• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Adam A4V Monitor Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 24 9.8%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 136 55.5%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 81 33.1%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 4 1.6%

  • Total voters
    245
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
39,491
Likes
179,794
Location
Seattle Area
Thanks to psycho-acoustics, dips are luckily not nearly as harmful as peaks.
As a rule of thumb we never EQ any dips exactly for this reason and it is also bad advice as well as practice to just level everything out.
Which as described can sometimes do (a lot more) harm than good.
I don't even understand why this was recommended, since boosting such issues quite literally doesn't help much at all
(since the resonance won't ever disappear, and in some cases even get worse.)
This is particularly true for destructive interference.
You are off the mark with your comments. The amount of musical energy at 1 kHz is quite a bit lower than bass. So you can boost it fair bit without the danger of pushing the amp too far. Since interference is far less than perfect, i.e. output did not go to zero, you can indeed boost such a dip. The trick is to listen and not get blinded by theoretical things.

There is proof point for this. Directivity dips are thought to be the same, i.e. not to try to correct. But research shows that they can be improved:
The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products
Sean E. Olive, John Jackson, Allan Devantier, David Hunt and Sean M. Hess

1661489149564.png


Theory is one thing, practice is another. Manual EQ lets you experiment with fixing response errors and you can then judge individually whether some correction is valid or not.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
5,003
Likes
11,137
You are off the mark with your comments. The amount of musical energy at 1 kHz is quite a bit lower than bass. So you can boost it fair bit without the danger of pushing the amp too far. Since interference is far less than perfect, i.e. output did not go to zero, you can indeed boost such a dip. The trick is to listen and not get blinded by theoretical things.

There is proof point for this. Directivity dips are thought to be the same, i.e. not to try to correct. But research shows that they can be improved:
The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products
Sean E. Olive, John Jackson, Allan Devantier, David Hunt and Sean M. Hess

View attachment 226666

Theory is one thing, practice is another. Manual EQ lets you experiment with fixing response errors and you can then judge individually whether some correction is valid or not.
I haven't seen Toole, Olive or other EQ advisers recommending to fill narrow dips, here from Toole's book (2nd edition):

In general it is recommended to adjust the parametric equalizer to match the shape of and to reduce the amplitude of any upward thrusting peaks in the frequency response. Narrow dips should be left alone, but broad depressions may be boosted if the amount of boost is not more than about 6 dB.
Source: page 518

Also from Toole:

Peaks can be attenuated by EQ, but narrow dips should be left alone
Source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ut-room-curve-targets-room-eq-and-more.10950/

Adjusting loudspeakers having different flaws to match full-bandwidth room curves of highly rated loudspeakers cannot yield the same high quality sound. This is especially true if narrow-band equalization is used above the transition frequency. This fact is not to be found in the advertising literature of "room EQ" products. Guess why?
Source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-targets-room-eq-and-more.10950/#post-307672

Narrow dips are usually the result of destructive acoustical interference and are usually audibly innocuous because they change with direction/position. Broader dips can be interpreted as anti-resonances if one chooses to, whether there is an associated frequency selective absorption process or not. Mostly not.
Source: https://www.avsforum.com/threads/ho...e-science-shows.3038828/page-161#post58530612

You cannot equalize the narrow dips because they are non-minimum-phase destructive-interference phenomena. So you don't want an automated equalizer that might try to fill them.
Source: https://www.audioholics.com/room-ac...b-sfm/applying-the-scientific-method-to-audio


I agree with you that in the end the direct listening comparison should decide but in my own experience positive narrow peak filters usually sound worse, which can be also understood as they are resonators, tonality might improve but the temporal behaviour often audibly worsens (it sounds artificial/muddy).
 
Last edited:

program2000

New Member
Joined
May 8, 2022
Messages
3
Likes
4
I don’t understand this laguage By same observation you mean he recommend the speaker like Amir does?
Yes, he recommend a4v but it is only good, not very good speaker.
It is sad that Adam did not improve his speakers after so many years.
 

OWC

Active Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2019
Messages
204
Likes
143
You are off the mark with your comments. The amount of musical energy at 1 kHz is quite a bit lower than bass. So you can boost it fair bit without the danger of pushing the amp too far. Since interference is far less than perfect, i.e. output did not go to zero, you can indeed boost such a dip. The trick is to listen and not get blinded by theoretical things.

