Jamo concert VII

[elak]

Does anyone have any experience wih Jamo concert VII ? I have occasion to buy them at a good price. Only measurements I've found are here: https://hifi-wiki.com/index.php/Jamo_Concert_VII. Thank in advance and greetings

 

[LTig]

The frequency response looks fine, but 2 things make me sceptic.

The lows (<150 Hz) use a bandpass subwoofer. Those are rather known for "one note" bass. And you cannot visually check the drivers for age related problems.

The crossover to the tweeter is so high (4 kHz, typical would be 1.8 - 2.5 kHz) that there must be a significant spinorama error (non smooth off axis frequency response).

 

[AnalogSteph]

The crossover to the tweeter is so high (4 kHz, typical would be 1.8 - 2.5 kHz) that there must be a significant spinorama error (non smooth off axis frequency response).

Which, mind you, is pretty much par for the course for domestic hi-fi speakers from 35 years ago. You can see hints of some treble widening in the graph. Crossover even seems to increase when going from the Concert II (6.5 " + 1", 2 kHz) and V (6.5 + 6.5" + 1", 3.5 kHz) to the VII (2x 8" + 6.5" + 1", 4 kHz), which may have been done for level handling concerns - tweeters in those days had neither waveguides nor ferrofluid and crossovers may only have been like 2nd order or something.

People have developed crossover mods for much cheaper and crummier speakers. This may be a worthwhile project if you have the tools. They probably won't sound bad to begin with, just a bit upper treble happy.

 

[Mart68]

- tweeters in those days had neither waveguides nor ferrofluid

They did - this speaker is from 1992, ferrofluid was common by then although don't know if this speaker's tweeter uses it.

I have B&O speakers with waveguides on mid and tweeter - the model is from 1982. They were not as commonplace as now though I agree.

 

[AnalogSteph]

They did - this speaker is from 1992, ferrofluid was common by then although don't know if this speaker's tweeter uses it.

This model came out in 1989. I had ferrofluid pegged as more of a mid-late '90s trend.

I have B&O speakers with waveguides on mid and tweeter - the model is from 1982. They were not as commonplace as now though I agree.

Much, much less so, in fact. I know of only two other brands, Technics (SB-F1/2/3, 1978-82) and, interestingly enough, RFT (BR25 etc., BR50, BR3750, 1984/89-90). Meanwhile, in the professional space, Genelec seem to have used them since at least 1979 (e.g. 1019A), and throughout the '90s they seem to have spread rapidly. Dynaudio is one of the very few holdouts nowadays. Domestic hi-fi speaker makers didn't commonly use waveguides until well into the 2000s, to the chagrin of enthusiasts I may add.

 

[Mart68]

This model came out in 1989. I had ferrofluid pegged as more of a mid-late '90s trend.

Much, much less so, in fact. I know of only two other brands, Technics (SB-F1/2/3, 1978-82) and, interestingly enough, RFT (BR25 etc., BR50, BR3750, 1984/89-90). Meanwhile, in the professional space, Genelec seem to have used them since at least 1979 (e.g. 1019A), and throughout the '90s they seem to have spread rapidly. Dynaudio is one of the very few holdouts nowadays. Domestic hi-fi speaker makers didn't commonly use waveguides until well into the 2000s, to the chagrin of enthusiasts I may add.

There's also Tannoy - and KEF - the 104/2 tweeter has waveguide and ferrofluid - 1985.

 

[Putter]

Ferrofluid was used as far back as the 1970's in EPI speakers and likely other brands

 

[Alexei]

Hi elak, I owned a pair from new in 1992 until 2023. They definitely did have ferro-fluid cooled SEAS aluminium dome tweeters for the benefit of other posters. The fact I kept and used them as my ‘daily drivers’ for 31yrs means something. What would you like to know about them?

 

[elak]

Hi elak, I owned a pair from new in 1992 until 2023. They definitely did have ferro-fluid cooled SEAS aluminium dome tweeters for the benefit of other posters. The fact I kept and used them as my ‘daily drivers’ for 31yrs means something. What would you like to know about them?

Thanks for all responses! What I particularly would like to know, is do they produce natural (neutral), or coloured sound? Perhaps You have measurements? Greetings

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

The lows (<150 Hz) use a bandpass subwoofer. Those are rather known for "one note" bass. And you cannot visually check the drivers for age related problems.

