Göbel High End Divin Marquis loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Göbel Divin Marquis's frequency response in the farfield, and an Earthworks QTC-40 mike for the nearfield and in-room responses.

Usually, I measure loudspeakers in our backyard, weather permitting, or in our living room with the furniture pushed to the sides. This eliminates or moves back in time the reflections of the speaker's output. However, as this 330lb loudspeaker was too massive for me to move outside or upstairs, I had to do the quasi-anechoic measurements in my listening room. I slid one of the speakers forward so that it was aimed across the room's diagonal and was as distant as possible from the nearest sidewall. However, the proximity of room boundaries, the floor in particular, meant that even though I measured the Göbel's quasi-anechoic farfield behavior at 1m rather than my usual 50", I still had to aggressively window the time-domain data. This reduces the measurements' resolution in the midrange.

Göbel specifies the Divin Marquis's sensitivity as 92dB/W/m; my estimate was a little lower, at a still-high 89.5dB(B)/2.83V/m. The Divin Marquis's impedance is specified as 4 ohms with a minimum value of 3.4 ohms at 95Hz. The impedance magnitude (fig.1, solid trace) remains between 4 and 6 ohms for almost the entire audioband, with a minimum value of 2.9 ohms between 83Hz and 99Hz. The electrical phase angle (dashed trace) is generally low, but there is also a current-hungry combination of 5 ohms and a phase angle of –45° at 26Hz. I used the formula in a 1994 JAES paper by Eric Benjamin to calculate what UK writer Keith Howard has called the "equivalent peak dissipation resistance" (EPDR, footnote 1). The Divin Marquis has minimum EPDRs of 1.77 ohms at 25Hz and 1.53 ohms between 53Hz and 57Hz. Though the EPDR is close to 4 ohms in the midrange and treble, this Göbel loudspeaker will work best with amplifiers that are comfortable driving loads below 4 ohms.

1020GODMfig1

Fig.1 Göbel Divin Marquis, electrical impedance (solid) and phase (dashed) (2 ohms/vertical div.).

The Divin Marquis seemed extremely inert to the "knuckle rap" test. When I investigated the enclosure's vibrational behavior with a plastic-tape accelerometer, the only resonant modes I found were extremely low in level. Fig.2 shows the only one I found on the top panel, at 602Hz. Any modes on the side panels were even lower in level.

1020GODMfig2

Fig.2 Göbel Divin Marquis, cumulative spectral-decay plot calculated from output of accelerometer fastened to center of top panel close to rear (MLS driving voltage to speaker, 7.55V; measurement bandwidth, 2kHz).

The saddle centered at 25Hz in the impedance magnitude trace implies that this is the tuning frequency of the four ports, and the resultant minimum-motion notch in the woofer's nearfield output (fig.3, blue trace) lies at that frequency. The nearfield response of the ports (red trace) peaks between 20Hz and 60Hz, though I suspect that the measured output is contaminated by some crosstalk from the woofer. The ports' upper-frequency rolloff is clean overall, though two low-level peaks are visible between 400Hz and 600Hz. These peaks are also present in the woofer's high-frequency rolloff, and I could just hear them with the noise-like MLSSA signal when I drove the woofer and ports by themselves. There is the usual upper-bass boost in both the woofer and port outputs in fig.3, which are due to the nearfield measurement technique, which assumes the baffle extends to infinity in both lateral and vertical planes.

1020GODMfig3

Fig.3 Göbel Divin Marquis, anechoic response on tweeter axis at 1m, averaged across 30° horizontal window and corrected for microphone response with the nearfield responses of the midrange unit (green), woofer (blue), and ports (red), respectively plotted below 300Hz, 1kHz, and 600Hz.

