Fluid C35BT Budget Monitor Review

[DSJR]

A few pence short of £140 in the UK.

They do a bigger version.........

 

[kyuu]

Someone please tell me what performs better at this price point?

Edifier MR3

 

[Bleib]

I wonder what the deal is with small desktop speakers/monitors and this distinct response shape:

View attachment 486559View attachment 486560View attachment 486561View attachment 486562

I tend to interpret it as having a bass boost because they don't really go deep. Or v-shaped even to make it more "lively"

 

[staticV3]

I tend to interpret it as having a bass boost because they don't really go deep. Or v-shaped even to make it more "lively"

I find it hard to believe that all four brands had full control over their speaker's response and all purposely chose the same response shape (one-note port response+woofer scoop+elevated treble).

 

[Heinrich]

Too small to do anything right, that simple.

 

[kyuu]

Too small to do anything right, that simple.

Simple and incorrect.

 

[a4eaudio]

I wonder what the deal is with small desktop speakers/monitors and this distinct response shape:

View attachment 486559View attachment 486560View attachment 486561View attachment 486562

Well, I don't KNOW why, but have a reasonable hypothesis.

Not only are these small desktop monitors likely to be placed on a desk, but they are also likely to be placed on the desk NEAR THE WALL. Thus, they may not be designed with much/any baffle step compensation ("BSC"). Put up against a wall that is fine for the final response, but measured in anechoic/quasi-anechoic manner they will show a 6dB drop off starting at a frequency depending on the baffle width. Below is the simulated effect for a 6-inch wide speaker with a 3-inch diameter midwoofer. If a speaker is intended to be played out in the room away from the walls, then the designer would want to incorporate full BSC and the bring down the entire SPL curve down to the 1dB level in the illustration. Then, an anechoic/quasi-anechoic measurement would look like what we are "used" to seeing, something pretty flat from 60Hz to 20kHz. BUT...if they are going to be placed close to a wall and designed with full BSC they will sound boomy/muddy.

Below is a speaker I helped someone with a few years ago. They were going to put the speakers on the far ends of their fireplace mantel, literally a few inches from the wall. (Small speaker with a $10 3-inch midwoofer and $15 tweeter.) The green line is the quasi-anechoic measurement and looks somewhat like your images. If these were placed out in a room on a stand, they would sound really thin. But on a mantel just a few inches from the wall they measure like the teal line.

In the four images you posted, they clearly tuned the boxes to provide bass-boost. Whether they overdid it or not it is hard to tell, but it is true that a 3dB bump between 60 and 100Hz can really add the illusion of having quite a bit more bass than the speaker really does.

 

[amirm]

I was also wondering about the dip in FR, illustrated by @staticV3 but called out by others. The average (normal) buyer won't know about EQ so presumably it's a design decision. An attempt to allow for 'average' rooms (desk bounce, proximity to walls?), or a perceived bass boost to make them sound bigger - a sort of crude DSP?

I am told this is done on purpose based on subjective listening. Don't know the details of said testing.

 

[Madlop26]

Too small to do anything right, that simple.

my Genelecs 8010A are at looking at you with disbelief, lol

 

[NotInYourHead]

my Genelecs 8010A are at looking at you with disbelief, lol

In this case, it's too little of a budget

 

[Alegretti]

I find it hard to believe that all four brands had full control over their speaker's response and all purposely chose the same response shape (one-note port response+woofer scoop+elevated treble).

There should be no difficulty in obtaining this response; it simply requires tuning the duct to a frequency higher than the ideal value calculated by the software.

 

[a4eaudio]

There should be no difficulty in obtaining this response; it simply requires tuning the duct to a frequency higher than the ideal value calculated by the software.

Its not the port tuning that he is pointing too. Its the (1) broad smiley-face from 150-1000Hz and (2) this smiley-face region is a good 3- 6dB lower than the average level between 1kHz-10kHz.

 

[amirm]

Its not the port tuning that he is pointing too. Its the (1) broad smiley-face from 150-1000Hz and (2) this smiley-face region is a good 3- 6dB lower than the average level between 1kHz-10kHz.

In the case of this speaker, there is actually a DSP and is used to create that shape.

 

[NielsMayer]

Maybe "Designed in California" shoulda just gone and copied Edifier

 

[crappypanther]

not bad!

 

[AnalogSteph]

Note that the best response was had with the front volume control set to max and adjusting the input level. The reverse would make the front end compress resulting in horrible artifacts even at low SPLs (a common signature among this class of monitors).

Any estimates for input overload level?

Overall, these seem better than average in this class, but that's still not saying much (the average is firmly in "could stand in for a vacuum cleaner" terrain). Driver quality seems decent, internal stuffing appears to be lacking, and the crossover is the usual single-capacitor job with a response evened out by DSP. Looks like they may have taken advantage of higher tweeter sensitivity to effectively contain woofer breakup somewhat, taking a page from the JBL 104 playbook.

 

[Heinrich]

my Genelecs 8010A are at looking at you with disbelief, lol

See also the review of your 8010a on this board. No bass, but bass delivers the fun, and vice versa. Here it is limited to 100Hz with a cosmetic hump above. The Olive score follows. Toole says, resonances are the worst, here you get a truckload. And so forth.

It‘s so cheap, all is forgiven, as long as nothing more is expected. Same, to a slightly lesser degree applies to the Genelec. Just too small to deliver bass. Not that much fun, Toole would presumably say.

 

[amirm]

Any estimates for input overload level?

-8 dBu represented 91 dBSPL. I added 5 dB to that for -3 dB and that is when the input overloaded. I did not try to find another level that didn't.

 

[kyuu]

See also the review of your 8010a on this board. No bass, but bass delivers the fun, and vice versa. Here it is limited to 100Hz with a cosmetic hump above. The Olive score follows. Toole says, resonances are the worst, here you get a truckload. And so forth.

You're really demonstrating a profound inability to read measurements proficiently here. This is also why it is unwise to ignore the subjective remarks, as if you had read them you'd know that the 8010A can actually put out an impressive amount of bass for its size until you run into its SPL limitations.

 

[Heinrich]

You're really demonstrating a profound inability to read measurements proficiently here.

That’s exactly why I teached engineers on university.

This is also why it is unwise to ignore the subjective remarks, as if you had read them you'd know that the 8010A can actually put out an impressive amount of bass for its size until you run into its SPL limitations.

Put the deciding part in bold. What should I do w/ a speaker that doesn‘t deliver 40Hz w/ authority (depending on listening distance)? It wouldn‘t be true. The 8010 cuts bass at 70Hz to protect itself, well done. The Fluid does so at 90Hz something. It is simply not a full range speaker, right? Because it is, simply, too small.