Göbel High End Divin Marquis loudspeaker Page 2

I had emailed Oliver Göbel a diagram of my room, and he was confident the Divin Marquises would work well in it. I ended up with the woofer of the left-hand Marquis 37" from the LPs that line the nearest sidewall, the right-hand loudspeaker's woofer 34" from the bookshelves that line its sidewall. The woofers were 88" from the wall behind them. This was a little farther out than I wanted, but I couldn't place the speakers any closer to the wall due to the two stairs and raised platform behind the right-hand Marquis that led to the vestibule. The speakers were 120" from the position of my head. Once the speakers were optimally placed, I removed the Delrin coasters and the plastic strips that locked the feet's suspensions.

I started my serious listening with the speakers driven by the Parasound Halo JC 1+ monoblocks that I reviewed in the June 2020 issue. The source was first a PS Audio DirectStream processor, then the latest version of MBL's N31 CD player/DAC, both fed audio data over my network from my Roon Nucleus+ server and controlled with the Roon app.


The review samples had two sets of binding posts to allow biwiring, but I single-wired the speakers with my regular AudioQuest K2 cables, using jumpers made from short lengths of Göbel's Lacorde Statement cable to connect the woofer and midrange/tweeter binding posts.

A common mistake made by audiophiles is to choose loudspeakers that are too large for their room. In a small room, the low-frequency room gain with a big speaker can exaggerate the bass to the point that the music is messed with. (I first experienced this phenomenon when I visited the founder and editor of The Absolute Sound, Harry Pearson, in 1985. Harry was using the enormous, floor-to-ceiling Infinity IRS IIIs, and while his listening room was not that small, the bass produced by the twin IRS subwoofer towers made me feel that my chest was being crushed.)

Fortunately, while its lows were indeed weighty, the Divin Marquis passed this test. It reproduced the 1/3-octave warble tones on my Editor's Choice CD (Stereophile STPH016-2) with good weight down to the 25Hz band, though the 63Hz, 50Hz, and 31.5Hz warbles were somewhat exaggerated by the lowest-frequency modes in my room. The 20Hz band was only just audible at my usual listening levels, with no chuffing coming from the ports, but this is definitely a full-range loudspeaker. The half-step–spaced low-frequency tonebursts on Editor's Choice spoke cleanly down to 32Hz, with only a slight emphasis of any of the tones with frequencies below 80Hz. When I listened to the speakers' panels with a stethoscope while these tones played, I couldn't hear any vibrational modes on any of the panels other than the name plate on the speaker's rear; despite its size, the Marquis's enclosure is effectively nonresonant.

After the minimonitors that I usually listen to, the support given recordings by the Divin Marquises' extended low frequencies was a delight throughout my auditioning. The deep organ notes at the climax of Philip Ledger's performance of Franck's Chorale No.3 in A minor (24/192 AIFF needle drop from Organ Music from King's College, HMV HQS 1356) were reproduced with seemingly limitless power.

And although the speakers' lows sounded weighty, this was not achieved at the expense of definition. My Fender bass guitar on the channel identification and phase tracks on Editor's Choice sounded as well-defined as I have heard, as did the dropped-octave synth bass notes on "The Trader," from the Beach Boys' Holland (24/192 AIFF needle drop from Brother/Reprise K54008). The sampled kickdrum in "Fit Song," from Cornelius's Sensuous: la musique de 21° siècle (ALAC files ripped from CD, Warner Japan EVE016) had both impact and weight.


Higher in frequency, the dual-mono pink noise track on the Editor's Choice CD sounded too dull if I slumped in my seat but was uncolored and smooth when I sat upright so that my ears were level with the centers of the Divin Marquises' tweeters. I did feel that there was a slight emphasis at the very top of the midrange but assumed that this would disappear as the speakers continued playing. The central image of the noise signal was stable, with no splashing to the sides at some frequencies, but not quite as narrow as I experienced with the GoldenEar minimonitors I reviewed in September.

