GRIMM Audio LS1c & SB1 DSP Speaker Review

[Newman]

Too expensive.

Where's China when you need them?

 

[Pearljam5000]

I like the colors

 

[Newman]

I listened to them at High End Munich this weekend and had a nice chat with Guido Tent (cheers, Guido!). The room was quite large (maybe 80 m²?) and had treatment on the walls. The listening area consisted of about 5 x 4 or x 5 chairs. The LS1c were at maybe 40° to the long axis of the room, resulting in a very stubby listening tryangle. Their distance to the center chair of the front row was maybe 3 - 4 m each and they were aligned to be pointing right at that seat. For the other rows this resulted in some toe-in, which is probably how these were intended to be listened to. The SPL was high but not outrageously so.

It was my first time listening to any incarnation of the LS1, and I was fascinated and probably spent more time at this exhibit than any other. During my first session, I had a chance to work my place up from standing in the back to the back row and then to the center and front rows. The general picture did not change with position. It sounded very clean, however, when sitting back and center, there was always someone directly in my line of sight to at least one speaker which may have disturbed the imaging. Once in the front row, it was a little bit like wearing giant open-backed headphones. Overall, my listening impression did not change so much, even when I was standing in the back of the room later. The pieces played showcased the capabilities of the speakers, especially the subs that went very low without screaming sub. Unfortunately, there were few close-miked voice (other than Björk screaming into the microphone) or solo instrument recordings to judge imaging. I later asked Guido for female voice, and he kindly obliged, but I wasn't familiar with the artist or recording (note to self: find recording and listen at home).

There was something I couldn't quite put my finger on that bugged me. I couldn't describe it to Guido, and I still can't fully explain it after some reflection. The best I can do is to say that voices sounded clean but remote until the was a forte passage when they jumped right at me. I was trying fo find rational explanations and reread the original LS1 whitepaper by Bruno and reviews of the LS1 and LS1be. I had already retired the idea that it was distortion from excitation of the cone modes of the W22EX midbass as I had found distortion mesasuremens of the LS1 and newer versions. Quite amazing, actually, with only a LR4 XO and no current drive or damping of the cone mode with a parallel resonant circuit was used in the LS1. I was starting to look for directivity plots when Amir's review came in.

I was hypothesizing that it was the rather large midwoofer starting to beam that was bothering me (I have never owned a two way with anything larger than a five inch midbass, let alone an 8 inch with a pistonic cone), but the directivity plots are beautifully smooth. Could it be the absence of baffle diffraction and perfect waterfall? I don't think so. These days, I listen mainly to KEF R3 Meta which do not have a wide baffle but the shadow flare should direct most of the sound away from the edge. I also have Capacity electrostatics, and I have had several chances to listen to minimal baffle dipoles at diy events, all of which should have minimal baffle edge diffraction. But I should point out that I have never listened to anything that has such a wide and constant directivity dispersion (the Google Nest Audio comes close and probably also has little baffle diffraction due to its round shape but it becomes a monopole way higher in frequency - and the subjective impression was quite different to the LS1c's).

So what was I missing? Maybe this immediacy of reproduction, the slightly goose-bump inducing feeling that the singer is right there in the room (I have this with the Google Nest Audio, which I bought just for fun after Amir's review. That was mono as I wasn't yet able to get two to work as a stereo pair). I may generally have a thing for small midranges or full ranges. I realize an audio fair is not the place for critical listening and comparisons, but the few times I was struck by the sound of a speaker, it was usally something with a 4-5 in midrange, sometimes even a coax.

