Franco Serblin Accordo Goldberg loudspeaker Martin's Measurements

Sidebar 3: Martin's Measurements

Basic measurements were undertaken to confirm the condition of these UK review samples and help coordinate with John Atkinson's full tech report on his US example. I checked the effect of the near-vestigial grille; I found little to note save errors of less than 1dB in the mid-treble from its addition, increasing to 1.5dB at 15kHz. I consider such changes negligible, as I could not reliably hear the effect. I think that is because the strand spacing is wider here than when I had previously encountered this design detail with a Sonus Faber design.

Consistency of output was very good both on and below axis, the latter consonant with the designed high-stand elevation. If you stand up, expect a loss of a few dB from 2–6kHz, heard as a mild dulling of the primary treble. For auditioning, please take a seat!

There was some diminution in axial output by 20kHz, here reading –3dB, but the output was otherwise flat to 16kHz marred only by a mild 2dB trough from 1.5kHz to 3.5kHz. This characteristic is often preferred, as it smooths the power transition from the over-the-crossover region. The primary frequency response from 400Hz to 15kHz measured very well, with a ±2dB uniformity in 1/3-octave analysis, ultimately leading to a deep if audibly harmless cancellation notch at 22kHz.

For a lateral 5° off-axis, the speaker again offers impressively uniform output from 200Hz to 16kHz ±2.5dB.

Sensitivity was measured at an average 87dB/2.83V/m, and the pair was seen to be well-matched. Off axis, the output was remarkably consistent, confirming excellent driver integration. Off-axis response begins to tail off beyond 9kHz.

Measured in room, with spatial averaging, the Accordo Goldberg achieved quite good bass reach, to 50Hz at –3dB and 40Hz at –6dB. Subjectively, the bass extended quite well to 40Hz in my large, open-plan room while avoiding any boominess. It was reflex-port–tuned to a low 41Hz with a sensibly overdamped alignment, in anticipation of some room gain at lowest frequencies. A moderate harmonic mode associated with the port was present at 800Hz, reading –18dB.

These results suggest that the bass output for this compact should be less critical of room placement than with other loudspeakers.—Martin Colloms

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