The woofer crosses over to the midrange unit (fig.3, green trace) at the specified 140Hz; the farfield response of the midrange unit and tweeter, averaged across a 30° horizontal window (fig.3, black trace above 300Hz), is impressively even up to the top of the audioband. A small suckout is visible between 800Hz and 1.2kHz, as well as some small ripples in the response higher in frequency. This implies interference between the midrange unit's output and the reflections of its output. (The woofer was not connected for this measurement.) The geometry of the measurement setup meant that the reflection of the midrange driver's output from the floor—the closest boundary—arrived at the microphone approximately 3ms after the direct sound. The suckout must therefore be due to a reflection occurring earlier in time, perhaps from the edges of the wide baffle. But, given the evenness of the farfield response, this is probably of academic interest only.

Fig.4 shows the Göbel's horizontal dispersion, normalized to the response on the tweeter axis, which thus appears as a straight line. The geometrical limitations of my listening room meant that I could only plot the Divin Marquis's off-axis responses to 45° instead of my usual 90°. The horn-loaded tweeter offers wide dispersion up to 10kHz, and the contour lines in this graph below that frequency are relatively evenly spaced, which correlates with the stable stereo imaging I noted in my auditioning. In the vertical plane (fig.5), with the off-axis response again normalized to the tweeter-axis response, the Divin Marquis's balance doesn't change appreciably up to 10° above and below the axis. A suckout develops 15° above the tweeter axis at the upper crossover frequency of 1.6kHz, but this will only be heard by a listener standing close to the speaker.

1020GODMfig4

Fig.4 Göbel Divin Marquis, lateral response family at 1m, normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 45–5° off axis, reference response, differences in response 5–45° off axis.

1020GODMfig5

Fig.5 Göbel Divin Marquis, vertical response family at 1m, normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 15–5° above axis, reference response, differences in response 5–10° below axis.

Fig.6 shows the Divin Marquises' spatially averaged response in my room when they were driven by the Parasound amplifiers with AudioQuest cables. It is 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 × 18" high and centered on the positions of my ears. This tends to average out the peaks and dips below 400Hz that are due to the room's resonant modes. Even so, the Göbels still excite the lowest-frequency modes in my room, and a slight excess of energy can be seen between 500Hz and 800Hz. The in-room response is otherwise superbly even from the midrange through the mid-treble and smoothly slopes down above 6kHz, this due to the increasing absorption of the room's furnishings in this region. While performing these measurements, I noticed both that the responses at the listening position of the two Divin Marquises were closely matched in the midrange and treble and that the horn-loaded tweeter did indeed offer wide dispersion.

1020GODMfig6

Fig.6 Göbel Divin Marquis, spatially averaged, 1/6-octave response in JA's listening room.

The Göbels' in-room response is shown as the red trace in fig.7 but is overlaid with the spatially averaged responses of the two pairs of speakers that had preceded them in my room: the GoldenEar BRXes that I reviewed in September 2020 (blue trace) and the Vimberg Minos that I reviewed in April 2020 (green trace). While the small BRXes have a little more upper-bass energy than the two floorstanding speakers, their low frequencies roll off much faster, of course. The GoldenEars also have a similar peak in the upper midrange to the Divin Marquises, and both the BRXes and Minos have a little more mid-treble energy than the Göbels. Compared with the Divin Marquises, the GoldenEars have a little too much top-octave output in-room, the Vimbergs not quite enough.

1020GODMfig7

Fig.7 Göbel Divin Marquis, spatially averaged, 1/6-octave response in JA's listening room (red), of GoldenEar BRX (blue), and of the Vimberg Mino (green).

In the time domain, the Divin Marquis's step response on the tweeter axis (fig.8) indicates that the tweeter and midrange unit are connected in positive acoustic polarity. The decay of the tweeter's step smoothly blends with the positive-going start of the midrange unit's step, which implies optimal crossover implementation. The woofer is connected in inverted acoustic polarity. Its output arrives at the microphone after that of the midrange unit, but the smooth blend of its step with the decay of the midrange unit's step is disturbed by a reflection 1.5ms after the midrange unit's step. As above, this reflection is too early to be due to a floor bounce, but because of the presence of this reflection, interpreting the Göbel Divin Marquis's cumulative spectral-decay plot (fig.9) is difficult. However, this graph is relatively clean in the region covered by the tweeter.

