Fluid Audio FX50 Review (Active Speaker)

[Matias]

Same price (150 usd each), no brainer.

 

[richard12511]

Same price (150 usd each), no brainer.

JBL 308p also goes on sale for that price several times a year.

 

[Dzhaughn]

"At this pint I thought the sound..."

At about how many pints was that, mate?

 

[Matias]

JBL 308p also goes on sale for that price several times a year.

Agreed, if found for 150 usd, also a way better option.

 

[YSC]

Here's another pic of the tweeter assembly showing it is mounted in front of the woofer. The front view of the speaker makes the tweeter appear as if recessed inside the woofer. I was wondering how Fluid Audio could afford to put a tweeter inside the woofer assembly and now it make sense how they budgeted the design.

I actually thought it is a Kef style coaxial

 

[Doodski]

I actually thought it is a Kef style coaxial

So did I and then I thought about the retail price of the speaker and realized the budget just isn't there for KEF style engineering.

 

[GWolfman]

@amirm How can we know which version we're buying? Is there a physical or labeling difference that will distinguish them apart?

 

[YSC]

So did I and then I thought about the retail price of the speaker and realized the budget just isn't there for KEF style engineering.

Actually I was a bit puzzled, it seems both put the tweeter in where the dust cap of the woofer should be, so why mounting the tweeter with its wave guide inside be more challenging than putting it in front ?

 

[Doodski]

Actually I was a bit puzzled, it seems both put the tweeter in where the dust cap of the woofer should be, so why mounting the tweeter with its wave guide inside be more challenging than putting it in front ?

Putting it inside the center of the woofer means the entire tweeter magnet assembly has to go inside the woofer assembly too. Very complicated stuff. Is that what you meant.

 

[YSC]

Putting it inside the center of the woofer means the entire tweeter magnet assembly has to go inside the woofer assembly too. Very complicated stuff. Is that what you meant.

Yes, that solved my question, I didn’t thought of the magnet assembly interference stuff

 

[Doodski]

Yes, that solved my question, I didn’t thought of the magnet assembly interference stuff

 

[amirm]

@amirm How can we know which version we're buying? Is there a physical or labeling difference that will distinguish them apart?

There isn't any. Company told me from serial number they can tell if it is new or old. I gave them mine and they said it was old. If you are going to buy them, I would contact them and ask which serial numbers are the newer revision.

 

[Maiky76]

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.


The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:
Score no EQ: 2.88
With Sub: 5.30

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Plenty of resonances
• On compromised by the coax

Directivity:
Better stay slightly off axis about 10deg in any direction if no EQ
Maybe better On axis with EQ

EQ design:

I have generated one EQ. The APO config files are attached.

• The EQ is designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment
• I have added the EQ devised by @amirm for comparison

Score EQ Amirm: 3.57
with sub: 6.00

Score EQ Score: 4.74
with sub: 7.10

Fluid FX50 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
January292021-161938

Preamp: -3.4 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 30.7 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 0.88
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 106 Hz Gain -4.25 dB Q 1.44
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1006 Hz Gain -3.7 dB Q 4.28
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1668 Hz Gain -3.4 dB Q 6.29
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2480 Hz Gain 4 dB Q 3.06
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 5997 Hz Gain 3.5 dB Q 5.07
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 7308 Hz Gain -2.72 dB Q 0.83

Spinorama EQ Score

Spinorama EQ Amirm

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal

Radar no EQ vs EQ score

The rest of the plots is attached.

 

[pavuol]

First of all, great acknowledgement goes to another cooperative/supportive manufacturer.

Secondly, dimensions being one of its main advantage, I can imagine scenarios where people want to "embed" these in tight spaces in their home environments, when speakers have to follow existing furniture setup rather than other way round. (shelves with no modularity, corner PC desks..)

Dimensions comparison with some 5" monitors reviewed (also, the depth of FX50 can be taken as "definitive", versus rear ported models..) :

H W D [mm]
234 176 230 Fluid audio FX50
298 179 297 Adam T5V
298 185 231 JBL 305P MkII
285 170 222 Yamaha HS5

 

[3125b]

For dimension comparison here is a 3D model of different monitors reviewed here:
https://www.matheretter.de/geoserva...[90|0|0]+text(1|8.6|0.1 "PM0.3"`0.8`)[90|0|0]

From left to right: Adam T8V, Yamaha HS7, Neumann KH80, JBL 305P MKII, Fluid FX50, Adam T5V, Genelec 8010A incl. Pod and Fostex PM0.3
Measurements from https://www.thomann.de/de/index.html

You can add more and share the link.

EDIT: I started a thread here: Speaker Size Index | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

 

[sweetchaos]

I can't tell if I'm seeing things (1am right now...and im about to sleep), or is it worth investigating...?

Spoiler: amir

Spoiler: maiky76

 

[kopczas]

It would be nice of them to send a sample of CX-7.

 

[MZKM]

I can't tell if I'm seeing things (1am right now...and im about to sleep), or is it worth investigating...?

Spoiler: amir

View attachment 109161

Spoiler: maiky76

View attachment 109160

Looks like he is incorrectly using the on-axis instead of the LW for the SP DI.

 

[MZKM]

For dimension comparison here is a 3D model of different monitors reviewed here:
https://www.matheretter.de/geoservant/de?draw=quader(0|-6.1|0 2.84|2.1|3.32)+HS7+quader(0|-3.8|0 1.94|1.54|2.33)+KH80+quader (-0.33|-2|0.33 2.98|1.85|2.31)[0 90 0] 305 P MKII+quader (0|0|0 2.34|1.76|2.3)[0 90 0] FX50+quader (0|2|0 2.98|1.79|2.97)[0 90 0] T5V+quader (-0.5|4|0.5 3.59|2.22|2.6)[0 90 0] LP-6

From left to right: Yamaha HS7, Neumann KH80, JBL 305 P MKII, Adam T5V and Kali LP-6

You can add more and share the link.

Dang, KH80 is tiny. Maybe that visual aspect is in part why Amir said they sounded small.

Anyone know any AR phone apps where you can make 3D shapes to display?

B&O actually has full 3D AR models of their speakers so you can see how they look in your room. It’s fully fledged too, any reflective finish will reflect the surroundings in your room.

EDIT: I found some, but mostly not intuitive or not easily creatable.

 

[3125b]

Anyone know any AR phone apps where you can make 3D shapes to display?

There are quite a few, but ... idk, maybe I haven't tried the right one, but I haven't been too impressed yet.

Kinda works, but it's not great. Making a template out of cardboard works better imo.