I did listen to the Kiii Seven playing in a larger room without subs at considerable volume. Other than being also Bruno's brainchild, they also address the baffle diffraction, though through side woofers. I was impressed by how cleanly and how low those could play with just two 6.5 in woofers. I liked voices a little better (then maybe the recordings were more amenable to that) but I was not blown away. When I returned later, they were doing some ambient immersion with five or more speakers playing, so not my thing. Oh, and I visited to Manger room twice to listen to two different pairs of speakers. When I first listened to Mangers at the High End fair near Frankfurt more than 20 years ago, I was blown away and shortly after acquired a pair of used drivers, had them refurbished at Manger and used them in a diy system for several years until the voice coil contacts failed again. I know how terribly the MSW measure, and I never understood how they can be so appealing regardless. Anyway, this time, they didn't sound as flashy as I remembered them, more laid-back and neutral (maybe some of the glaring imperfections of these drivers were ironed out by DSP?). But they sounded immediately right, and I liked voices quite well, even if they were not goose-bump inducing.

So what to make of the LS1c? Evidently, a very good speaker with a lot of thought and good engineering invested in them. Maybe it is just my spoiled listening habits that keep me from fully appreciating them. More exposure may change this...

This story is a good example of what goes wrong when people try to post-rationalise their sighted listening impressions into analysis of causes.

Cheers

 

[hex168]

The anti-diffraction design reminds me of this. It worked for these speakers too:

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/improving-the-sony-ss-cs5.3068362/

 

[amirm]

What could cause it to happen just with this speaker and not any other speaker you tried?
@amirm

My only guess is the wide dispersion, adding energy just in the right range to make the female vocals stand out.

 

[tomtoo]

40k not say more. I dont see 40k. Sry.

 

[amirm]

Folks, these are sold in retail channel with high touch sales. I suspect some discount can be had.

 

[PristineSound]

Folks, these are sold in retail channel with high touch sales. I suspect some discount can be had.

But even with a 50% discount, that's still $20k, a Dutch & Dutch is still less than that at full MSRP!

 

[Somafunk]

If I come back in another life to find myself living in an ultra minimalist house in Norway, perched on a cliff top with an uninterrupted view of the ocean through a 50ft wide floor to ceiling glass window then I imagine I’ll have a pair of these speakers…………or Kii 3/bxt

 

[amirm]

But even with a 50% discount, that's still $20k, a Dutch & Dutch is still less than that at full MSRP!

Again, they are not the same speaker. D&D has half the beam width of the LS1c:

Those of us who like spatial presentations, won't warm up to it as much as the LS1c.

 

[Pearljam5000]

For the price I'd rather get a pair of 8361 and a Toyota Corolla

 

[amirm]

For the price I'd rather get a pair of 8361 and a Toyota Corolla

There are still Corollas???

As to Genelec, the issue is how it looks. It is a hard sell to many but performance wise, of course it is way up there.

 

[bachatero]

Where's China when you need them?

Neumann KH150 is over 10x cheaper but is made in Czech Republic

 

[PristineSound]

Again, they are not the same speaker. D&D has half the beam width of the LS1c:

Those of us who like spatial presentations, won't warm up to it as much as the LS1c.

As you alluded to, very wide beamwidth is a matter of personal taste.

But nevertheless, one can get the Ascend Acoustics ELX RIbbon for 1/7th of the price plus electronics, like I have

 

[sweetsounds]

This story is a good example of what goes wrong when people try to post-rationalise their sighted listening impressions into analysis of causes.

Cheers

Hi Newman,
well, this is the difficult point. I do agree, that blind testing is useful, in particular to avoid being overexcited on products, which don't make differences at all.

The measurements here tell us "this is a great product", but in reality I don't fully enjoy it: to my ears for sure they sound sonically correct like many of the flat measuring speakers (Genelec etc). But I found them somewhat fragile for my taste and imaging/dynamics just so-so.
So should I really buy speakers because of measurements telling me that they have to be liked?

Thomas

PS: Electronics are a different story. Here, measurements tell us exactly, if the signal gets to the output undistorted or not. And that's what I want, but can't tell by ear.