It depends vary much on used woofer(s) and implementation. Agreed that bandpass sub can easily slip to wrong side of quality.

The crossover to the tweeter is so high (4 kHz, typical would be 1.8 - 2.5 kHz) that there must be a significant spinorama error (non smooth off axis frequency response).

Actually, tweeters without waveguide often blend better when crossed at 3.5 - 4 kHz. Nonintuitively, but true.

 

[Alexei]

Thanks for all responses! What I particularly would like to know, is do they produce natural (neutral), or coloured sound? Perhaps You have measurements? Greetings

Attached is a very old scan of the only Australian hi-fi magazine review I ever saw at the time.
I saw and heard them at a consumer electronics show in ‘91 and they blew me away, almost literally. They were the only expensive, but affordable speakers that were producing deep, extended clean bass. They were relatively small and slender for floorstanders of the time so what they were doing was quite rare. They had some serious treble dynamics too being able to reproduce cymbal crashes without going mushy.

I have no useful measurements to offer as any spec analysis screenshots I have were snapped in-situ within a bad listening room with hard floors and many room modes (my previous apartment) using pink noise and a phone app via the internal iPhone mic.

What AnalogSteph said above is probably pretty close to the mark empirically and objectively. In those days, flat on-axis frequency response @1m was the Holy Grail to aim for and these achieved that better than most others at the time. It was Jamo Denmark’s consumer flagship of that period. The massive Oriels were the ‘Kef Blade1’ of Jamo with the Concert VIIs the next tier down @$3k AUD.

In terms of sounding uncoloured, subjectively they are the most uncoloured-sounding speakers I’ve ever owned or heard if you listen to them as they were measured.
Sitting on the floor in front of the speakers relatively close, it’s hard to imagine anything sounding better, more realistic or pleasant at any cost. This applied to all genres of music.
They don’t sound like any Kefs I’ve heard. If that’s your target, these aren’t them in that they never sound shrill or peaky in the upper mids or lower treble at the expense of maintaining flat in-room response. Perhaps because of the directivity mismatches that AnalogSteph suggested, they almost take on a loudness compensation curve the further you get away from them.

If I didn’t have to move house so many times recently I’d still have them. They are heavy to lug around and I had six sets of speakers to keep moving.

My ‘big’ speakers now are Wharfedale Linton 85ths and they sound pretty similar, although the Jamos had deeper bass extension in a large room and a MUCH better treble reproduction to my tastes. They Jamos sound extended, airy and delicate like ribbon tweeters, but can ramp that up into dynamics like cymbal taps or crashes without becoming mush like soft domes seem to at their limits.

I found the Jamos didn’t ever sound punchy or thumpy at far-field compared to other speakers. Sitting on the ground and up close, they’re magic and realistic. At distance they could rumble and thunder but kick drums rarely had the chest thump that I can now get with almost all my other speakers. This happens a little with the Lintons too and it might be the rooms being overwhelmed with ultra deep bass and masking higher bass.
I think that using a polypropylene 6” mid (it’s not really 6.5”) probably also deadens some percussive attack at the expense of providing near-zero vocal colouration. They are outstanding in that regard.
There was also a small sense of distortion in the bass around 100Hz. I assumed this was the transition frequency range between the outer port handing over to the inner port.
Their imaging is about the same as the Lintons; wide and vague.. They are NOT holographic and pinpoint like concentric Kefs, Tannoys, Fyne, Elac, etc. They never conveyed depth at distance for me. They have massive phase swings around both crossover frequencies compared to all other speakers I’ve owned. That may be due to chasing maximally-flat response over phase considerations or transient response.

Anyway, the speakers are built very well, have no foam surrounds to rot in either woofers or midrange and will last forever if they haven’t been abused.
It’s a shame you can’t listen before buying because I think you'll either love them, or feel disappointed if you have to pay a lot. If they’re cheap, I’d say grab them as they're rare and a collector’s item. Unless you really want the Kef sound of course!

