Adam A4V Monitor Review

[Koeitje]

The impact is small but yes, if I were using the monitor for a living, I would step up to something without the hole/high frequency exaggeration.

The ADAM T5V you tested a while back seems to be the superior speaker, or do you disagree with that? That one also has a boosted treble, but it could be easily solved with a shelf filter. It's also a lot cheaper.

 

[thewas]

at 500$ I don’t think it’s better than the significantly older Neumann KH80.

Yes, the measurements of the KH80 are significantly better, shame though there were no distortion measurements performed back then to compare them.

 

[amirm]

@amirm If you’ll be appointed ADAM’s CTO would you change AXV series port design/location?

I am not in the market for a job. But yes, I would outlaw front ports.

 

[amirm]

The ADAM T5V you tested a while back seems to be the superior speaker, or do you disagree with that? That one also has a boosted treble, but it could be easily solved with a shelf filter. It's also a lot cheaper.

This is a smaller speaker. And also has the ability to accept EQ internally. These are useful features.

 

[usersky]

I wanted to ask a bit like ABBA did "but tell be does it hiss...?" but that null makes hissing less of a problem

 

[thewas]

But yes, I would outlaw front ports.

On many studio monitors they are placed on the front to allow bigger placement flexibility and monitors like Neumann show that it can be done also without any negative audible side-effects.

 

[amirm]

I wanted to ask a bit like ABBA did "but tell be does it hiss...?" but that null makes hissing less of a problem

I commented in the review that it hardly has any audible hiss.

 

[amirm]

On many studio monitors they are placed on the front to allow bigger placement flexibility and monitors like Neumann show that it can be done also without any negative audible side-effects.

I don't get the flexibility bit. Unless you want to mount them flush to the wall, the rear port works just as well for its main purpose.

 

[thewas]

I don't get the flexibility bit. Unless you want to mount them flush to the wall, the rear port works just as well for its main purpose.

Yes, it is mainly for flush mounting,

 

[tomtoo]

Musician: My stagepiano is defect. I can hear all the notes but not the B5.
Technician: Oh, a Adam a4v user.

 

[LoyK]

Thanks for Review Amir!

The speaker should have two sound presets called UNR and Pure. It would be interesting to compare the responses.

 

[MZKM]

Note: Rating for far-field listening

Preference Rating
SCORE: 3.9
SCORE w/ sub: 6.3

Frequency response: +/- 6.5dB 80Hz-20kHz

 

[thewas]

On many studio monitors they are placed on the front to allow bigger placement flexibility and monitors like Neumann show that it can be done also without any negative audible side-effects.

By the way I had gotten a very interesting response from the chief engineer of Neumann listing more reasons why they use frontal ports, here is its electronic translation:

• Bass reflex effect also works when mounted in a wall
• Bass reflex tuning and efficiency does not change when placed in front of a wall or reflective surfaces
• Noise (flow noise and port resonance) generated by the bass reflex channels always occurs to the same degree and does not depend on the reflective properties of the objects behind them. This, of course, requires that the bass reflex channels inherently produce extremely low portnoise and port resonances. In designs with bass reflex channels at the rear, these noises do not appear or are very reduced when measured in an anechoic environment where the monitors are normally measured. This looks very good in the published data. Nevertheless, they are there and audible behind the monitors in non-absorptive acoustics.
• Loudspeakers from professional manufacturers are usually measured in half-rooms, where the loudspeaker radiates into the half-room through a precisely fitting opening. The sound emitted to the front is then measured. At Neumann, this is how each loudspeaker is individually balanced. If the bass reflex channels went to the rear, this measurement could no longer be made with the bass reflex channels included. A generalized influence of the channels would therefore have to be included in order to determine the overall transfer function. The tolerances, which are channel-related, would then not be able to be taken into account. In addition, the noise generated by the channel could not be determined by measurement. Errors with the assembly or the used parts would not be excluded.
• The directivity of the speaker in the low frequency range is always constant. The directivity depends then substantially on what happens behind it. The influence becomes smaller if both sound sources, port and woofer, sit together in such a way that the rear reflection on it does not have a different influence on these two sources.
• The area of the back of the monitor can be used to the full extent for the electronics.
• Due to the fact that there is no intentional sound radiation at the rear side, disturbing influences occurring there (flow noise due to leaks, rattling, buzzing of the electronics...) can be identified very clearly. The level that would be emitted through a bass reflex port (or passive harmonic) masks these interference levels. The identification of these interference levels is not only important to identify acoustically interfering signals (sometimes they are so small that they could be masked by the useful sound), but also to detect errors during assembly (screws not tightened correctly, rattling cables...).

