The REAL Problem of March Audio's Sointuva WG (Review, Measurements and Reinforcements with Klippel device)

[SDC]

Sounds like a typical high-end audio voodoo...

But thats what this fuss is all about, cable and torque.

 

[Postlan]

Sigh...

 

[MAB]

Sample B also had the binding post exposed.
Alan claims this was a QC mistake, but if so, did he 'mistake' the QC of two speakers in a row?

I can imagine missing the sealant on both speakers if they are being manufactured in pairs, and the manufacturing flow calls for putting the sealant on both pairs in the same step. Maybe he stepped outside and had a beer right before the sealing step and forgot!
Or, maybe he didn't know that using hollow binding posts on speakers requires the holes to be sealed after soldering. I found that out on my DIY journey building speakers.
No matter what the reason, the binding posts are a mistake. And not a very smart one.

 

[PeteL]

Sounds like a typical high-end audio voodoo...

Sounds like it but Purifi themselves admitted the issue. They are not exactly known of selling audio voodoo.

 

[FeddyLost]

The "disappointment" is more likely to be produced by this kind of reviews rather than the listening experience in itself: "stupid me, these speakers suck indeed!"

We don't know hearing ability of customer and his use case.
Maybe it would be some studio monitors chosen exactly because of their expected sonic properties and this distortion will induce some errors in EQing tracks?
Anyway, personally I will not be able to hear this distortion peak at real material at 86 Db-m.
PS: That's why I use measurement mic to be sure that all is OK.

 

[Billy Budapest]

From photos I've seen (many of them here) the March amps are a pretty tidy build inside. It would be surprising if the speakers couldn't reach that standard.

Agreed. Hope Alan takes the review to heart rather than brushing it aside.

 

[Universal Cereal Bus]

We should not be so quick to label people sock puppets.

Completely agree with this--so much so that there should probably be some bright-line forum rule to prohibit any public accusation of double/hidden identity. Airing sock (edit: puppetting) putting accusations publicly is incredibly toxic to the community and risks gatekeeping new members because any new member with a certain opinion could be a target.

Though sock puppetting is a real issue, it can and should be handled privately behind the scenes via discussion with moderators. Whatever marginal benefits can be gained by public accusations are vastly outweighed by their negative implications. @AdamG247 @amirm @BDWoody

 

[krabapple]

Thank you, but the question is simple, did the bolts where tighten before measuring?

Perhaps restating this in standard English would help.

 

[PeteL]

Perhaps restating this in standard English would help.

Thanks, yes I sometimes write a bit fast and english is my second language too. were tightened right?

 

[krabapple]

Do you mean "Were the bolts tightened before measuring?" ?

I'm really not sure, so I pose this as a question.

 

[cavedriver]

So I'm told that this thread is supposed to be the place to discuss Amir having banned Erin. Other people in this thread say to create a separate thread. What do people think? Like this post for a separate thread or reply with a blank or "here" if you want discussion in this thread.

 

[holbob]

Perhaps don't talk about and move on - like Erin.

 

[Toni Mas]

If I received a speaker that had distortion clearly audible in a YT video (the binding posts issue in this case) I would definitely be disappointed - even if it was practically inaudible at the listening position.

It seems that the intention of the reviewer is clear reviewing a defective unit...

Btw, i would not call distortion what seems to be a mechanical resonance, we dont know how persistent. Quite different phenomenons that the reviewer seems to mix in a quite confusing fashion...

 

[DualTriode]

The dumpster fire is fully lit, toss in the road kill and move on.

 

[samysound]

Do you mean "Were the bolts tightened before measuring?" ?

I'm really not sure, so I pose this as a question.

apparently the bolt torques were not altered by the owner or tester. see post by @Nuyes in response to my question:

Enclosure leakage mainly through the binding post appears to be the main issue.

Secondary thing was a resonance that was a lot worse in one speaker of the pair but fine in the second speaker. According to manufacturer this was inherent in the woofer frame and an email was shared from purifi to acknowledge this. Speaker Manufacturer claims they have proprietary way to mitigate this which seems to involve very specific mounting bolt torques. Here is where things get convoluted though. The speaker manufacturer claims the bolt torques were hanged by the 3rd party tester prior to testing. Third party tester claims they tested the speaker as is without altering anything and only began to modify the speaker after the poor test results were discovered

Question: has it been confirmed that the original owner of the speaker did not tighten the speaker mounting bolts in an effort to fix the speaker which was presumably noisy from the air leak???

"Of course.
The speaker owner sent me Sample A in complete 'unopened' condition from the moment I bought the speaker from March audio.

And I measured the speaker after waiting for several days in an environment of 25 degrees Celsius at room temperature and about 50% relative humidity.

(I'm a string player before a speaker lover, so I'm overly obsessed with room temperature/humidity control. And this helps with my speaker measurements.)"

 

[cavedriver]

Perhaps don't talk about and move on - like Erin.

I suppose I should have included a third option and made that to like the post to end the conversation where it stands and acknowledge that this is biased site that unreliably constrains its output according to the owner's whims. Really hoped that wasn't going to be the resolution. My preference would have been to see Amir explain why he thinks Erin is out to make a profit and Amir isn't. Amir has explained how little income benefit he has to make from this site, but his criteria for other reviewers doing this for money is flawed imho. I don't see people like Erin's making money at this. Tech Ingredients and others that get millions of hits on youtube, yes, but Erin's views aren't high enough for it to be more than a hobby.

 

[amirm]

I suppose I should have included a third option and made that to like the post to end the conversation where it stands and acknowledge that this is biased site that unreliably constrains its output the owner's whims. Really hoped that wasn't going to be the resolution.

Not wanting our site to be monetized by posters is not a whim. It is core to our mission and who we are. If this doesn't fit your whim, you are out if luck as no other forum does either.

 

[cavedriver]

Not wanting our site to be monetized by posters is not a whim. It is core to our mission and who we are. If this doesn't fit your whim, you are out if luck as no other forum does either.

Amir,

First, thank you for responding. I understand and agree with your goals. I just didn't agree that Erin's work passed the bar for monetized. I realize youtube can attach monetization advertising according to it's own algorithms and content owners may not be able to stop that, but I was getting at internet metrics that can reasonably estimate how much a content creator can get from their content and from what I can see Erin's not making much if any money from this. Again, with respect, I hope you will allow references and content from his reviews to continue to be shared and discussed here as I believe he is reasonably unbiased, much better than some of the content out there, and the inclusion enriches the site and (I hope) your goals.

Regards,
Frank

 

[Jasperous]

I don’t see any of the videos from either Erin or March Audio, they’re all set to private

 

[beren777]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?help/terms/ contains no mention of monetization. If it's a bright line, shouldn't it be specifically defined along with guidelines?

Am I at risk of a ban if I post a Youtube link because I might be accidentally helping someone else monetize ASR?