1020GODMfig8

Fig.8 Göbel Divin Marquis, step response on tweeter axis at 50" (5ms time window, 30kHz bandwidth).

1020GODMfig9

Fig.9 Göbel Divin Marquis, cumulative spectral-decay plot on tweeter axis at 50" (0.15ms risetime).

The late Spencer Hughes, founder of Spendor, used to say that "big speakers can have big problems." The Göbel Divin Marquis may be one of the biggest loudspeakers I have had in my listening room, but its measured performance reveals that if it has any problems, they are minimal.—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.
COMPANY INFO
Göbel Audio GmbH
US distributor: Bending Wave USA
10404 West State Rd. 84, Suite 101
Davie, FL 33324
(954) 716-7407
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
georgehifi's picture

How's your back JA after having to shift these things and amps to drive them around for listening and measuring.

Cheers George

John Atkinson's picture
georgehifi wrote:
How's your back JA after having to shift these things and amps to drive them around for listening and measuring.

I am always careful with large, heavy amps and speakers: wearing a brace, keeping the weight close to me and my back straight, lifting with my knees etc. But these speakers almost did me in. I'm reviewing minimonitors for a while now, starting with the Bowers & Wilkins 705 Signatures in the December issue.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

jimsusky's picture

I seem to recall that Pearson - probably in his forties - had Frank Doris (once referred to as "Frank 'n' Doris) as a setup guy. A young(er) strong(er) back (or two) seems to be indicated.

invaderzim's picture

I'm looking forward to the B&W review.

Awsmone0's picture

I know you don’t normally do it, but these speakers measure so well I wonder what their distortion is like ?

John Atkinson's picture
Awsmone0 wrote:
I know you don’t normally do it, but these speakers measure so well I wonder what their distortion is like?

I only investigate distortion when the listening has suggested that there is something wrong. The half-step/semitone-spaced tone bursts spoke very cleanly with this speaker, with no audible "doubling"" - second harmonic distortion - even at high playback levels.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

tonykaz's picture

350 lbs each ? Egads.

How old did you say you are ?

On top of all your other superlatives, you can heft 150 Kilograms without damaging the darn things.

I'd have thought Linn Isobariks would be over the top.

Did you get paid Milwright Scale ? ( about $65/hr )

Well, I guess, you can now accept those big MBLs with all their electronics. ( single handedly )

and...

no more weakling excuses from fragile review staff. Hmph!

I have an elevator in my new Florida Home, I could handle 600 lb. loudspeakers ( although I'm not going to contemplate it )

Dear John Atkinson,
I imagined you drifting into the Lazyboy but you continue to surprise & impress, just like all these long Decades past.

Thank you,

Tony in Venice

ps. I could suggest a nice little electric Hi-Lo with a 4,000 lb. capacity.

Ortofan's picture

... presently on sale (in the walnut finish) for $14K - down from $20K.

In his review, JA1 characterized them as exhibiting "a neutral, uncolored midrange; weighty but well-defined lows; sweet, smooth highs; and superbly secure, stable soundstaging."

If, as JA1 concluded, "I very much enjoyed my time with the KEF Reference 5" and the "KEFs gave me all I need for musical and sonic satisfaction", then what more might the Göbel speakers offer that would justify their purchase at 4-5 times the price of the KEFs?

funambulistic's picture

... by JA1 back in January (maybe again somewhere else - I did not look at all of his reviews): "It's been a long time since I had the big KEFs in my room, and value, of course, is in the ears of the listener."

Why do you keep asking the same question?

Ortofan's picture

... to make it more general.

Suppose that you already enjoyed listening to a given pair of speakers and found that they gave you all you needed for musical and sonic satisfaction. Are those speakers still lacking in some regard? If so, what then might you possibly expect a much more expensive pair of speakers to offer that would justify their purchase?