There is proof point for this. Directivity dips are thought to be the same, i.e. not to try to correct. But research shows that they can be improved:
The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products
Sean E. Olive, John Jackson, Allan Devantier, David Hunt and Sean M. Hess

View attachment 226666

Theory is one thing, practice is another. Manual EQ lets you experiment with fixing response errors and you can then judge individually whether some correction is valid or not.
My comments were never off.

I said that dips are not as harmful, compared to peaks.
Your response does not even go to that statement, just only says that dips are harmful as well.
Guess what, I never said that they weren't harmless, I said that weren't as harmful as peaks.

Any how, it doesn't matter in case of boosting destructive interference.
You can boost that kind of resonance forever, the interference will always be there since that's by definition what destructive interference does.
The only thing that it does is making a dip with an even higher Q-factor and at some point will be swallowed up by the smoothing of the graph/measuring system.
So it looks good, but in practice it's still there.
I guess the only acoustic element that will limit this, is the acoustic resistance or boundary layer that eventually will put an halt on such resonance going any higher.
Turbulence could also work.
Quantifying that is not easy, but it won't be at low SPL's

@thewas rightfully states that EQ narrow dips is just not wise to do by default, unless you know what it's causing it.
In case of destructive interference like a port resonance it quite literally doesn't do anything except overloading the system.

Which could lead to even potential damage for users who are less knowledgeable and unaware.
VERY bad general advice to give also very ironic advice, because it has been known for at least 15-20 years that it's a bad idea to EQ dips in general.

Can even by found in books like Loudspeaker Handbook by Eargle as well as Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook by Borwick.
Although anyone with knowledge in basic acoustics knows and understands what destructive interference means and why EQ them won't do anything at all.

It totally beats me why all of a sudden this is coming back all over again.
Including those silly "calibration" companies with magic microphones and systems.
Because "flat" is "good" ?
 
Last edited:

OWC

Active Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2019
Messages
204
Likes
143
I haven't seen Toole, Olive or other EQ advisers recommending to fill narrow dips, here from Toole's book (2nd edition):

In general it is recommended to adjust the parametric equalizer to match the shape of and to reduce the amplitude of any upward thrusting peaks in the frequency response. Narrow dips should be left alone, but broad depressions may be boosted if the amount of boost is not more than about 6 dB.
Source: page 518

Also from Toole:

Peaks can be attenuated by EQ, but narrow dips should be left alone
Source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ut-room-curve-targets-room-eq-and-more.10950/

Adjusting loudspeakers having different flaws to match full-bandwidth room curves of highly rated loudspeakers cannot yield the same high quality sound. This is especially true if narrow-band equalization is used above the transition frequency. This fact is not to be found in the advertising literature of "room EQ" products. Guess why?
Source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-targets-room-eq-and-more.10950/#post-307672

Narrow dips are usually the result of destructive acoustical interference and are usually audibly innocuous because they change with direction/position. Broader dips can be interpreted as anti-resonances if one chooses to, whether there is an associated frequency selective absorption process or not. Mostly not.
Source: https://www.avsforum.com/threads/ho...e-science-shows.3038828/page-161#post58530612

You cannot equalize the narrow dips because they are non-minimum-phase destructive-interference phenomena. So you don't want an automated equalizer that might try to fill them.
Source: https://www.audioholics.com/room-ac...b-sfm/applying-the-scientific-method-to-audio


I agree with you that in the end the direct listening comparison should decide but in my own experience positive narrow peak filters usually sound worse, which can be also understood as they are resonators, tonality might improve but the temporal behaviour often audibly worsens (it sounds artificial/muddy).
Thanks, nothing to add, there is plenty of scientific literature and just basic acoustics describing why and how.
I know some people here just like to yell "can you prove it? / "reference please", but there is no replacement for basic knowledge and understanding of the underlying physics.
I am not gonna quote entire books, in fact I am not even allowed to do so.

As for the last sentence. It all depends where the dips are coming from.
So a statement if EQ'ing dips in general should sound better/worse (whatever that means), can never be made.

This is also the reason why it's so extremely important to do near-field burs decay (waterfall in periods) measurements as well as electrical impedance measurements.
But apparently to some that seems not be important and they magically know were those dips and issues are coming from.
Just only saying "it's resonances" doesn't say much at all.
 

