Audio First Fidelia on Erin’s Audio Corner

[kharan]

What shocks me the most about it:
Erin is doing all these measurements, comparisons and reviews to listen to such terrible music as in the video at minute 09:00 ?

Pretty sure he has to find a royalty-free sound clip in order to not get his videos copyright claimed. That excludes most actual music.

 

[mrick39]

[cut the picture...]

You just need more cowbell!

So how would you handle the tear outs on the exposed edges?
Also how would you finish it?

BTW, I was going thru the CSS 1-TD and 1-TDX reviews... I don't see one from Erin. Everyone else is there singing its praises.
Also there is the GR Research kit(s) also around the same price.

Note: I have no skin in the game... just looking at the options around the same price.

FYI, my kit did not have any tear outs.

 

[mrick39]

Sorry? We?

To the best of my knowledge only Erin has done a review of the Fidelia and I don't believe he did a review of 1-TDX. ( I couldn't find one... and it seems he's the only guy not to review it. ;-) )

We can look at the videos showing the actual builds. (CSS and Audio First both have videos on the build process.)
In terms of the Klippel ?sp? output we only have Erin's Fidelia.

W.R.T bookshelf kits there are a couple of factors. (Size, cost, and ease of build.)
As I pointed out... watching the video of the Fidelia build you can see the tear out issue. If you look at the design this could be due to the quality of the plywood, or how the panels were cut.

If you look at the XOs, both are using quality components. The CSS has two different levels in terms of components so you'd have to consider which one matches the Fidelia. Also I believe there's a difference in size.

Now to be clear, I'm not bashing the Fidelia or promoting the CSS.
I was just asking if there was a comparison because they are both around the same price.

Note: The tear out would be on the back of the speaker, although it could also be on the top due to the exposed edge grain. The front baffle looks to be either molded or printed plastic w the drivers mounted to the wood front panel behind it. The CSS cabinet doesn't appear to have this issue.

And to be fair, this is AudioFirstDesign's first product offering. He's a one man shop and still has some kinks to work out.
(Sourcing of the flat pack material for example.)
He was smart to go to Erin. Erin is honest and if he likes something... there's a reason for it.

Both drivers are mounted to the baffle itself, which is 3D printed and very robust.

 

[Matt_Holland]

What shocks me the most about it:
Erin is doing all these measurements, comparisons and reviews to listen to such terrible music as in the video at minute 09:00 ?

It’s probably the best copyright free option available.

 

[darakon]

It’s probably the best copyright free option available.

If it is like that, than I would rather skip it.
Whatever these Music/Reording is at Minute 09:00, it's not useful to convince anyone about the audio-qualities of a speaker.

 

[Penelinfi]

If it is like that, than I would rather skip it.
Whatever these Music/Reording is at Minute 09:00, it's not useful to convince anyone about the audio-qualities of a speaker.

It's a comparison so you can hear the difference between a certain response of a speaker. I could hear it on my phone speakers. It's useful as an exercise as it doesn't need to demonstrate absolute fidelity. It's not a huge difference, and personally I'd use something with a bit more consistent content in the frequency range compared.

If you personally don't like it, then it's really easy to skip along these days.

 

[Matt_Holland]

If it is like that, than I would rather skip it.
Whatever these Music/Reording is at Minute 09:00, it's not useful to convince anyone about the audio-qualities of a speaker.

I agree with @Penelinfi
The music clip is sufficient to highlight the tonal balance differences between speakers and how they are most likely to differ from the original track in the average listening room. It’s relative, not absolute in actual sound quality terms and the really interesting part is that it shows how close to the original track two of the speakers were (KEF and Elac). Erin is pushing the envelope for speaker reviews and I applaud him for his work.

 

[Rednaxela]

What shocks me the most about it:
Erin is doing all these measurements, comparisons and reviews to listen to such terrible music as in the video at minute 09:00 ?

This playlist might be of interest.

This is a sample collection of tracks I use to demo loudspeakers for my reviews. This is far from complete but it does cover a good range of my typical musical preferences.

 

[thewas]

I agree with @Penelinfi
The music clip is sufficient to highlight the tonal balance differences between speakers and how they are most likely to differ from the original track in the average listening room. It’s relative, not absolute in actual sound quality terms and the really interesting part is that it shows how close to the original track two of the speakers were (KEF and Elac). Erin is pushing the envelope for speaker reviews and I applaud him for his work.

It should be kept in mind though that he makes these samples convolving just the direct sound response which doesn't consider the directivities. I had a short exchange with him with the idea of using an impulse response average of several measurements of the listening window or even the early reflection angles to do so. In the end of course any such is just a compromise and limitation of reducing a three dimensional space into a single dimension and thus such recordings will never be able to fully simulate or replace the response of loudspeakers in different rooms and listening distances.

 

[mrick39]

This looks to be an excellent speaker design. Similar to the Ascilab C5B although DIY construction.