Is that better?

Anton's picture

I think the answers to your questions are completely up to you!

These are beyond my reach. Plus, they lack a rear firing tweeter (or 'ambience' tweeter on the MBLs,) so they aren't quite in the front rank yet.

Without a rear firing tweeter, the speaker will rank down there with the Tidal Audio Akira or Marten Coltrane 3.

Until they get those rear firing drivers, Von Schweikert, Wilson, and MBL will rule.

Ortofan's picture

... deemed to be an essential feature of any speaker, ought we to conclude that you would reject a product such as the Dutch & Dutch 8c, cited below by the "anonymous internet troll" as something of a high-performance speaker engineering paradigm?
KR found listening with them to be a "pure delight" and JA1 summed up their measured performance with one word: "Wow!"

MhtLion's picture

They are clearly a beast of speakers.

dial's picture

What preamp did you use with the Linn ?

John Atkinson's picture
dial wrote:
What preamp did you use with the Linn?

Channel D Seta L (followup review in the November issue) feeding the Ayre A/D converter at 24/192. (Don't tell Mikey!)

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

invaderzim's picture

"and I decided to wait until the next day"

That is some real self control. That is like seeing the present under the tree on Christmas and then going "maybe after dinner tonight I'll play with it"

Shangri-La's picture

Is it due? Been refreshing the page all day lol.

John Atkinson's picture
Shangri-La wrote:
Is it due? Been refreshing the page all day

The October issue's Recommended Components will be posted to the website next week.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

Shangri-La's picture

Thank you John. The list is what I most look forward to every 6 months. Cannot wait :-)

dial's picture

Channel D Seta L (followup review in the November issue) feeding the Ayre A/D converter at 24/192. (Don't tell Mikey!)

I won't of course, there's a volume knob somewhere ?

John Atkinson's picture
dial wrote:
there's a volume knob somewhere?

I set the A/D converter's level control so that the LP signal peaks around -6dBFS, then adjust volume with the PS Audio DAC's control.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

dial's picture

Now I understand (at last !). Thanks ! The divin marquis was Sade, wasn't it ?

MatthewT's picture

"It’s a refreshing approach, particularly considering that - contrary to popular opinion - listening is not the best way to judge how well a speaker/monitor reproduces the source material."

Stereophile could save a considerable amount of ink if all they published were specs and measurements. I'd rather read about how it sounds, thanks.

JimboJumbo's picture

I stand by that comment.

The ears tell you what sounds nice and not so nice.

But sounding nice isn’t necessarily retrieving/reproducing the (source) information faithfully.

Sounding nice doesn’t tell you how wide/symmetrical the BL curve is.

Measurements are far more revealing about how well a speaker is designed than simply listening alone.

And the reason for that is;

A) A speaker can measure quite poorly, retrieve information poorly, but still sound nice.

B) 2 different speakers in the same room can sound more similar than the same speaker in different rooms.

There's a reason that each transducer that gets designed by a reputable driver manufacturing organization has about 20 - 30 engineering parameters attached to it.

And a part of that reason is because it’s not rigorous/good enough to design a transducer, listen to it, say it’s nice, and leave it at that.

That’s how mistakes creep into the design approach.

Ideally you want to do both; test and listen.

Jim Austin's picture

Jim, do you have an industry affiliation? If so, you must identify yourself and your affiliation. House rules.

Let me encourage everyone in this thread to be respectful. This is a completely appropriate topic, so far managed fairly well, but in the past similar discussions have become heated and personal.

Indeed, ideally you want to do both: Test and listen. Or perhaps, listen and test.

One thing I feel quite strongly about, and have often stated: The purpose of hi-fi is music delivery. It is reasonable to measure ultimate success in human terms: by how effective the system/component is in delivering music's emotional message. Measurements may or may not be a decent proxy for this. But the notion that one should prefer a system that measures well but leaves one cold over one that is engaging but measures poorly--well, that's a difficult position to defend. Are we defective if we respond more strongly to a component that measures poorly? I think not.

