This is a review and detailed measurements of the Fluance Signature "HFS" Signature speaker. I purchased it on sale back in August for $169. It is currently at $199 on Amazon with Prime shipping.
Despite its budget price, the glossy front bezel/baffle adds a touch of class:
The Canadian flag is a clever touch:
As you see there are provisions for wall mounting. The speaker is said to be for "surround" applications in home theater but clearly also marketed as a standard speaker.
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.
I used over 800 measurement point which was enough to compute the sound field of the speaker within 1% error.
Temperature was 76 degrees. Measurement location is at sea level so you compute the pressure.
Measurements are compliant with latest speaker research into what can predict the speaker preference and is standardized in CEA/CTA-2034 ANSI specifications. Likewise listening tests are performed per research that shows mono listening is much more revealing of differences between speakers than stereo or multichannel.
For reference point, I used the tweeter axis. The magnetic grill was left off.
Spinorama Audio Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:
Sadly we do have serious flaws in the mid frequencies. Not only is the direct sound messed up, so is directivity. Both of these are indications of a speaker not doing well in controlled listening tests according to research.
We can see some reasons for above when we measure each driver up close:
As noted, seems to me if the tweeter high pass filter was a bit lower it would fill in the ditch better. As it is, the level is low which causes the resonance peak in the port (black) to cause more grief than it would otherwise.
Early reflections are bad as we already know:
And here is the predicted in-room response in a hypothetical, average room according to research:
Clearly we don't want to apply this EQ to everything we listen to.
I think the speaker is marketed for both desktop and far field use. So I thought I run this new measurement that shows the difference in frequency response of 1 meter versus 4 meter (anechoic):
Red is near-field. Thick blue is far field which is naturally at lower level due to increased distance. But if I compensate for that, we get the thin blue line over the red one. As you see, the problem is slightly less acute in mid-frequencies when the speaker is used in far field.
Horizontal directivity as we know is quite uneven which means room impact will be quite variable:
Vertically you want to place the tweeter at or above your ear (but not too far):
Finally here is the impedance and phase:
EDIT:
Forgot to post the distortion graphs initially:
As noted, please don't be alarmed by those sharp peaks. They are caused by the frequency response dropping there making the distortion percentage spike. It is the same distortion but relative to a smaller amplitude.
Woofer is the problem as we typically find.
Subjective Speaker Listening Tests
The first second impression was "this is not too bad" and then bang: high frequency brightness hits you. I rolled it off with a filter but that surprisingly did not help. Filling in the hole in mid frequencies helped with those tones but added more brightness. Rolling off the extreme low frequencies helped by reducing distortion. But ultimately I could not rescue the HFS with quick filters. Hence the reason I am not showing it.
Conclusions
I watched a few online videos that were seeded by the company and all were generally positive. Such was not my experience. Both objectively and subjectively the Fluance misses the mark. It did not sound hugely awful so I did not give it the decapitated panther. But it is close.
Needless to say, I can't recommend the Fluance HFS.
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Work on preserving garden harvest continued. Dehydrated and roasted Zucchini and tomatoes:
And oh, the third dehydrator finally arrived. Not a happy moment though as the company had completely revised the trays and make them incompatible with the two I have despite keeping the model number and name the same.
We are set with produce for the next few months but need money and lots of it for meat and fish. So please donate what you can using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
Despite its budget price, the glossy front bezel/baffle adds a touch of class:
The Canadian flag is a clever touch:
As you see there are provisions for wall mounting. The speaker is said to be for "surround" applications in home theater but clearly also marketed as a standard speaker.
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.
I used over 800 measurement point which was enough to compute the sound field of the speaker within 1% error.
Temperature was 76 degrees. Measurement location is at sea level so you compute the pressure.
Measurements are compliant with latest speaker research into what can predict the speaker preference and is standardized in CEA/CTA-2034 ANSI specifications. Likewise listening tests are performed per research that shows mono listening is much more revealing of differences between speakers than stereo or multichannel.
For reference point, I used the tweeter axis. The magnetic grill was left off.
Spinorama Audio Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:
Sadly we do have serious flaws in the mid frequencies. Not only is the direct sound messed up, so is directivity. Both of these are indications of a speaker not doing well in controlled listening tests according to research.
We can see some reasons for above when we measure each driver up close:
As noted, seems to me if the tweeter high pass filter was a bit lower it would fill in the ditch better. As it is, the level is low which causes the resonance peak in the port (black) to cause more grief than it would otherwise.
Early reflections are bad as we already know:
And here is the predicted in-room response in a hypothetical, average room according to research:
Clearly we don't want to apply this EQ to everything we listen to.
I think the speaker is marketed for both desktop and far field use. So I thought I run this new measurement that shows the difference in frequency response of 1 meter versus 4 meter (anechoic):
Red is near-field. Thick blue is far field which is naturally at lower level due to increased distance. But if I compensate for that, we get the thin blue line over the red one. As you see, the problem is slightly less acute in mid-frequencies when the speaker is used in far field.
Horizontal directivity as we know is quite uneven which means room impact will be quite variable:
Vertically you want to place the tweeter at or above your ear (but not too far):
Finally here is the impedance and phase:
EDIT:
Forgot to post the distortion graphs initially:
As noted, please don't be alarmed by those sharp peaks. They are caused by the frequency response dropping there making the distortion percentage spike. It is the same distortion but relative to a smaller amplitude.
Woofer is the problem as we typically find.
Subjective Speaker Listening Tests
The first second impression was "this is not too bad" and then bang: high frequency brightness hits you. I rolled it off with a filter but that surprisingly did not help. Filling in the hole in mid frequencies helped with those tones but added more brightness. Rolling off the extreme low frequencies helped by reducing distortion. But ultimately I could not rescue the HFS with quick filters. Hence the reason I am not showing it.
Conclusions
I watched a few online videos that were seeded by the company and all were generally positive. Such was not my experience. Both objectively and subjectively the Fluance misses the mark. It did not sound hugely awful so I did not give it the decapitated panther. But it is close.
Needless to say, I can't recommend the Fluance HFS.
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Work on preserving garden harvest continued. Dehydrated and roasted Zucchini and tomatoes:
And oh, the third dehydrator finally arrived. Not a happy moment though as the company had completely revised the trays and make them incompatible with the two I have despite keeping the model number and name the same.
We are set with produce for the next few months but need money and lots of it for meat and fish. So please donate what you can using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
Last edited:
