Description: 2.5-way, floorstanding speaker. Drive-units: 7" Kevlar-reinforced cone woofer, 7" plastic-cone mid/woofer; 7/8" (22mm) polyamide-dome tweeter. Crossover frequencies: 900Hz, 3.2kHz, Frequency range: 29Hz–25kHz. Sensitivity: 90dB/W/m. Nominal impedance: 8 ohms. Minimum impedance: 4.5 ohms.
Dimensions: 38" high (including spikes), by 7.5" wide by 12.5" deep. Weight: 46 lbs.
Price: $6495/pair (add $1000 for a premium finish).
Manufacturer: Spendor Audio Systems Ltd., G5 Ropemaker Park, South Road, Hailsham, East Sussex BN27 3GY, England, UK. Tel: (44) (0)1323-843474. Web: www.spendoraudio.com. US distributor: Bluebird Music Limited, 2299 Kenmore Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14207. Tel: (416) 638-8207. Fax: (416) 638-8115. Web: www.bluebirdmusic.com.
 | |||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||
COMMENTS
I appreciate the subjective reviews, but really look forward to the measurements. It's hard to compare different speakers (and other products) when different people reviewed them. Measurements, however, take away a significant amount of confusion and doubt.
I appreciate the subjective reviews, but really look forward to the measurements.
The D7's measurements are published in the April 2015 issue of Stereophile and are now appended to this Web reprint.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Quote: ...." Measurements, however, take away a significant amount of confusion and doubt."
Indeed, Stereophile's measurements can be very informative --and the magazines regular 'testers' no doubt can "interpolate" specific "data/readings" with subjective impressions.
Personally (with loudspeaker tests) I prefer to see a linear frequency response as wide as possible, but critically in the
50 Hz -to 5-KHz (preferably to 10-KHz) range.
LF loading is absolutely critical, preferring to see a damped (or over-damped) design.
With that said, I wonder if there is a distinguishable "measurement" differences between the PSB T-3, and KEF Reference -1's (same retail value) --and also one's I've auditioned side-by-side many times.
Quite simply, the (current) KEF Reference 1 is in a completely different league than the T-3's --the "subjective" impressions leave the PSB in the dust-bin. There is simply no comparing the PSB T-3 to the spectacular REF-1's (KEF).
Observing the construction details (not to mention million-dollar design investment of the KEF's)reveals impressive attention to (vital) details: Six-to-eight BOLTS, secure the drive-units to the (advanced) baffle board, while the impressive MF/HF driver itself is additionally secured (and strengthened)by a metal-plate (between driver and baffle-board) --again anchored my metal, threaded BOLTS !
(You'd think many/most similarly priced (and more expensive loudspeakers) also bolt the driver's to the enclosure --not so.)
Summarizing, test measurements are an essential tool, but so are design details (as described) that are almost NEVER examined or disclosed. Why ?
peter jasz
...I'm really tired of being treated like "Well-to-do Professional who knows Law / Medicine / whatever but baffled by technical mumbo-jumbo". Without seeing real measured values, I feel like I am being asked to part with cash based on a review writer's ability to write flowing prose and praise. I am in the market for new speakers at the moment - and I will do some listening tests - but my "candidate speaker list" selection should be based on more than just the most flowery -sounding reviews.
Listen to the current KEF Reference -any model.
Search over.
pj
Is the absence of measurements a blip, a permanent change to the format of loudspeaker reviews or perhaps something in between?
No, it's been going on for years. Some (paper)magazines will give you a full technical run-down with measurements as well - "HiFi News and Record Review" used to do that, no idea if they still do. IIRC "HiFi Answers" or "What HiFi" started this "pure subjectivity" trend back in the late 70s or early 80s.
Also remember that test equipment is DARN expensive, and people who know how to operate it even more so. So since the early 80s many magazines went the route of "Bombard the reader with enough pretty euphemisms and the advertisers will shower us with money" (increasing circulation is always the driving motivation).
The problem for me, being on the verge of shelling out the equivalent of (U.S.)$10,000 on a pair of speakers, is that I can no longer stomach the lack of actual measurement to back up however reasonable the claim of the author may be. Without it, it all becomes just one man's opinion :(
At current exchange rate these speakers are only $5,500. Only? Measurements in the lab are a part of the picture, I agree. But the part that matters is one's own ear and no measurement is going to make that much difference if you like the speakers. Outside of power handling capabilities I find measurements more than a bit obtuse, but to each their own.
In the twenty years I've been reading Stereophile, I have never seen a measurement acompanying his reviews. In a way, It's like a having a little, tiny "Absolute sound" subscription!
In the twenty years I've been reading Stereophile, I have never seen a measurement accompanying his reviews.
I don't routinely publish measurements of the products that are covered in our monthly columns. However, I do measure some of these products when I have the time and opportunity, even those reviewed by Sam Tellig. See, for example, www.stereophile.com/content/musical-fidelity-v90-dac-da-processor.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"I don't routinely publish measurements of the products that are covered in our monthly columns. However, I do measure some of these products when I have the time and opportunity...."
I think I can understand how columns are autonomous, and don't necessarily follow the same format as full articles/reviews. But what are the chances that a product covered in a column will also be given a "formal" review (and measured in the lab), without the review becoming redundant?
Whatever the reasoning for the current situation re: whether or not a product is measured, it seems unfair (and is certainly frustrating) that, as a reader, I am not able to get consistent and complete information about the different products that I read about. With different writers having different musical/acoustic preferences and writing styles, the technical measurements are the only thing that provides all these different pieces of equipment context, and an even playing field.