One can argue that a system that measures well should be more successful at delivering music's message than one that measures poorly. Certainly it's a reasonable premise. But it's a case that must be made, not merely assumed.

Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile

AaronGarrett's picture

I agree that the purpose of audio equipment is to communicate music, and that measurements clearly don't tell you everything. I also agree with Michael Lavorgna that people should be able to like what they like. But I do take measurements as or more seriously than my ears in some cases because I'm interested in how the audio equipment will reproduce sounds I've never heard before. And I don't want the system to make it sound like something I already respond to emotionally if it's not intended to sound that way. I could, and have, responded emotionally to new music precisely because it is allowed to sound really different (I'm thinking in particular of electronic music).

JimboJumbo's picture

That is a reasonably good position to hold.

So, is the fact that for the price the Gobel loudspeakers demand, the manufacturer could have done a much better job where it counts; the design stages including in the time domain.

JimboJumbo's picture

Hi Jim,

Whilst I have contracted out (at arm’s length) to some organisations the fact remains that I don’t have any industry affiliation at the moment.

I am fully aware of the sensitivities associated with raising a (valid) discussion that points out how poorly equipped the human ear and cognitive system is when it comes to; (i) evaluating the distortion figures of an amplifier and/or loudspeaker with precision; and (ii) comparing (the human ear and cognitive system) with a typical set of bench tests whose objective is to achieve point “(i)”.

That is why I raised the subject within the context of information retrieval and what sounds nice.

As, Hi-Fi is usually more interested in what sounds pleasing to the ear, as opposed to what is an accurate electroacoustic representation of the source material.

And, there’s nothing wrong with that as most Hi-Fi enthusiasts (understandably) don’t want to spend thousands of dollars on a loudspeaker that might make music sound unappealing - yet that is precisely what the manager of a recording studio will want if making the music sound unappealing is in itself an accurate representation of the source material.

And, it is with my last/above sentence that I defend how/why one might (to borrow your words) prefer a system that measures well but leaves one cold - in comparison to a loudspeaker that is engaging but measures poorly.

That discussion sits right at the coalface of the perceived disparity between Pro-Sound and Hi-Fi.

Personally, I think you might downplay the importance/relevance of measurements, but that is your right to take that view.

In my experience I am yet to see any reputable Hi-Fi or Pro-Sound loudspeaker manufacturer arrive at a decent performing 3 way design without using engineering design principles, measurements, and testing; and this is one reason why there are 20 - 30 engineering/electroacoustic parameters associated with almost ever transducer that is manufactured.

Listening alone will not reveal how well the electromagnetic circuit and/or the suspension of the transducer is designed; with any kind of reliable precision.

Furthermore, it will not tell you how well that transducer is integrated into the remaining system either; with any kind of reliable precision..

Also, I am yet to see any reputable Hi-Fi or Pro-Sound loudspeaker manufacturer arrive at a decent performing 3 way design via listening alone.

Whereas it is not uncommon to solely rely upon measurements and testing (no listening) right up until, say, some of the final design stages.

As such I feel quite comfortable in my views of how much weight should be placed upon listening and measurements/testing.

Put simply, even though both listening and measurements/testing is better than just one of them individually, a manufacturer won’t know (where their ROI is heading and/or) whether the levels of performance (including distortion and/or time-smear) are acceptable for the market they're competing in if all they do is listen.

And, I suspect that is why Sterophile take the time/effort to do the tests/measurements that they do.

Finally, I stand by my comments about how benevolent Mr. Atkinson was to the 3 way system Gobel presented. I am at a loss as to how he found the tweeter’s cumulative spectral decay graph to be relatively clean from 1.6Hhz - 20Khz.

Thanks for your post.

Kind regards.

Jim.

