Meyer Sound Amie Monitor Review

[dasdoing]

From the limited vantage point of those in-room sweeps. Sure...

However take a closer look at these other published reviews:

Start

Das Online-Magazin für Keyboards, Synthesizer, Recording und DJing. Täglich neue Artikel zu Themen, die dich interessieren!

www.soundandrecording.de

https://meyersound.com/public/pdf/pp-amie.pdf

Neumann KH150
View attachment 316796
Power compression. Measured with a multitone signal with EIA-426B spectrum, starting at an average level Leq of 89.3 dB. Based on this reference measurement, the input level was increased in 1 dB steps up to +11 dB, where the compression by the limiter exceeds the 2 dB limit (red curve). The graphic in Fig.06 was derived from the measurement of the green curve.

View attachment 316794
Figure 6. Measurement of the total distortion (harmonics and intermodulation) with a multi-tone signal with EIA-426B spectrum and 12 dB crest factor for a maximum of 2 dB power compression or a maximum of -20 dB distortions. Based on 1 m in the open field, a level of 98.2 dB as Leq and 110.4 dB as Lpk is achieved.

View attachment 316791
Maximum level based on 1 m distance with a maximum of 3% distortion (red curve) and with a maximum of 10% distortion (<300 Hz) (blue curve)


Meyer Sound Amie
View attachment 316797
Power compression. Measurement of the Amie with multi‐sine signals, starting with a time‐averaged sound level Leq of 92 dB (0 dB reference). For the further measurements, the input level was increased in steps of 1 dB up to +16 dB. For the woofer, a clear compression starts at +12 dB (yellow curve [actually, it's more like orange]). For the measurement in Fig. 11, a level setting corresponding to the yellow curve with a compression <2 dB was selected (Fig. 10)

View attachment 316795
Figure 11. Multitone measurement with an EIA‐426B spectrum (green curve). The achieved time‐averaged sound level Leq is 103 dB, while the peak sound level Lpk is 115 dB with -25 dB total distortion (TD = THD+IMD). Both values refer to 1 m distance in free field under full space conditions (4π). The measurement’s termination criterion was a signal compression (see Fig. 10) of a maximum of 2 dB (Fig. 11)

View attachment 316792
Maximum level for a maximum of 3% (dashed) or 10% THD for the Amie (red) and for the Amie‐Sub (blue). The curve of the 10% measurement series is primarily caused by the onset of the limiter rather than reaching the distortion values. Both systems perform at a high level and are free of weaknesses (Fig. 9)


*It's quite unique for this compact size of a monitor, really... The Amie was deliberately designed not needing to be high passed at 80 Hz or so -- and is meant to be run "full-range" as-is. The Sub is primarily there to extend the operational response below ~45 Hz or so.

View attachment 316790

so the limiting behaviour is somewhat similar

 

[Pearljam5000]

Another nice and cheaper alternative to Amie

8350A SAM™ Studio Monitor - Genelec.com

All the intelligence of Smart Active Monitoring in an extremely potent nearfield monitor. Introducing the Genelec 8350A.

www.genelec.com

 

[sigbergaudio]

You guys know you can't actually see from the measurements whether the Amie sounds better (or not) than all the similarly measuring alternatives suggested, right?

 

[ernestcarl]

so the limiting behaviour is somewhat similar

Hmmm… well, the shape is pretty similar, but the power compression on the KH150 is more aggressive in reality. It consequently has to be if you also consider the stated power amplifier supply — 250w and 150w only for the woofer vs stated 900w (peak) for the Meyer.

https://meyersound.com/download/amie-datasheet

@sigbergaudio

In terms of sound “preference rating”, my (just at a glance at the FR, very quick guess) is the Neumann KH150 might win some more brownie points due to the slight advantage in extra bass extension. Remember that blind comparison thread between Neumann KH80, JBL 305p and a few other monitors… I bet the 305p has a heck of a lot more distortion and resonances over the smaller Neumann KH80 at moderate SPLs yet it was still well liked — if I remember right, even a little more so than the much “cleaner” measuring KH80.


Found it:

Blind Listening Test 2: Neumann KH 80 vs JBL 305p MkII vs Edifier R1280T vs RCF Arya Pro5

Shortly after completing the first blind listening test, @Inverse_Laplace and I started thinking about all the ways we’d like to improve the rigor and explore other questions. Written summary follows, but here is a video if you prefer that medium: Speakers (calculated preference score in...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[dominikz]

You guys know you can't actually see from the measurements whether the Amie sounds better (or not) than all the similarly measuring alternatives suggested, right?

TBH I'm also not really conviced there is such a thing as 'better' or 'worse' sound at this level of quality.

 

[sigbergaudio]

TBH I'm also not really conviced there is such a thing as 'better' or 'worse' sound at this level of quality.

And it's at least good to be aware that the preference score isn't as accurate as it appears.

Some seem to believe that if they purchase a speaker with a score of 7.2, it's guaranteed to be objectively better than a speaker with a score of 7.1. It feels like some members need a regular reminder that it's not quite that simple.

 

[gnarly]

TBH I'm not really conviced there is such a thing as 'better' or 'worse' at this level of quality.

That's my sentiment too.

I'd go so far as to say, if comparing Amie with the same sized boxes from Neuman and Genelec ......and with all things being equal....same room, same placements etc......
I'd expect a preference choice, to most likely change among the speakers on a track-by track basis.
With no clear superiority, one vs another. Just subtle differences, track depending.