After a week's listening, with the speakers fully broken in, their balance still seemed a little forward in the upper midrange. As I was already using Göbel's Lacorde Statement jumpers to single-wire the Divin Marquises, I replaced the AudioQuest K2s with 3m lengths of Lacorde Statement cables. The midrange-to-treble transition now sounded even, but the new cables unmasked a touch of mid-treble emphasis. Replacing the Parasounds with Lamm M1.2 Reference monoblocks, used with their output-stage bias set to "1–6 ohms," resolved that issue, but the top octaves now sounded a touch too sweet. I went back and forth between the two pairs of amplifiers throughout my auditioning.

It is always easier to describe "how much" a speaker delivers than to put that into a musical context. The Göbel loudspeakers were chameleons. They sounded small when appropriate, as with Chris Thile's transcriptions for mandolin of Bach's Sonatas and Partitas for Violin, Vol.1 (16/44.1 AIFF, Nonesuch 5353602) but massively powerful when the recording called for it, as with Joe Walsh's "Rocky Mountain Way" (24/192 AIFF needle drop from a 12" 45rpm single, ABC ABE 12002).

My ears frazzled by giving in to the temptation to play Joe Walsh as loud as the Göbels would allow without strain, I gave them a rest by cueing up Leonard Shure's performance of Schubert's Piano Sonata in B-flat, D.960 (24/96 ALAC, released on LP as Audiofon 72010). Peter McGrath recorded this performance in analog in 1982, and it has been in constant rotation since he gave me the 24/96 digital transfer a few years back. The piano's left-hand register sounded suitably majestic, its upper frequencies delicate when called for. Peter had placed his microphones relatively close to the piano; there is therefore only a slight hint of hall sound with this recording, but the Divin Marquises were sufficiently transparent to make me aware of it.


I returned to Chris Thile with a recommendation from Jason Victor Serinus, another album of Bach transcriptions, this time played by Thile on mandolin with Yo-Yo Ma on cello and Edgar Meyer on double bass (Bach Trios, 24/96 AIFF files, Nonesuch/HDTracks). I played "Wachet Auf," a work I've known inside out since playing the obbligato on violin at a school orchestra concert in the early 1960s. Thile plays the obbligato with appropriate delicacy, and Edgar Meyer plays the walking bass line pizzicato; the lowest notes were nicely fleshed out by the Göbels but without any boom: There was no indication that these are big loudspeakers with big woofers.

Bach led naturally to Beethoven, specifically a new recording of the Sixth Symphony, the "Pastoral," from the Akademie für Alte Musike Berlin led by concertmaster Bernhard Forck—no conductor! (16/44.1 FLAC, Harmonia Mundi/Tidal). As I was expecting, the thunderstorm in the fourth movement was reproduced in full measure by the Divin Marquises. But it was the unexpectedly delicate way in which these speakers got right the country-dance character of the third movement, the bassoon punctuations in particular, that impressed. And the glorious restatement of that I-vi-IV-V chord sequence—so overused since Beethoven's time (footnote 1)—at the end of the finale rocked my world on the Göbel speakers.

Full range, low distortion, no coloration: The thoroughbred performance of the Divin Marquis confirms that Göbel High End presents serious competition to the Wilsons, Magicos, Rockports, Tidals, von Schweikerts, and YG Acousticses of the cost-no-object loudspeaker world. I am going to miss the Göbels when they go back to the distributor, and I am not looking forward to packing them into the flight cases and maneuvering them up the steps to my vestibule.

Footnote 1: The dominant earworm that uses this clichéd sequence is Hoagy Carmichael's "Heart & Soul." Click on the link at your peril!
Göbel Audio GmbH
US distributor: Bending Wave USA
10404 West State Rd. 84, Suite 101
Davie, FL 33324
(954) 716-7407

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 )


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

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.


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


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.


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.


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,


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


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.


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


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.


tonykaz's picture

I prefer Active Designs.


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.



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

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 !