Audio First are local to me so I am tempted to try and get a demo…

Here's a short write up and some pics of my Fidelia build:

My Fidelia DIY build

I purchased the Fidelia DIY speaker kit from Audio First back in late August. My kit's arrival was delayed until October due to my special request to have the baffle made in a gold color instead of the stock black. Much thanks owed to Harry at Audiofirstdesigns who was gracious enough to grant...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[Matt_Holland]

It should be kept in mind though that he makes these samples convolving just the direct sound response which doesn't consider the directivities. I had a short exchange with him with the idea of using an impulse response average of several measurements of the listening window or even the early reflection angles to do so. In the end of course any such is just a compromise and limitation of reducing a three dimensional space into a single dimension and thus such recordings will never be able to fully simulate or replace the response of loudspeakers in different rooms and listening distances.

Thanks for this. I misunderstood and thought the convolution was from the estimated in room response. But then that wouldn’t make sense as this would result in a downward tilted response for the accurate speakers.

 

[thewas]

Thanks for this. I misunderstood and thought the convolution was from the estimated in room response. But then that wouldn’t make sense as this would result in a downward tilted response for the accurate speakers.

Correct, that is why I recommended him using at least the listening window. Or another option would be to take the difference of the PIR curve to am average slope but as said all are compromises as there cannot be not an optimal single solution when reducing the dimensional space.

 

[Matt_Holland]

Correct, that is why I recommended him using at least the listening window. Or another option would be to take the difference of the PIR curve to am average slope but as said all are compromises as there cannot be not an optimal single solution when reducing the dimensional space.

Listening window makes sense because it seems unfair to punish speakers whose on-axis response is not flat, but are intended to be listened to with a large toe-out angle, I.e. flat to the wall.

 

[Ktacos]

Just make speakers flat on axis and have good dispersion, it's 2024 that's what everyone should be doing at this point anymore.

 

[Matt_Holland]

Just make speakers flat on axis and have good dispersion, it's 2024 that's what everyone should be doing at this point anymore.

I actually don’t entirely agree. My view is: make speakers flat or with a preferred house curve that is smooth and not too wildly off neutral, and have excellent dispersion, with a house dispersion angle, to give consumers choice of spatiality, that leads to predictable results from room to room.

The key is dispersion which means those so inclined can EQ the speaker. If all speakers had this plus a flat on-axis, the only thing that would distinguish them is max SPL and distortion profile. It wouldn’t offer very good consumer choice. Not everyone wants accuracy and not everyone is interested in, or capable of implementing EQ. So some variety of tonal balance for consumers keeps things interesting.

 

[Emlin]

Just make speakers flat on axis and have good dispersion, it's 2024 that's what everyone should be doing at this point anymore.

Why have flat a flat response on axis if the speaker is not designed to be listened to on axis? There are still many compromises that have to be made when designing speakers, so why demand one thing above all, when it won't necessarily be the best in actual application in a given room?

As long as they have good dispersion off axis.

 

[Ktacos]

If all speakers had this plus a flat on-axis, the only thing that would distinguish them is max SPL and distortion profile. It wouldn’t offer very good consumer choice

This is exactly where the market is already headed, neutral speakers where the user can tune to taste because the dispersion is good. Sounds like a great choice for consumers to me.

Unfortunately (I guess?) one of the consequences of making speakers more neutral is they all sort of start to sound the same, which is to say they sound more like nothing. This is a good thing no? I like to listen to just the content, not so much the speakers imparted tonality. This probably puts a damper on consumerism brain but I think it's great, you can just stop worrying about trying everything and just enjoy the music.

 

[Ktacos]

Why have flat a flat response on axis if the speaker is not designed to be listened to on axis?

Why we making speakers like this? Just make them flat on and off axis, it's really not that hard, most speaker manufacturers are just way behind the times on this. If you make a speaker like this it will sound good no matter how to toe it.

I made one, with really inexpensive drivers and simple cabinet work. I have a filter on top making for a slope on axis, but this sounds good no matter where you are or how you place it.

There are still many compromises that have to be made when designing speakers

Sort of, but most compromises don't need to be made, most companies are just not good at making speakers and make tons of compromises they really don't need to for various dumb reasons.

This Fidelia speaker is such a breath of fresh air and shows some very competent engineering. If I had the funds a pair would be on their way to me.

 

[kyuu]

If all speakers had this plus a flat on-axis, the only thing that would distinguish them is max SPL and distortion profile. It wouldn’t offer very good consumer choice. Not everyone wants accuracy and not everyone is interested in, or capable of implementing EQ. So some variety of tonal balance for consumers keeps things interesting.

To each their own I suppose, but it seems to me like that defeats the entire purpose of making audio equipment to begin with for the sake of consumerism. The purpose of speakers should be to reproduce the signal they are fed as accurately as possible. There are confounding factors, of course, so it's unlikely we will ever arrive at a single solution that's correct for everyone in all places. Nevermind restrictions on resources. But still, I don't think the goal should be consumer choice for its own sake or making things interesting for gear heads.

 

[jhaider]

How would these speakers work as nearfield monitors? It seems like the horizontal dispersion is a fraction wider than KH120 or KH150 but it’s tempting to build a pair for the desktop.

It looks like it would be fine. However, KH 120 II will have a lot more upper bass headroom, going by the measurements at Sound und Recording showing it to be basically the equal of JBL 705 in the 50-200Hz range KH 150 would do a little better still.

That said, if you prefer a less industrial look and either listen relatively quietly or are willing to cross subs a little high—this kit looks like a nice choice. I suspect a few people used the old Revel M105’s nearfield, and this speaker may as well be an M105 Mk II, given the driver complement and well-sorted design.