 

[lddo133]

The DSP system is known as a 6th-order network, and therefore has good performance. In other words, the tweeter's sound pressure reduction is prominent in the woofer reproduction area, so the woofer's S/N sounds better, so it is clearer and more distinct to listen to. If you make a speaker, you can save a lot of money by making it a 6th-order network. And the bump in the subwoofer or low-frequency area is due to the 2.5-way network, so this advantage can be made similarly on the network.
All the parts of the woofer and subwoofer shown above are for sale, so it is thought that they can be obtained. The woofer is a magnesium woofer from Seas in the Excel series, and the tweeter is also an aluminum tweeter from Seas, and the woofer of the subwoofer looks like an aluminum 8-inch woofer from Dayton Audio's Designer series. However, since the design is good, it would be better for those with money to buy it, but if you don't have enough money and want to enjoy a similar effect, I think you should buy the parts and make it.
If you want to make it, but the 6th-order network is difficult, I will make it for you. Do you want it?

 

[tktran303]

The thing about the NFS is that it's so automated and excellent, sometimes we forget to step back and think about what is going on.
In this case BOTH Davey and Amirm AND Grimm Audio is correct.

Allow me to be translator here.

The NFS gives an anechoic measurement without the anechoic chamber. Mounted properly, and measured properly, the results are correct. Amir's done enough measurements with the NFS to ensure the result is valid.

HOWEVER, the Actual in-room bass response is likely to be NOT close to the Predicted In-Room result. This is what Grimm Audio are suggesting.
Here's why-
In most speaker systems, the woofers face forwards, which means there's a baffle step loss based on the baffle dimensions. ie. A bigger baffle and the less loss in SPL.
A smaller baffle, the more loss. Furthermore, the SPL loss starts at different frequencies depending on the size of the baffle. It's all related to the wavelength of audio, which is ~17m (56ft) for 20Hz... down to 17mm (~2/3 inch) for 20KHz. So there's a increasing loss of bass frequencies on a small baffle. For many designers, to compensate for this, they need to dial in baffle-step-loss compensation (either actively or passive) to get the right balance of bass and midrange.

But the woofer in SB1 sits close to the ground and facing upwards. This means that it's baffle is not just the cabinet, but MOST OF THE FLOOR acts as a baffle too.
So in a sense, it has a much larger virtual baffle than the cabinet it is mounted to. The bass response would be closer to an infinite baffle (2pi) response than a true anechoic (4pi) response if it had ben rotated 90 degrees and front firing.

The usual effects of the room, on the bass response at the listening position will still occur. This happens in small room, and causes dips and peaks below the Schroeder frequency, which is around 500Hz or below, depending on the room.

As usual, semantics can hinder mutual understanding.
But it doesn't help when we forgot to see another person's point of view.

 

[mcdn]

The bass response would be closer to an infinite baffle (2pi) response than a true anechoic (4pi) response if it had ben rotated 90 degrees and front firing.

All bass response <50Hz in a normal room is 2pi (wall) or less (in a corner) because the speaker is always close to the room boundaries - remember the wavelength at 50Hz is over 6 metres. The woofer being on the floor vs raised is irrelevant.

 

[tktran303]

I decline from further comment re: full space, half space or quarter space. But one doesn't have to take my word for it. Just look at the data.

Exhibit A:
88dB is the red line.
20Hz is 72-75dB depending on which line you take (16-13dB down)

Exhibit B: at 1m- average response is 88dB between 500Hz and 8KHz.
20Hz is 55dB (33dB down)

Exhibit C: Estimated in-room response (bold: my emphasis):

Exhibit D: Insert measurement here, using moving mic, or other method, at your favourite listening position(s).
The bass response will depends on the actual room and actual listening position.



The whole bass response below 120Hz is different, depending on how you measure.

 

[Hayabusa]

The NFS gives an anechoic measurement without the anechoic chamber. Mounted properly, and measured properly, the results are correct. Amir's done enough measurements with the NFS to ensure the result is valid.

It's a pity that NFS can not have a more realistic in room prediction using more information about the placement of the speaker. Now we get quite some misleading results..