 

[elak]

Attached is a very old scan of the only Australian hi-fi magazine review I ever saw at the time.
I saw and heard them at a consumer electronics show in ‘91 and they blew me away, almost literally. They were the only expensive, but affordable speakers that were producing deep, extended clean bass. They were relatively small and slender for floorstanders of the time so what they were doing was quite rare. They had some serious treble dynamics too being able to reproduce cymbal crashes without going mushy.

I have no useful measurements to offer as any spec analysis screenshots I have were snapped in-situ within a bad listening room with hard floors and many room modes (my previous apartment) using pink noise and a phone app via the internal iPhone mic.

What AnalogSteph said above is probably pretty close to the mark empirically and objectively. In those days, flat on-axis frequency response @1m was the Holy Grail to aim for and these achieved that better than most others at the time. It was Jamo Denmark’s consumer flagship of that period. The massive Oriels were the ‘Kef Blade1’ of Jamo with the Concert VIIs the next tier down @$3k AUD.

In terms of sounding uncoloured, subjectively they are the most uncoloured-sounding speakers I’ve ever owned or heard if you listen to them as they were measured.
Sitting on the floor in front of the speakers relatively close, it’s hard to imagine anything sounding better, more realistic or pleasant at any cost. This applied to all genres of music.
They don’t sound like any Kefs I’ve heard. If that’s your target, these aren’t them in that they never sound shrill or peaky in the upper mids or lower treble at the expense of maintaining flat in-room response. Perhaps because of the directivity mismatches that AnalogSteph suggested, they almost take on a loudness compensation curve the further you get away from them.

If I didn’t have to move house so many times recently I’d still have them. They are heavy to lug around and I had six sets of speakers to keep moving.

My ‘big’ speakers now are Wharfedale Linton 85ths and they sound pretty similar, although the Jamos had deeper bass extension in a large room and a MUCH better treble reproduction to my tastes. They Jamos sound extended, airy and delicate like ribbon tweeters, but can ramp that up into dynamics like cymbal taps or crashes without becoming mush like soft domes seem to at their limits.

I found the Jamos didn’t ever sound punchy or thumpy at far-field compared to other speakers. Sitting on the ground and up close, they’re magic and realistic. At distance they could rumble and thunder but kick drums rarely had the chest thump that I can now get with almost all my other speakers. This happens a little with the Lintons too and it might be the rooms being overwhelmed with ultra deep bass and masking higher bass.
I think that using a polypropylene 6” mid (it’s not really 6.5”) probably also deadens some percussive attack at the expense of providing near-zero vocal colouration. They are outstanding in that regard.
There was also a small sense of distortion in the bass around 100Hz. I assumed this was the transition frequency range between the outer port handing over to the inner port.
Their imaging is about the same as the Lintons; wide and vague.. They are NOT holographic and pinpoint like concentric Kefs, Tannoys, Fyne, Elac, etc. They never conveyed depth at distance for me. They have massive phase swings around both crossover frequencies compared to all other speakers I’ve owned. That may be due to chasing maximally-flat response over phase considerations or transient response.

Anyway, the speakers are built very well, have no foam surrounds to rot in either woofers or midrange and will last forever if they haven’t been abused.
It’s a shame you can’t listen before buying because I think you'll either love them, or feel disappointed if you have to pay a lot. If they’re cheap, I’d say grab them as they're rare and a collector’s item. Unless you really want the Kef sound of course!

Thank You very much! Such a great response!

 

[kemmler3D]

The frequency response looks fine, but 2 things make me sceptic.

The lows (<150 Hz) use a bandpass subwoofer. Those are rather known for "one note" bass. And you cannot visually check the drivers for age related problems.

The crossover to the tweeter is so high (4 kHz, typical would be 1.8 - 2.5 kHz) that there must be a significant spinorama error (non smooth off axis frequency response).

Yes, this is a great call-out... you can't get a 6.5" mid to 4khz without serious beaming, it's a physical impossibility.

They look like competent vintage speakers based on the on-axis, but as for whether they are a good purchase, it depends completely on the price.

For $200 or less I would jump on it. For $200-400 I would think about it. For $400-500 I'd think twice, and at $500+ I would probably pass.

 

[dedobot]

From the same time, when Jamo was Jamo:

 

[Alexei]

Hey elak, if you do end up auditioning or buying these, I’d really like to know your impressions of them