 

[Matias]

To me the idea of moving the ports to the back is like trying to hide dust under the carpet instead of fixing the problem in the first place. Again if Neumann managed to do it then there is no reason others cannot do it too. Especially if this was already noted in the previous generation...

 

[jamescarter1982]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Adam A4V studio monitor (active DSP speaker). I purchased it new for US $500.
View attachment 225907
The look is standard ADAM Audio which is not bad. The build seems rather solid but with very sharp corners past the front face. Back panel shows clearly UI for changing things:

View attachment 225909

The momentary switches are easier to manipulate than competing dip switches. There are three "voicing" options. Pure which is anechoic/flat response. UHR which is Adam's own target and "Ext" which is custom. You program that using Ethernet port. I tried to do that only to find out the software won't be ready until next month.

Level of tweeter hiss is very low and not a concern for me anyway.

Here are the specifications:
View attachment 225910

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

Likewise listening tests comply with the latest research into proper evaluation of speakers calling for mono, instead of stereo listening:

Documentation is not clear about reference axis. By experimentation, I arrived at a point between the borders of midwoofer and tweeter.

Adam A4V Measurements
It is not often that we start with a clear aberration in frequency response:
View attachment 225911

That disturbs an otherwise good response with a bit of treble boost. The cause of the dip appears to be interference coming out of the front port:
View attachment 225912

We can visualize this using our 3-D speaker dispersion at the offending 1 kHz and points before and after:
View attachment 225913

You can see how at 1 kHz the bottom is extended indicating energy coming from the port, causing a cancellation at our reference axis (red arrow).

This naturally translates into both early reflections and predicted in-room response:
View attachment 225914


View attachment 225915

Power handling was excellent at 86 dBSPL. But I could hear and we can see distortions at 96 dBSPL:
View attachment 225916

View attachment 225917

The larger tweeter (than typical cone ones) starts to "beam" (narrow its response) above 8 kHz or so:
View attachment 225918
View attachment 225919

Vertically we have our usual mess with 2-way speakers with a bit more thrown in for good measure:
View attachment 225920

Our CSD/waterfall measurement tells us what we already know as far as resonances:

View attachment 225921

Finally here is the step response for fans of this measurement:
View attachment 225922

ADAM A4V Listening Tests and Equalization
First impression was positive and it was not until I listened more/applied EQ that I appreciated the extra brightness. So I applied three filters:
View attachment 225923

The first two are quite narrow so audibility impact is very small (or imagined). I thought that filling that 1 kHz trough made the sound a bit less bright. The biggest difference naturally came from the broad filter #2. That needs to be adjusted to taste. Without it, the sound appears to be "higher resolution/detailed" but with female vocals it, I did not care about the way it exaggerated some sounds.

Dynamics/power capability was excellent. I could listen quite loud and most of the time not hear any distortion. When there was some, it was grittiness that set in quite gently. Considering that I listen to only one speaker, you should be in very good situation using them in desktop application (how I tested it).

Conclusions
Adam manages to make a 4 inch speaker sound good. Not always an easy task as far as power handling. There is an unfortunate cancellation due to front facing ports. Wish they were in the back. Or some fill material to dampen it. Fortunately audibility impact is almost non-existent due to its narrowness. Default voicing is a bit bright both in measurements and my listening tests. Possible that if you placed it higher up, it would not be so.

Power is optimized quite well to produce what it can well, and filter out what it cannot (deep bass). Nicely done.

Overall, I am going to recommend the Adam A4V monitor speaker.

----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

such a shame these companies don't offer digital input in these cheaper dsp monitors

 

[PeteL]

Its also a cost-cutting measure. The whole front baffle/cabinet with ports/woofer/tweeter and rear plate amp/electronics sections can be assembled as separate modules in production. Ports in the rear would complicate things as the PCB probably takes up most of the real estate there. Still, it does suck to have them in the front there due to all the noise they can radiate.

Well. Interestingly, I doubt it's a cost cutting measure because of all their speakers, only the T serie which is their Entry level very economical line are rear ported. Interestingly too, the T5V reviewed here triggered an extremely favorable review, making me wonder if Amir was exaggerating a bit with his subjective impressions. Really can a 200$ powered box can be that close to perfection? Amir was literally raving about how good they sounded to him. Even beating the Neumann (to him- no contest remark)) that pops up in this thread as a reference of "if Neuman can do it why can't Adam" sort of thing. By the way Amir also preferred the cheap JBL LSR305P to the 1000$ a pair KH80.

