This is a review and detailed measurements of an early sample of just announced Fluid Audio Image 2 reference monitor. Company asked me to measure it in private last year but today gave me green light to publish.
This is a crowded field so I was very pleased when I saw the built-in sub with dual opposing 8 inch drivers. The main weakness I find in most active monitors is lack of power/response when in deep bass and this remedies that. Back panel shows the functionality you expect in this class including a foot switch to silence the sub:
I am told the production version has reduced noise/hiss by 17 dB and has some fine tuning (although substantially the same as what I measured). It costs US $1,899 / 1799€.
Note: I was paid a fee to perform this measurement as a service to the company. No expectation of publishing the review existed at the time (or I would not have charged).
Speaker looked quite finished to me even though I am marking it as "prototype" below. From memory, it was super dense and heavy box.
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.
Reference axis is approximately the center of the tweeter.
Fluid Audio Image 2 Prototype 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:
Love the extended response which is flat to almost 40 Hz! F10 response is 28 Hz or so. On-axis is flat enough and directivity is good other than a bit of glitch around 1000 Hz.
I was surprised by the step down in early window response:
So I plotted horizontal and vertical response separately and it is clear where the source is:
This should remove the effect of vertical reflections above 2 kHz or so. Intuitively I want to say it is a good thing but don't have any research data on what this means. In general we are much less sensitive to lack of uniformity in vertical axis so I can't image it causing any harm. Indeed, predicted in-room response is very good:
Near-field response is not indicative of any issues:
Beamwidth measurement shows nice and controlled directivity:
Vertical response is typical of what we expect from non-coaxial speakers:
Distortion is kept well under control until you go way down in frequency:
I am sorry I did not capture the waterfall but here is the step response:
Conclusions
A lot of times folks say, "just add a sub." Well that is easier said than done. Getting that integrated with the rest of the speaker is not easy and at any rate, is yet another box to manage and integrate. The Image 2 includes the sub and hence provides the deep bass response which I consider critical to good sound reproduction.
Company has promised me a production unit in the next couple of months. Once I have it, I will re-measure and perform listening tests. For now, keep this monitor in your eyesight....
-----------
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/
This is a crowded field so I was very pleased when I saw the built-in sub with dual opposing 8 inch drivers. The main weakness I find in most active monitors is lack of power/response when in deep bass and this remedies that. Back panel shows the functionality you expect in this class including a foot switch to silence the sub:
I am told the production version has reduced noise/hiss by 17 dB and has some fine tuning (although substantially the same as what I measured). It costs US $1,899 / 1799€.
Note: I was paid a fee to perform this measurement as a service to the company. No expectation of publishing the review existed at the time (or I would not have charged).
Speaker looked quite finished to me even though I am marking it as "prototype" below. From memory, it was super dense and heavy box.
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.
Reference axis is approximately the center of the tweeter.
Fluid Audio Image 2 Prototype 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:
Love the extended response which is flat to almost 40 Hz! F10 response is 28 Hz or so. On-axis is flat enough and directivity is good other than a bit of glitch around 1000 Hz.
I was surprised by the step down in early window response:
So I plotted horizontal and vertical response separately and it is clear where the source is:
This should remove the effect of vertical reflections above 2 kHz or so. Intuitively I want to say it is a good thing but don't have any research data on what this means. In general we are much less sensitive to lack of uniformity in vertical axis so I can't image it causing any harm. Indeed, predicted in-room response is very good:
Near-field response is not indicative of any issues:
Beamwidth measurement shows nice and controlled directivity:
Vertical response is typical of what we expect from non-coaxial speakers:
Distortion is kept well under control until you go way down in frequency:
I am sorry I did not capture the waterfall but here is the step response:
Conclusions
A lot of times folks say, "just add a sub." Well that is easier said than done. Getting that integrated with the rest of the speaker is not easy and at any rate, is yet another box to manage and integrate. The Image 2 includes the sub and hence provides the deep bass response which I consider critical to good sound reproduction.
Company has promised me a production unit in the next couple of months. Once I have it, I will re-measure and perform listening tests. For now, keep this monitor in your eyesight....
-----------
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/
Last edited:
There is no such signal as a step in music. And your room will create plenty of that ringing.