I believe I read that a speaker manufacturer (Magnepan? My apologies if I'm mistaken) has repeatedly declined to provide review samples because they don't agree with the magazine's testing protocols (or, to be more precise, their speakers don't "measure well"). That is certainly their prerogative, and readers of this magazine can make their own decisions in response.
But I believe that more effort should be put into lab testing all products that are given substantial coverage in the magazine. In my opinion, measuring only "some" of these products is not adequate, and unfair to the the manufacturers whose products went through the rigors of lab testing, regardless of the results--products with "good" measurements may not receive enough credit for their achievement, and products with "bad" measurements may be unduly punished because their peers avoided the tests.
Is it possible that a manufacturer can exploit Stereophile's practices, i.e., the columns' autonomy (and logistical difficulties in arranging for lab testing), to get a subjecive review published without fear of having its technical deficiencies exposed in a lab test?
I believe that more effort should be put into lab testing all products that are given substantial coverage in the magazine.
It comes down to resources. As I said, I try to measure some of the products that are covered in our columns, but it is impracticable to measure all such products. As was said in another comment, lab testing is time- and resource-consuming, which is why so many magazines and webzines don't do it at all. With Stereophile, we publish as many measurements as is possible within the constraints of budget and a monthly publishing schedule.
In my opinion, measuring only "some" of these products is not adequate, and unfair to the the manufacturers whose products went through the rigors of lab testing, regardless of the results--products with "good" measurements may not receive enough credit for their achievement, and products with "bad" measurements may be unduly punished because their peers avoided the tests.
That's a fair point.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
If you looking for measurement, you can see a very nice one in HI FI Critic magazine.
http://www.spendoraudio.com/Images/Spendor%20D7%20HiFi%20Critic%20Sept%202013.pdf
Thank you for the link to the technical review.
It's not as thorough or as descriptive as Mr. Atkinson's tests and descriptions. The product was most likely tested in a different location, with different equipment, and possibly different protocols. Still, this gives me and other readers a more complete picture of the speaker being reviewed.
Thank you.
To Stereophile: I'd much rather not have to go to different sources for different aspects of a review for every product that interests me. Please, please try harder to publish complete reviews.
John
Why doesn't Magnepan just use Sam's column to safely shield themselves from your evil measurements? That way, they can be happy and you can be happy!
I suspect Magnepan's concerns may be valid about how potential customers may interpret the standard set of Stereophile measurements of their door sized panel speakers. For example, how many manufacturers that have worked hard to get a flat bass response to within +/-X dB are comfortable with Stereophile showing a bass rise in the measured frequency response and their specifications appearing to be false? Despite JA's comments in the accompanying text I am pretty sure it is not going to stick with a fair few readers who have no interest in measurement techniques and the physics of sound.
That measurements with a review of their speakers would reveal proprietary design details. Now, they must mean "widely reveal," because a lot of manufacturers could do such measurements (and more) of Magnepan products on their own.
Magnepan must also mean "certain measurements," because their speakers have been reviewed within the half year in one of the British audio mags which did offer at least some measurements along with reviews.
Perhaps an alternate idea to yours of Magnepan being worried about how readers would interpret such measurements as we find in Stereophile would be that Magnepan is worried about how Stereophile's measurements are conducted.
Richard Vandersteen (among others) has voiced considerable skepticism regarding some of the measurements' procedures and findings in the past, as one example. But he said so openly in the Manufacturers' Comments after allowing one of the II series to be reviewed....
It would be interesting to know for sure.
One of the main reasons why I quit buying What-HiFi magazine back in the nineties was the lack of any objective measurements.
That’s one of the major assets of Stereophile, with all the (great) work made by John Atkinson.
Please don’t turn Stereophile into another (near) useless audio resource. It’s not like I don’t value the reviewers opinions (they’re actually fundamental), but without any kind of objective data it’s only that, one informed (but personal) opinion.
That’s great for a column article, but not so great for a review, imho.
Thank you for all your great work.
I agree! I really, really appreciate John Atkinson's measurements, plus they are always thoughtfully and insightfully explained to boot.
Bluebird Music has repeatedly said the D7s are the best speakers Spendor has ever made. We are more than willing to back up this claim by providing a pair of D7s to be measured and tested as you do in your regular reviews. You only have to say the word and we would be delighted to send a pair. Frankly, I would like to see how they measure too! - Jay Rein, Bluebird Music
We are more than willing to back up this claim by providing a pair of D7s to be measured and tested as you do in your regular reviews. You only have to say the word and we would be delighted to send a pair.
That's an excellent idea. I will publish a measurement follow-up of the D7 in the March or April 2015 issue. (It's too late for the February issue, which ships to the printer on Monday.)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Does Stereophile have plans to review the Spendor D9? Really interested in the new flagship.
Hi,
I had a pair of SPENDOR A9's until a year or two ago and liked them a lot except they needed a fair volume before the bass seemed to be at one with the rest of the music - well possibly still not quite "as one".
I am wrestling between the Spendor D7 and the new KEF R7 which sound rather good and look real pretty. Unfortunately the Spendor dealer is in another state so I can't listen to them before committing.
Any recent experience with these two speakers please?
Fig.4 Spendor D7, lateral response family made me guess that the speakers' in-room energy response has emphasis at 7 kHz. Stereophile's Spendor Classic SP100R2 and Spendor A7 measurements made me guess that 7 kHz bump was a character of the current Spendor speakers.
However, the Spendor D7 spatial average (A64 - I don't know what A64 means. I am just copying from the review. -) graph in 2013 Hificritic does not have the 7kHz bump.
Any thoughts on this discrepancy?
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns Features | |
Show Reports | |
Show Reports Latest News Community | |
Recommended Components Products of the Year Retired Blogs |
|
Shop Resources Subscriptions |
© 2022 Stereophile