Adam T5V Review (Studio Monitor)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Adam T5V Powered Speaker. It was kindly purchased new by a member and drop shipped to me. The T5V costs US $200 each. Much like the rest of Adam speakers, the T5V has a serious look to it: Back panel shows good connectivity and usual...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[behappybevegan]

In the market for new speakers myself.
The A77H looked promising.
Active 3 way for 2600 euro a pair.
Given this review I have a feeling I need to look elsewhere.

 

[okok]

how often we hit 96 dB in normal listening, exclude hans zimmer?

 

[Deleted member 50971]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Adam A4V studio monitor (active DSP speaker). I purchased it new for US $500.
View attachment 225907
The look is standard ADAM Audio which is not bad. The build seems rather solid but with very sharp corners past the front face. Back panel shows clearly UI for changing things:

View attachment 225909

The momentary switches are easier to manipulate than competing dip switches. There are three "voicing" options. Pure which is anechoic/flat response. UHR which is Adam's own target and "Ext" which is custom. You program that using Ethernet port. I tried to do that only to find out the software won't be ready until next month.

Level of tweeter hiss is very low and not a concern for me anyway.

Here are the specifications:
View attachment 225910

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

Likewise listening tests comply with the latest research into proper evaluation of speakers calling for mono, instead of stereo listening:

Documentation is not clear about reference axis. By experimentation, I arrived at a point between the borders of midwoofer and tweeter.

Adam A4V Measurements
It is not often that we start with a clear aberration in frequency response:
View attachment 225911

That disturbs an otherwise good response with a bit of treble boost. The cause of the dip appears to be interference coming out of the front port:
View attachment 225912

We can visualize this using our 3-D speaker dispersion at the offending 1 kHz and points before and after:
View attachment 225913

You can see how at 1 kHz the bottom is extended indicating energy coming from the port, causing a cancellation at our reference axis (red arrow).

This naturally translates into both early reflections and predicted in-room response:
View attachment 225914


View attachment 225915

Power handling was excellent at 86 dBSPL. But I could hear and we can see distortions at 96 dBSPL:
View attachment 225916

View attachment 225917

The larger tweeter (than typical cone ones) starts to "beam" (narrow its response) above 8 kHz or so:
View attachment 225918
View attachment 225919

Vertically we have our usual mess with 2-way speakers with a bit more thrown in for good measure:
View attachment 225920

Our CSD/waterfall measurement tells us what we already know as far as resonances:

View attachment 225921

Finally here is the step response for fans of this measurement:
View attachment 225922

ADAM A4V Listening Tests and Equalization
First impression was positive and it was not until I listened more/applied EQ that I appreciated the extra brightness. So I applied three filters:
View attachment 225923

The first two are quite narrow so audibility impact is very small (or imagined). I thought that filling that 1 kHz trough made the sound a bit less bright. The biggest difference naturally came from the broad filter #2. That needs to be adjusted to taste. Without it, the sound appears to be "higher resolution/detailed" but with female vocals it, I did not care about the way it exaggerated some sounds.

Dynamics/power capability was excellent. I could listen quite loud and most of the time not hear any distortion. When there was some, it was grittiness that set in quite gently. Considering that I listen to only one speaker, you should be in very good situation using them in desktop application (how I tested it).

Conclusions
Adam manages to make a 4 inch speaker sound good. Not always an easy task as far as power handling. There is an unfortunate cancellation due to front facing ports. Wish they were in the back. Or some fill material to dampen it. Fortunately audibility impact is almost non-existent due to its narrowness. Default voicing is a bit bright both in measurements and my listening tests. Possible that if you placed it higher up, it would not be so.

Power is optimized quite well to produce what it can well, and filter out what it cannot (deep bass). Nicely done.

Overall, I am going to recommend the Adam A4V monitor speaker.

----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Thanks for the review Amir.

 

[SMAC88]

Thank you Amir for this review. Disappointed to see that dip at 1k. Maybe they should think to a MK2 already...

I bought 1 A7V b-stock to test against my T5V (I'd add, great, at this point). I hope Amir would review them as well to see if they brought the same problem to the bigger sisters, but I'm concerned they did...