JHL's picture

"Gobel spent very little meaningful time/budget on the design of their 3 way system ensuring that their speaker had accurate time coincident behavior"

I'm not sure that's evident. I believe the treble driver's substantial physical setback makes alignment all but assured to the driver below it, which is the only place such depth would be meaningful concerning time.

Put another way, what do you base your speculation on? I'm also not aware of any attendant requirement the design *be* time-coherent, or did I miss something in the article?

JimboJumbo's picture

Hi JHL,

Not only is it (in my opinion) wrong to assume all that you have stated.

JHL - “I believe the treble driver's substantial physical setback makes alignment all but assured to the driver below it, which is the only place such depth would be meaningful concerning time”.

But also, doing so merely reveals the value of testing and how easily measurements/testing is misunderstood.

Contrary to your claims, alignment is not all but assured (by the treble driver's substantial physical setback) and this is a fact that is revealed by the step response test (figure 8) Mr. Atkinson performed.

That (step response) result alone - let alone when combined with the cumulative spectral decay plot - indicates that;

A) The entire set of transducers (tweeter, mid, and bass) are all poorly integrated in the time domain. (I’m not going to explain the virtues of why time coherency is relevant to speaker design, as that subject already has acres of web-space devoted to it).

B) The time smear between the tweeter and mid-range driver is considerably greater than, say, that of the Golden Ear Triton Reference (and/or the below-mentioned Dutch & Dutch). Yet the Golden Ear Triton Reference costs hundreds of thousands of dollars less than the Gobel.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/goldenear-technology-triton-reference-loudspeaker-measurements

C) The time smear and/or time-delay between the tweeter and woofer is not only almost appalling - but also has not been saved by the physical set back you refer to.

Furthermore, one of the reasons why the tweeter horn is as recessed as it is (it’s not solely to try an offset the shortfalls of a passive crossover design) is because of the (reasonably low) upper cut-off frequency of the mid range driver (which looks very much like a Pro-Sound Lavoce driver). I suspect the AMT tweeter would not match the dispersion characteristics of the midrange driver and the tweeter at their crossover frequency if the tweeter was not loaded with a horn/waveguide that provides some pattern control.

Although there are other design issues associated with the Gobel than that mentioned here it would not surprise me to learn that some of the tweeter’s questionable performance as shown by the cumulative spectral decay plot is associated with both its crossover and the tweeter BW being too wide.

For the purposes of clarity please see Stereophile’s test/measurements of Dutch & Dutch’s 8c Active Loudspeaker.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/dutch-dutch-8c-active-loudspeaker-system-measurements

The Dutch & Dutch 8c Active Loudspeaker is far superior (at least in terms of information retrieval and resolution) to the Gobel.

Furthermore it exhibits a near perfect step response and a far better cumulative spectral decay plot.

So, the question then becomes; if the Gobel 3 way is the product of a rigorous design approach then how can the Dutch & Dutch 8c Active Loudspeaker (and also the aforementioned Golden Ear Triton Reference) outperform it (particularly in the time domain) whilst costing a sum of cash that is exponentially less?

Kind regards,

Jim.

JHL's picture

...but incorrect. The facts are self-evident:

There is no requirement whatsoever that impulse perfect response is a benchmark of the vast majority of speakers on the market. Efforts, however objectively questionable they may be, to remove both time and phase perfection from speaker design have been far more popular of late than have any to make either or both a requirement. S'Phile alone has an entire library of measured responses that demonstrate this rejection beyond any doubt. This speaker is absolutely no different.

Second, the speaker in this review could just as easily use a standard, non-time-coincident filter to the tweeter, giving it that familiar non-coincident response. The drivers are physically aligned far better than most, the crossover is not, and this is *entirely* customary. Again, see S'Phile's library.

Nothing in the above whatsoever reveals a flaw, and it certainly does not indicate shoddy design.

Neither the waveguide angle or the crossover filter would strictly affect the CSD - CSD of such tweeters can look like that regardless.

A completely competent, typical, and high performance speaker such as this *obviously* can never be compared to an active speaker using measures only active speakers deploy to perfect time performance.