OWC

Active Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2019
Messages
204
Likes
143
Since you said high-end.

Right, that's a 3-way system.
In that case it's possible to filter the woofer before the port resonance.

So, okay, I should have said in any high-end 2-way system I guess.
You're correct on that.
 

Koeitje

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
1,899
Likes
3,134
Well it is pretty funny how I made it to this thread. I have been looking for some desktop computer speakers for the past 6 months. First I was checking out BestBuy and thinking $150 Edifier pair looks good, but I wonder if there is something better - then found Vanatoo T0 - which led me to this forum - which got me wondering about studio monitors - which let me to iLoud MTM and was about to buy - but then iLoud raised their price $50 to $399. Well I'm already looking at $399 for MTM - hey what are these new Adam Audio A4V for "only" $100 more but no detailed reviews - and then here is a detailed review! I still haven't purchased anything! HAHA.
The T5V's are very good if they can be a bit bigger and you don't need the built-in DSP options from the A-series. Just use a shelf equalizer and they are great.
 

sealman

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2021
Messages
53
Likes
40
Looks like an Emotiva speaker, probably made by the same Chinese speaker manufacturer.
I remember when Emotiva came out with this style/shape of enclosure years ago with the Airmotiv powered speakers. Everyone was saying what a blatant ripoff of Adam Audio!
 

MadMaxx

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
24
Likes
39
I recently sold my LS50 Metas, SVS 3000 Micro, and Outlaw monoblocks after listening to an audition of the Adam Audio A7V. Bought a pair + the Adam Sub8 for my desktop PC audio setup. As much as I liked my Metas, these A7V monitors blow them away. I'm hearing details in my music and games that I never knew were there.

758417_adam.png
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
2,410
Likes
1,797
I recently sold my LS50 Metas, SVS 3000 Micro, and Outlaw monoblocks after listening to an audition of the Adam Audio A7V. Bought a pair + the Adam Sub8 for my desktop PC audio setup. As much as I liked my Metas, these A7V monitors blow them away. I'm hearing details in my music and games that I never knew were there.

View attachment 241705
For a pc setup I am a bit surprised for the adams blocking a bit of your screen.

Wonders if it’s possible to have some in room measurements sometime, am really curious will the dip in FR of the A4V be there in the A7V also
 

MadMaxx

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
24
Likes
39
For a pc setup I am a bit surprised for the adams blocking a bit of your screen.

Wonders if it’s possible to have some in room measurements sometime, am really curious will the dip in FR of the A4V be there in the A7V also
That's just the angle from where I took the pic. When I'm at my desk, there's a good 2 inches of space between the monitor and each speaker. The monitor view isn't obstructed at all. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: YSC

Scielienta

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
29
Likes
8
I recently sold my LS50 Metas, SVS 3000 Micro, and Outlaw monoblocks after listening to an audition of the Adam Audio A7V. Bought a pair + the Adam Sub8 for my desktop PC audio setup. As much as I liked my Metas, these A7V monitors blow them away. I'm hearing details in my music and games that I never knew were there.

View attachment 241705

A7V looks lovely, can you compare with LS50 Meta shortly?

That iLoud Micro sound is fantastic for its size, also have it on my desk.
 

MadMaxx

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
24
Likes
39
A7V looks lovely, can you compare with LS50 Meta shortly?

That iLoud Micro sound is fantastic for its size, also have it on my desk.
What I've noticed most is the level of detail I hear in music and video games. The Metas sounded almost muffled in contrast. To be fair, the A7V have a 7" driver vs. 5.25" on the Metas. I think the ribbon tweeter makes a big difference, too. The new Adam A line also have built-in amps and DSP functions that help fine tune the sound.

Agreed on the iLouds! They're perfect for small/mobile setups.
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
2,410
Likes
1,797
What I've noticed most is the level of detail I hear in music and video games. The Metas sounded almost muffled in contrast. To be fair, the A7V have a 7" driver vs. 5.25" on the Metas. I think the ribbon tweeter makes a big difference, too. The new Adam A line also have built-in amps and DSP functions that help fine tune the sound.

Agreed on the iLouds! They're perfect for small/mobile setups.
The ribbon tweeter maybe just have that elevated treble as in the T5V, would like to see if that’s where the perceived detail comes from
 
Top Bottom