 

[RobL]

And it's at least good to be aware that the preference score isn't as accurate as it appears.

Some seem to believe that if they purchase a speaker with a score of 7.2, it's guaranteed to be objectively better than a speaker with a score of 7.1. It feels like some members need a regular reminder that it's not quite that simple.

It’s true that scores within even 0.5 of each other are probably not significant but Amie scores 5.1 and KH150 scores 6.9…that would translate to a significant difference in a blind test.

 

[Pearljam5000]

It’s true that scores within even 0.5 of each other are probably not significant but Amie scores 5.1 and KH150 scores 6.9…that would translate to a significant difference in a blind test.

How much 8350a scores?
Sorry I can't find the link

 

[dasdoing]

Hmmm… well, the shape is pretty similar, but the power compression on the KH150 is more aggressive in reality. It consequently has to be if you also consider the stated power amplifier supply — 250w and 150w only for the woofer vs stated 900w (peak) for the Meyer.

Yea, the Meyer has more headroom (while they both have (probably) comparable real world dispersion). but $5000? You better get the S360

 

[Ilkless]

Yea, the Meyer has more headroom (while they both have (probably) comparable real world dispersion). but $5000? You better get the S360

Also realistically, I don't think Meyer has some high SPL special sauce with driver design, selection and integration Neumann is unaware of. I think they simply optimised slightly more for high SPL but with disproportionately high compromises (DI, port resonance) at all but extreme SPLs, and with a roll-off slightly higher up.

 

[Datec]

Everyone's ears hear differently to someone else's but everyone see's and reads the same measurement report. Just because one measures better in certain areas dosent make it better audiabley to the person auditioning it, their ears might need that differance to sound good to them. So for me I take the measurements with a grain of salt until I can listen to it myself and make my own judgement call.

 

[RobL]

How much 8350a scores?
Sorry I can't find the link

Not sure for 8350A…8050B scores 6.25

 

[Robbo99999]

And it's at least good to be aware that the preference score isn't as accurate as it appears.

Some seem to believe that if they purchase a speaker with a score of 7.2, it's guaranteed to be objectively better than a speaker with a score of 7.1. It feels like some members need a regular reminder that it's not quite that simple.

Yeah, you got to read the whole frequency response along with the directivity and distortion, the numbers help for newbies. The more ASR reviews you read and the more experience you have with systems with different levels of bass response, etc, then the more you can put the number into perspective - to be honest I don't care about the number, I can see if it's a good speaker from the spinorama & other data (but it does correlate at a rough level).

 

[Mr. Widget]

Yeah, you got to read the whole frequency response along with the directivity and distortion, the numbers help for newbies. The more ASR reviews you read and the more experience you have with systems with different levels of bass response, etc, then the more you can put the number into perspective - to be honest I don't care about the number, I can see if it's a good speaker from the spinorama & other data (but it does correlate at a rough level).

I don't mean to single you out, but there is a substantial group here convinced that the objectively better speakers are their personal preference. I wonder how many would pick the same speakers in a blind/double blind comparison.

Have you personally done any blind listening tests to see if your certainty of relative quality is backed up with statistically relevant empirical evidence?

 

[RobL]

Have you personally done any blind listening tests to see if your certainty of relative quality is backed up with statistically relevant imperial evidence?

Yes! These people are waiting!
Sorry, I know you meant empirical, lol

 

[sigbergaudio]

Yeah, you got to read the whole frequency response along with the directivity and distortion, the numbers help for newbies. The more ASR reviews you read and the more experience you have with systems with different levels of bass response, etc, then the more you can put the number into perspective - to be honest I don't care about the number, I can see if it's a good speaker from the spinorama & other data (but it does correlate at a rough level).

Looking at all the graphs still won't tell you definitively which one is "better" or which one you prefer, especially when they are relatively similar with no obvious flaws. If you have heard a number of speakers that you've also seen the spinorama for, that will help, but will still not necessarily be conclusive.

Don't get me wrong, these measurements are great tools, but they're not gospel.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Sorry, I know you meant empirical, lol

LOL... yeah, damned auto correct!

 

[YSC]

I don't mean to single you out, but there is a substantial group here convinced that the objectively better speakers are their personal preference. I wonder how many would pick the same speakers in a blind/double blind comparison.

Have you personally done any blind listening tests to see if your certainty of relative quality is backed up with statistically relevant empirical evidence?

I actually did a few, but it varies a lot on say, tracks used to do the test. and room size... overall I would say I still believe the technically better ones would be more universal/ consistant in long term. say some speakers with more pronounced directivity error, especially horizontal DI, maybe specifically engineered/designed room treatment could make it shine by minimizing the effects technical flaws like DI, and fixing a MLP with myself would do the trick also to tackle the very narow sweetspot, but then when the environment changes, the more technically perfect speaker would be easier to integrate into the new space.

Of course, things such as high SPL capability is kind of easy to decide on a give and take situation, when you purchasae, see how loud you could tolerate in your listening distance, for me maybe I am quite sensitive to sound, even with bookshelfs at moderate distance (say, KRK RP5 G4 at 2m distance), in stereo I can't stand it go past 30% volume, so in that sense I would trade high SPL capacity to better DI and flatter on axis FR, but of course, YMMV

 

[sigbergaudio]

My apologies if my comment is now about to derail the thread. Further discussions on the general validity of measurements should probably continue here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...are-measurements-everything-or-nothing.29062/