The entire armchair argument is specious and uninformed. If you're going to continue with it you'll have to apply it to virtually all passive speakers. To single out one is preposterous.

Incidentally, your rhetoric above takes liberties. The use of "nice" as a sly pejorative on presumably design-casual sound, and the foregone assumption that hifi is fundamentally fraught with it are obvious fallacies and indicate a bias not at all borne out in technical data across the speaker field. The whole presumption smacks of handwaving and showmanship the kind of which comes from inadequate objectivity and technical chops. This too crashes to the ground with the other unfounded assumptions, which are technically wrong on their face, and the argument looks more and more like a drive-by hit and not a technical analysis, which we see it isn't.

JHL's picture

...to other arguments that do not follow:

1. It is surely not incumbent on the measuring protocols whether a speaker exhibit impulse-correct response or not. That one in fifty designs exhibit impulse-correct response is obviously not an argument against measuring impulses of the other 49 that do not. In fact, without testing for the step response we will never know either type from the other!

2. Conflating the technician's language about optimal crossover design - that regarding both types - with his language about impulse response is fallacious. They're two different things and two different designs. Obviously optimal crossover design is found in both types, as every PhD of electroacoustics must know and S'Phile tests the step for nearly every speaker, regardless.

3. Here again, what an *active*, DSP-corrected speaker evidences in the step has absolutely no bearing on the steps of the sea of *passive* (or active) designs that do not step the same, they being seen almost uniformly in the industry as optimal but yet conventional designs.

4. A design is therefore not flawed by dint of an imperfect step. Opinions may vary, but there is no standard whatsoever wholly in favor of impulse-correct steps.

5. Highpass filters are attenuation devices that contain a combination of band-limiting and attenuation. No aspect of their behavior, save for a potential narrow lift in both amplitude and CSD responses indicating non-flat amplitude, which is not seen in the Gobel's very linear response through the roughly 2kHz crossover region, can possibly add to CSD in any general sense evident in the visible data. In fact, such limiting and attenuation almost universally *lowers* CSD hash. Whether the tweeter intrinsically exhibits CSD, which all must, is a completely different matter that obviously falls outside of filter design. (Furthermore I strongly doubt that the amplifier has much of any control over a weak field, surface driven, low impedance tweeter with minimal resonance, those characteristics being reasons to use the film driver in the first place. Current delivered from a good amplifier will be load invariant as well. There is therefore virtually no argument, from armchair distance and in this example, that validates that this speaker's filters are faulty. From what I can see, quite the opposite, which JA noted.)

6. Because of all this, these typically displayed CSD and impulse behaviors - together with amplitude behaviors which together all convolve mathematically - in no way indicate faulty filter design per se, and certainly in no way support the assumption that because impulse response does not step perfectly the speaker is shoddily designed. That would be another specious, backwards-forward argument.

JumboJimbo's picture

Hi JHL,

Other then what I write here I am not going to respond to each/every utterance within your lengthy post as it is obvious to me that you’re

A) Posts on this subject amount to a zero sum argument.

B) Introduce more oversights than they resolve - all whilst overlooking those oversights that came before it that were authored by yourself.

C) Shooting from the hip.

D) Not objective; and instead are subjective and emotional.

I have made my point and it does not bother me whether someone that authors the oversights you do disagrees with me or not.

As they say you can take the Donkey to water but you can't make him drink.

Stay thirsty then my friend.

I am comfortable with what the science and my experience tells me.

If you do want to have a professional debate and are prepared to address your oversights then please let me know and I may reconsider.

Take care.

Jim

JHL's picture

...That's just gaslighting. You can call a pig an airplane, cite the science you wish were associated, declare victory, and ride off in a cloud of hubris but the points have been addressed probably more than any reply in the thread. Spare me the transparent appeal to great wisdom as yet not bestowed.

They are, point by point by point, *exactly* per your rather unfounded assertions.

tonykaz's picture

You are a Pro-Audio , are you not?

and... you have something to say with the ability to say it.

