midrange, which might be due to insufficient baffle-step compensation in the crossover (footnote 3). There is then a slight lack of energy in the presence region and a slight excess between 4kHz and 11kHz. Predicting the effect of this behavior on perceived sound quality is difficult, as this will depend both on which frequency region the listener takes as a reference, which in turn will depend on the music being played. If the levels in the upper midrange and mid-treble are perceived as being correct, the loudspeaker will sound lean and polite. If the lower mids and the presence region are heard as correct, the upper mids will sound exaggerated, though this may also be interpreted as added detail.


Fig.4 Franco Serblin Accordo Goldberg, lateral response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 90–5° off axis, reference response, differences in response 5–90° off axis.


Fig.5 Franco Serblin Accordo Goldberg, vertical response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 45–5° above axis, reference response, differences in response 5–45° below axis.

The perceived balance will also depend on the speaker's horizontal radiation pattern. This is shown in fig.4, normalized to the response on the tweeter axis, which therefore appears as a straight line. The tweeter's dispersion narrows sharply in its top octave, but the mid-treble region evens out to the Accordo Goldberg's sides. (The manual suggests that the tweeter "intensity" can be lowered by increasing the angle of toe-in so that the tweeter axes cross in front of the listener.) The even spacing of the contour lines below 5kHz will correlate with stable, accurate stereo imaging. Fig.5 shows the Accordo Goldberg's dispersion in the vertical plane, again normalized to the response on the tweeter axis. A suckout between 2kHz and 3kHz develops more than 10° above and 20° below the tweeter axis, which suggests that the crossover frequency is in this region. However, the lack of presence-region energy is accentuated more than 10° below that axis.


Fig.6 Franco Serblin Accordo Goldberg, step response on tweeter axis at 50" (5ms time window, 30kHz bandwidth).


Fig.7 Franco Serblin Accordo Goldberg, cumulative spectral-decay plot on tweeter axis at 50" (0.15ms risetime).

In the time domain, the Serblin speaker's step response (fig.6) indicates that the tweeter and woofer are both connected in positive acoustic polarity. The tweeter's output arrives first at the microphone, and the decay of its step cleanly merges with the positive-going start of the woofer's step, which indicates an optimal crossover topology. Other than some low-level hash in the mid-treble region, the Accordo Goldberg's cumulative spectral-decay, or waterfall, plot (fig.7) is superbly clean.

There are positive aspects of the Franco Serblin Accordo Goldberg's measured performance, such as that impressive waterfall plot. But its departure from a flat frequency response (footnote 4) suggests that its sonic character will depend on system matching and setup.—John Atkinson


Footnote 1: EPDR is the resistive load that gives rise to the same peak dissipation in an amplifier's output devices as the loudspeaker. See "Audio Power Amplifiers for Loudspeaker Loads," JAES, Vol.42 No.9, September 1994, and stereophile.com/reference/707heavy/index.html.

Footnote 2: See stereophile.com/content/measuring-loudspeakers-part-three-page-6.

Footnote 3: A woofer is omnidirectional at low frequencies, due to the fact that the wavelengths of the sound are much larger than the size of the baffle in which it is mounted. As the frequency rises to where the wavelength is of the same order as the baffle's dimensions, the radiation pattern becomes more directional. As more energy is now being projected in the forward direction, the on-axis response rises, which results in the upper-midrange output being higher than that in the lower midrange.

Footnote 4: My measured response is very similar to that measured by Paul Miller for Stereophile's sister magazine Hi-Fi News.

COMPANY INFO
Franco Serblin/Laboratorium
Via Riviera Berica 628 p/1
Vicenza
Italy 36100
sales@axissaudio.com
(866) 295-4133
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
georgehifi's picture

Would be nice if when it was designed not to have that the two octave canyon dip centered at 300hz to see what it would sound like with a flatter FR instead of having to EQ it up +5db, and while at it a little also at 2khz, they "look" like they should measure better than that.

Cheers George

laxr5rs's picture

These are beautiful. Too bad they measure horribly.

JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

"Additionally, a convincing sense of scale and power belied these loudspeakers' compact dimensions. The musical performance was highly expressive—at times near heartstopping. Here was a seductive recreation of a shimmering acoustic space with image depth in spades, extending way beyond the confines of my room. Not one of my listeners dared speak until the conclusion. Microdynamics were state of the art and beautifully nuanced. I could not stop listening to these loudspeakers and expended many more days than I anticipated. There was a dynamic expression and naturalness to the midrange akin to a full-range electrostatic."

laxr5rs's picture

But, but... such prose! heh Those are not results. Those are words. I'd be glad to explain the inherent problems with human hearing system.

sinad_loverboy's picture

This cult of listening has to end. It's the tail wagging the dog. Every thinking man knows that measured performance, and measured performance alone, tells us what's worth buying and what's overpriced jewelry.

And who, other than effete snobs, give a hoot about what their speakers look like! My speakers that I built myself and cost $447.50 all in are made from MDF and vintage drivers salvaged from dumpster dives but they are better than anything reviewed here.

JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

your opinions should not be mandated throughout the audio world. In fact your opening statement is so inane as to be dismissed without a comment. But it was actually too jaw droopingly moronic to not get a response. I'm glad you have no style or cares for aesthetics. Enjoy your $447 speakers. Do you wear clothing that was purchased this century ? Do you drive your father's 1976 Pontiac? Sheesh a new level of moron descends to the comments section.

laxr5rs's picture

Aren't your spirited! Do you have anything of actual value to say regarding the topic that these speakers are super pretty, but measure horribly. Do you buy speakers just to look at them? I'll take good sound over looks any day, in exactly the same way that I'd rather date someone who is a fantastic person, but may not be a super model, rather than dating a vapid super model. Am I right? AM I RIGHT PEOPLE!?!?!?

prerich45's picture

I hate to say it, but you're only right in the sense of what another person views as "fantastic". Some may view a bigoted person as fantastic as they hold the same view points. To another person - they represent what's wrong in the world. The human paradigm is impossible to escape.

laxr5rs's picture

Luckily with something as unimportant as speakers, we have massive amounts of technology that has grown up over a century that allow us to actually measure quality, over and above the protest of the humans with hearing systems that did not evolve to test the objective quality of speakers. This is why when people emphasize the human element in speakers, you get opinions all over the place like religion. Ignoring modern speaker measurements by highly sophisticated modern measuring equipment - is like saying, "Evolution is false," or, "the Moon landing was faked." I want to add that I understand that the subjective is highly important in people's relationship to speakers and audio equipment. I like my speakers regardless of how they look and only care about performance because I'm a home recording tech head. Give me performance! Performance is - why I like them. That's my subjective reason liking speakers. But if someone has another reason and they emphasize what they hear, and what the speakers look like, or something else, then, that's their criteria, and they are welcome to it.

laxr5rs's picture

To satisfy the mocking dude who commented... about, I'm not sure what. You could spend several thousand dollars on perfect wood for them, and not change a thing about their sound quality. Maybe then the believers would be satiated? heh

beave's picture

The intentional irony of sinad's post flew way over your head, didn't it Johnny?

teched58's picture

When all the angry old guys who have more money than electronics knowledge are gone -- and I am sad to report that Johnny Thunders died in New Orleans 20 years ago -- who will post love notes to the makers of expensive but poorly measuring equipment?

sinad_loverboy's picture

We'd say it looks like a cat crawled up your pants and laid an egg.

Glotz's picture

Stupid gets the horns!

Yah, thanks for the troll, haters!

@sinad... You're out of your element. These speakers are leagues beyond that $450 pair you compared them to. Lol.

And the answer is you..! Your comments crawled up Thunders' sense of decency.

He's right.

laxr5rs's picture

That is a great statement. I'm going to borrow it if you don't mind. Let me give you the opposing response from the peanut gallery: "My 60 year old years are better than your super sensitive measuring equipment that measures down to within a billionths of an inch of the noise floor!" heheh

prerich45's picture

I've chased Sinad before and I've actually found it wanting due to my own deficiencies (hearing issues), mental sonic paradigms, and just plain taste. Measured performance for me - tells me if something is fundamentally broken. However when listening - I'm listening for pleasure, my personal pleasure. If I had "ruler flat" speakers (and I do have a pair that are not hooked up anymore), and a song sounds like garbage...that I've heard before...do I blame the sound engineer? Or can I blame the engineer - as he has determined what the recording will sound like? Although you say the cult of listening must stop...I'm saying it can't, because ultimately - people will like what pleases them. If someone served me a steak, cooked to what they deemed to "perfection" (medium rare), I'd send it back - because i like MY steak cooked medium, and my wife ...she likes the most difficult of all, medium well. A speaker can be "perfect" by the numbers, but if it doesn't give me personal pleasure - I'm sending it back.

Anton's picture

Sinadloverboy! That is the best ‘casting your line’ post of the year.

Quite the haul!

supamark's picture

it's the commenter formerly known as ChrisS (or something like that). content and style match. and yea, I'd give 'em an 8/10 on the troll.

ChrisS's picture

I'm still around.

But no dogs in this race. Or chickens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDrdZM1iGrc

justmeagain's picture

Reviewers fall in love with components, especially speakers, and then they measure....not so good. The human mind has tremendous influence over what we hear (and see, for that matter), so any quality ratings must be taken with a large grain of salt. We try to balance these factors, but often we fail. It's one of the things that make music reproduction interesting.

cognoscente's picture

this is (mainly) about "the look-and-feel". And you love it or you hate it. This is (mainly) about craftsmanship. A functional (art) object. Applied art.

you have a "highly recommended" products (which means worth considering, scores proportionally to its price, comparable to others in this price range), an "outstanding" product (which means above average) and an :editor's choice" product (with an excellent price-quality ratio, a bargain). So this here is average. You choose this mainly for the "look-and- feel" and not for the price-quality ratio. The ear wants something, the eye certainly does too.

hb72's picture

hmmm, developers say measurements are of course indispensable means in development. but the relationship between perceived quality and measurement erring from ideal is not at all a simple easy to overlook field.
on a different "note", the somewhat shaky f-response may or may not disturb; if it does, get an amp or streamer or dac with Dirac or similar and you are set. works for most people most of the time. having said that, that somewhat shaky f-response might be exactly that sort of deviation from the original, we (our ear/brain combo) might adapt to the quickest, long before you get used to the beauty (visual and audible).

prerich45's picture

Here,here...bravo!

sinad_loverboy's picture

Ears and brains are a mess. That's why we have test equipment that no human can match. So and so says so and so about a speaker. So What!

