The reason I've had my eyeball on this speaker for so long is the combination of the large horn waveguide on an AMT. Nobody does that, let alone in a three-way sealed design. That's ultimately what you're paying for, regardless of raw specs.
Not the first reviewed here with digital input (most Genelec 83xx, D&D 8c spring to mind), but I wish it were a more common feature.Finlay a monitor with digital input.
i think its super stupid to go from an PC into an DAC and back in an monitor like the JBL305 that only has ADC as input.
But the price is a bit to high
I agree. I get the technical superiority of minimal baffle. But not quite sure of the sales numbers.
I have listened to the Blade 2. And Muon. And as much as I wanted to like them; I didn’t like them as much as I wanted to. And maybe they do sound different to, say the Revel F328Be; but I think I like the F328Be more; despite it having square edges.
Do you remember years ago a car manufacturer had a bubble shaped car. Lots of soft edges: good for aerodynamics. But it was very polarising. And then manufacturer canned it.
The problem is that all listening is sighted. And sighted listening skews the preferences. That’s science.
A) What the ideal loudspeaker cabinet shape, from an acoustic’s point of view B) will people like it/buy it.
Most AMT's I've seen are designed for tight vertical dispersion, plus the rectangular shape also encourages this. I'm not really a fan of that, I like when there's a larger wave guide and you have room to move around. But you only see things like the JBL waveguide with domes, or a compression driver on the 7 series.What advantage(s) would you anticipate from this design paradigm? I've only heard a few ribbon tweeters and hated all of them (Triton, ML Motion XT, some old Adam) but I keep hearing how great AMT is so trying to keep an open mind
If I'd were to guess: Better construction, a different sound signature (it's sealed and a three-way), more low-end; will likely get louder more efficiently (675 watts of power), self powered (built in eq, digital connection and the ability to be updated through USB connection).Looking at the measurements I don't see what this unit yields that cannot be had with the recent Polk ES20.
I think it's been done before but I can't really find anything out about it. You'd have to look into exotic Tweeter designs that are usually expensive and never filter down to the consumer level.Is there such a thing as a 'circular' AMT design that makes good use of it (concentric rings?) for better dispersion?
Do I put too much emphasis on step response?
(I’m coming from Vandersteen 2C, but Thiel and Dunlavy people would likely also wonder.)
The Fluid aspires to be a poor man's Dutch & Dutch.If I'd were to guess: Better construction, a different sound signature (it's sealed and a three-way), more low-end; will likely get louder more efficiently (675 watts of power), self powered (built in eq, digital connection and the ability to be updated through USB connection).
Just need to get that low-end distortion a little bit more controlled. Hopefully the final product succeeds in this.
Considering the massive price difference, I don't see the issue. $3800 a pair vs nearly $13000 (D&D studio version).The Fluid aspires to be a poor man's Dutch & Dutch.
The ES-20 also has a number of resonances, likely due to its budget construction. Even if you were to EQ it, I seriously doubt it'll be able to compete (sonically) with a sealed, 3-way speaker.Examining the 96 dB profiles, the ES-20 appears to have comparably low LF distortion. And the 86 dB LF profile is cleaner on the ES-20. It's not as loud down there as the Fluid due to the Fluid's active equalization, but one could likewise EQ the ES-20.