- Thread Starter
- #21
Thanks. Unfortunately I am so inexperiencedSonus Faber Venere 1.5: https://www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-venere-15-loudspeaker-measurements

Thanks. Unfortunately I am so inexperiencedSonus Faber Venere 1.5: https://www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-venere-15-loudspeaker-measurements
Eh, books, shmooks! Who needs them? Just kidding.No, the opposite. I am hoping to avoid stands if possible. Floor-mounts and/or stands block access to my books, etc. I am really hoping for good, front-ported, sitting on the correct height shelf of the unit I made (very solid mdf, 1.5" thick x 16" deep) to have the most flexibility. I do not have enough space to have the speakers overwhelm the room.
Eh, books, shmooks! Who needs them? Just kidding.
If you are going to place them in a shelving unit, I'd say just get whichever of the SF models you like the looks of.
Edit: If it's down to Lumina vs Sonetto, my impression was that the Lumina may have had a bit more "forward" of a mid range presentation than the Sonetto. If you want music for enjoyment and "chilling" to the music, I might tend to go with the Sonetto. For home theater, I might go with the Lumina.
Interesting, thanks.So, having just reviewed the images and specs on Lumina II and Sonetto I/II, these are all really small speakers. And since you mentioned that you see yourself living with them for a long time, I don't think I would go with the Lumina II or Sonetto I(just too small in my mind), but would opt for the Sonetto II. I think the larger size and deeper bass extension would provide for a more satisfying experience when listening to genres such as jazz and classical music. If placing them on a shelf, you'll get the best sound by bringing them as far forward on the shelf as possible.
Thanks much. The off-axis aspect is very important to me (another reason I think I preferred Sf and KEF over B&W etc): I am never really sitting in a listening chair at ideal height/distance etc. for long periods.The modern Sonus Fabers are surprisingly well-engineered and less eccentric than their reputation would have most people think. The Sonetto 2 have good, wide, smooth dispersion, but the tonal balance has scooped mids and elevated treble. Tonal balance can easily be fixed via EQ to taste so long as the speaker disperses smoothly because then the effect of the EQ change is relatively consistent. Not so with speakers with bad, discontinuous dispersion because what is a dip and some angles may be a peak at others. It's much harder to engineer for smooth dispersion (particularly smooth and wide dispersion), much more so than a speaker that is flat on-axis.
Pretty lute shaped cabinets and solid performance in crucial aspects makes it a good choice. FWIW I have liked most entry-level Sonus designs since the Chameleon and Toy.
Thanks much. The off-axis aspect is very important to me (another reason I think I preferred Sf and KEF over B&W etc): I am never really sitting in a listening chair at ideal height/distance etc. for long periods.
I really liked that I could listen to the Sf today and last week from various positions, even “radical” ones from the pov of the ideal triangle, and the Sf never really “gave up” even when I stood way wide. That was nice. With the B&W I felt much more on a leash.
Do you have experience/opinion on Lumina II vs Sonetto I/II, or the older Cremona or even Venere 1.5?
Directivity looks very good in Atkinson's measurements, distortion is rarely an issue in my experience.I never liked the Veneres, sounded like there was some distortion around the crossover region. No experience with the Luminas, but quite rightly you point out the lute shaped cabinet is gone. In the review I linked, the reviewer conjectures that the lute shape and roundovers help to control diffraction off the cabinet. Losing that means losing a lot of the Sonus Faber aesthetic, craft and potentially impact sound. (KEF gets away with sharp edges like on the Reference 1 because the tweeter is coaxial inside the midrange so relatively little energy is hitting the edges)
I was with you right up until you said the monitor would sound better. They might, but SF speakers would never have gained the following they have if they sounded anything other than beautiful. Not sure you can call the design 'industrial' either, more like fine furniture than a piece of audio equipment...I think that the strength of all Sonus Faber speakers, since their beginning, is beautiful industrial design, luxury materials, perfect build and pride of ownership. It was always about looks.
None of SF speakers were designed to have flat FR. Small, ugly and cheaper active studio monitors will sound much better then SF most of the time.
But, since we enjoy music, not only through our hearing but from other senses as well, visual being very important, I say, buy the ones you like the most.
"Industrial design is a process of design applied to physical products that are to be manufactured by mass production."Not sure you can call the design 'industrial' either, more like fine furniture than a piece of audio equipment...
You are referring to the Venere 1.5 in both sentences, correct?Directivity looks very good in Atkinson's measurements, distortion is rarely an issue in my experience.
@venessian rear port shouldn't be a problem
I do not know much, but this seems a bit reductionist regarding Sf versus many other brands, no?I think that the strength of all Sonus Faber speakers, since their beginning, is beautiful industrial design, luxury materials, perfect build and pride of ownership. It was always about looks.
None of SF speakers were designed to have flat FR. Small, ugly and cheaper active studio monitors will sound much better then SF most of the time.
But, since we enjoy music, not only through our hearing but from other senses as well, visual being very important, I say, buy the ones you like the most.
Do you think the Venere 1.5 are more suited to that kind of application, rather than CD/tuner through a stereo receiver in a living room?I have a pair of Venere 1.5 in piano black and used them on a dresser in a bedroom early in the pandemic.
They sounded very good to me using a Schiit Freya S and a Red Dragon Audio S500 amplifier.
Sourced music Tidal/Qobuz/Amazon HD streaming from a Bluesound Node 2 with SMSL M500 DAC
Can anyone explain how is it possible that the "grille" that they're using is acoustically transparent?
View attachment 177429
I agree with "thewas". I would guess that the NFA (Net Free Area percentage, as in HVAC systems, etc.) is higher (more porous) than on a typical metal mesh or foam/fabric grille, and that in addition the round shape of the "strings" is more conducive to transparency than the flat, more reflective surfaces of a stamped metal or woven fabric grille. The frames on these are extremely minimal, even on the new tall floor-standers. Impressive stuff. More acoustically transparent than most grilles seems very possible to me.No grille is fully 100.000% acoustically transparent, also on the other hand why should it be significantly worse than for example a metal mesh grille? The order of dimension of width of its elements is similar and smaller than most wavelengths radiated by the loudspeaker. Usually the biggest problem of grilles are not the fabric or metal mesh but the grill frames which are too large on not good engineering.