The fellas here in the comments know more about how to build good hi-fi than any reviewer and most of the clowns making overpriced garbage. Sometimes I wonder why these fellas in the comments don't just make hi-fi!

I come here to read the measurements and the comments. All the rest is just words.

georgehifi's picture

"You choose this mainly for the "look-and- feel" and not for the price-quality ratio. The ear wants something, the eye certainly does too."

You don't buy a Porche or Ferrari just for their looks, if they handle and go like a bag of ****
Same for expensive, great looking hiend audio, it's must sound/measure good too.
Cheers George

cognoscente's picture

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I'm more positive than negative about these speakers, they look great (and this is not sarcastic). I'm not going to buy them, my limit is 5k for speakers, and then the "editor's choice" type.

Oh yeah, I personally don't care about measurements in audio. That is mathematically "objective" . Listening, like experiencing music itself, is subjective. Everyone is looking for something different in music and sound. I trust my hearing (my "sound-taste") and my own judgment. I know what I'm looking for in sound. Measurements in audio says nothing about my taste, so I don't use them, for me they are pointless, but is my personal opinion, but hey, I'm just a layman and amateur.

You buy a Ferrari or Porsche or Bugatti certainly for the look-and-feel, but mainly for status / self-image and fear of death: "buy while you still can". But again this is just my personal opinion, nothing more. My truth is not your truth. Anyway I don't know where you live, but here you mainly standing or driving slowly in traffic jams. In the middle of nowhere you hardly have this problem I guess.

sinad_loverboy's picture

It's must measure good too!

Jau's picture

I am 72 years old, and all these comments make me remember a phrase from Advent loudspeakers in one of their brochures and catalogs in which when comparing the technical measurements and the sound of two identical speakers, I think I remember they said something like:
“If a microphone is installed to record our voice and we take two measurements, one speaking without any obstacle in front of us and the other placing a simple handkerchief a few cm in front of our mouth, the latter will have seen its frequency response altered but our ears will perceive the same sound in both". Would Henry Kloss have any knowledge when commenting on this?
Sorry if there is something inaccurate regarding what I think Advent said, perhaps my memory is failing me.
Apart from that, can the sound of a amplifier or loudspeaker with a distortion of 0.1% be worse than another with 0.01?

eriks's picture

Measurements reminds me of some Dynaudio speakers which were excellent at low level listening and detail. I find the impedance plot more curious though. The low impedance in the treble, given the tweeter, makes me wonder if a 2nd order low pass coil is missing a resistor. Not terrible results, but with some amps increasing impedance in the treble it may make these speakers quite tunable with the right amp.

georgehifi's picture

"I personally don't care about measurements in audio. That is mathematically "objective"."

All "good" equipment is designed, measured and tested with all the laws of electronics Ohms Law Kirchoffs Law and using test gear etc.

Any that haven't been built using these are just "voodoo products" stay well away from them, like those SR $400 "directional AC mains fuses" that Bussman 50c ones are just as good for an AC mains fuse etc etc.

Cheers George

Anton's picture

From the side, they kinda remind me of that guy listening to Maxell tape.

They look "windswept."

Very pretty.

PeterG's picture

Thanks for the great review, I appreciate you noting the speakers' obvious shortcomings as well as its strengths. As a current TuneTots owner and a B&W 805 alumnus, I'm big on stand-mount speakers. I often wonder if it is right to evaluate stand-mounts without using a subwoofer. Sure, it would introduce a huge new variable. But we know before we even plug any of these excellent speakers in that they will not deliver bass commensurate with their price level. Any serious listener without downstairs neighbors needs a sub, these should be reviewed with one.

EmmaHund's picture

"While sounding lovely on rock, including "Gravity" by Rickie Lee Jones (on CD), with no added hardness or cone "shout," the Goldberg does not quite deliver the punch and bassline drive required for a full rock experience."

'cone shout'??
Never heard of it. Can anyone explain what cone 'shout' means?

John Atkinson's picture
EmmaHund wrote:
'cone shout'??
Never heard of it. Can anyone explain what cone 'shout' means?

Also called "cone cry." Cone breakup modes or surround termination problems in the upper midrange can add a nasal coloration. The Franco Serblin speaker didn't suffer from this.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

EmmaHund's picture

Thanks for the explanation!

The excellent mid-bass from scanspeak (18W/8531G00 ?) is, among other things, designed to minimize break-up modes.

X