I would value your opinions on Formats if you dare go there.

Thank you for your insights, so far.

Tony in Venice

ps. I too am an engineer

JimboJumbo's picture

Hi TIV,

I am probably more pro sound than Hi-Fi.

But that’s not to say I don't appreciate a well designed Hi-Fi speaker.

So long as the design is good and it performs well; I’m in.

I do believe that active monitors - when designed properly - offer way too many advantages over passive to ever meaningfully go back to playing with cables and bi-amping.

Cheers.

tonykaz's picture

I prefer Active Designs.

However...

Audiophiles have DIY, Neurotic, Psychotic and Insecurity spiced buyer's remorse Syndromes.

So, this Germanic fellow builds transducer systems for a tiny group of admirers with Stereophile giving us something to ponder and talk about. He gets to join Goldmund and the other pricy exotics exhibiting at Munich.

Tony in Venice

ps. what will these devices sell for on eBay, in 10 years? ( presuming the outfit is still in business and replacement drivers are still available )

ps 2.) Cheers ? are you a Brit?

JimboJumbo's picture

Hi Tony,

Who knows what they’re going to be worth in 10 years?

It’s probably safe to say that whomever buys them will not know too much about what measurements mean.

Because if you did then that should set the spider sense tingling whenever the Gobels are associated with a price that’s over $10K - $15K.

There are plenty of 3ways out there that perform and will sound - if not better than the Gobels - then just as good.

That said, they do look imposing/nice.

To your question; no, I am not a Brit.

Cheers,

Jim.

Jim Austin's picture

>>It’s probably safe to say that whomever buys them will not know too much about what measurements mean.

No, that's not safe at all. Consider: On the one hand, we've got a 50-year veteran of the hi-fi industry who has been measuring loudspeakers for the majority of that time, and who was selected by the Audio Engineering Society to deliver their 2011 Heyser lecture--three years after Floyd Toole won the honor.

John concludes, about the Divin Marquis, "If it has any problems, they are minimal."

On the other hand we have an anonymous Internet troll.

So who are we to trust?? Especially in light of the fact that many of your statements, while made to sound authoritative, are inconsistent with even a technical--let alone musical--understanding of what makes good sound.

I believe in open discussion, but I cannot continue to allow an anonymous poster to denigrate good people and good products. Cut it out or be banished.

Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile

cgh's picture

Having spent my share of hard-earned money on hi-fi gear, modulo the logarithmic utility of my personal dollar, I know it's a fool's errand to equate a dollar of today's investment with x% of tomorrow's potential sale price. It's probably safe to say that hi-fi depreciates much like cars. I have a closet's worth of speakers and amps, all well-known names. I know I am allocating enough capital to my current rig because I don't feel the need to re-coup 30 cents or so on the dollar trying to re-sell. Of course there are less risk-averse people than myself, and to each their own, but I think it's safe to say, especially in modern times, that if you care deeply about investment return or re-sale value of hi-fi or recent purchases, that perhaps you should just keep that money in the bank, or buy a lesser model.

That being said, good thing there's still new speakers being made to talk about. It's not like people are in this business for the money.

p.s., anyone want to buy some focals, wilsons, cary monoblocks, or a shindo?

MatthewT's picture

Good! Popcorn at the ready...

Anton's picture

The more I see them, these speakers bear a startling resemblance to 70s and 80s boombox speakers...

Picture these as 18 inches tall and connected to a tuner/cassette/8 band equalizer section between them and it becomes uncanny.

Perhaps they could even flank one of those 'stereo stacks' from the early 80s that came with the stand included.

popluhv's picture

Anton, now that you point it out I can't un-see it!

remlab's picture

It measures pretty damn well compared to a lot of other ultra expensive speakers from boutique manufacturers(Like Goldmund). I was expecting much worse.

MikeP's picture

These are the best kept secret very few have heard yet !

https://www.nsmt-loudspeakers.com

X