-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Verdant Audio Bambusa AL-1 Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
- Messages
- 4,336
- Likes
- 6,705
Actually seems really good. Assuming you use EQ(which you should always), you can easily EQ down that midrange bump. I mean even with the midrange bump, it seems to be one of the highest rated "small ID manufacturer" speakers we've seen, and it's quite EQable.
D
Deleted member 2944
Guest
Part of good crossover design IS equalization of driver responses.. In fact, that midrange bump is a characteristic of all those Seas aluminum drivers. That SHOULD be taken care of in a speaker this expensive so the end user doesn't have to resort to electronic equalization to fix it. Just my opinion.
Dave.
Maybe that's what they're trying to do. If so, kudos.
Just curious (no irony), how much bamboo adds to costs against some standard generic MDF? Maybe just an accident, but I often see bamboo finish among products priced towards "more luxurious".. I mean price of raw material may be not high, but not so processing?
Salk does it for an upcharge, which provides an upper limit to the additional cost (assuming the upcharge is totally cost price which is unlikely even though I think Salk charges a fair price for their stunning work). According to Salk, their upcharge is about $500 per speaker (applies to the floorstander in question so I'm assuming it is the same/cheaper for a standmount).
The SEAS drivers have pistonic motion to a higher level, and lower distortion for a given SPL for their size than almost any driver. Linkwitz didn't use them in his (then) reference Orion speakers for nothing.
Last edited:
LBL (bamboo sheet) is notoriously difficult to machine. Much of the cost is in this. Its harder than steel, and will wear screws away!
According to your simulations, one could almost think that the crossover was simply calculated rather than designed - without taking the influence of the baffle into account.
I just don't understand how the manufacturer didn't test it enough to notice the hump before putting this out. I know they probably don't have the test kit amir has, but REW and a mic would have shown this clearly.
Last edited:
Well you would have thought the manufacturer would have understood the testing regime and what would be considered a good or bad result. Assuming they have measured their design there should have been no surprises.Actually feel bad that the manufacturer took the risk to send the speaker only to see it get beat up here.
Not many will take that risk knowing that only the facts will be presented and not softened by advertising dollars.
We do need to be more charitable in these cases, and that includes myself.
Considering the above there was no risk involved. So why feel bad?
So, did they not understand the likely interpretation of the measurement results, or did they not have their own measurements, or were their own measurements inacurate, or was it a deliberate choice?
Last edited:
To be fair, you can also consciously choose to ignore the baffle step influence. There are developers who do not fully compensate for this.
However, if the manufacturer uses a speaker setup as shown on the website as a reference, you shouldn't be surprised. The shown corner placement should raise the low bass by a good 10-15dB.
Which in turn would explain the statement on the website:
The manufacturer should turn the "weakness" into a "strength" and add the following note
"Optimized for corner installation"
Last edited:
This is what it looks like, no baffle step compensation.
I'm not sure corner placement is a good solution.
Speakers that have a flat anechoic on axis response are preferred. This still has a big blip in that context.
Last edited:
You can see the distortion in graphs I posted, not that much better.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,741
- Likes
- 6,456
Not taking into account sound, 5K for a small bamboo box represents poor value as furniture. If it was one of the rare and extremely expensive veneers perhaps the argument could be better justified.
As I understand it, the new JBL L100 Classic is factory made in Indonesia. From parts/labor it should be selling for four or five hundred dollars, probably. Not two thousand. I haven't seen one up close, but from photos the veneer doesn't look as nice as the original walnut L100, which was thick enough to undergo sanding and refinishing.
The Klipsch Heritage line is still hand made in USA, so labor costs are going to be higher for that. I think the new Heritage line is over the top price-wise, but being hand made with matched veneers, there could be legitimate furniture value in them.
Even back in the day the L100 was pretty big for a bookshelf. We have to remember that in the '50s and '60s a 'full range' speaker was typically huge. Things didn't really start to change until AR. The AR3 was small for the times--at least for a loudspeaker with a reasonable facsimile of bass response. Small 'monitor' loudspeakers didn't really gain popularity until the late '70s: LS3/5a types; sophisticated crossovers; Thiele-Small and computer assisted designs etc made smaller loudspeakers viable. [edit--especially with the advent of subwoofers, which really weren't a thing until the late '70s--remember the Janis?, and took off with home theater.]
I don't know how the 'bookshelf' moniker came about. Before people became interested in things like 'imaging' and 'front to back depth' you'd see loudspeakers placed anywhere in the room. Often 'hidden' in order to blend with decor. Sometimes hiding under coffee tables or in 'consoles'. Sometimes near the ceiling on top of bookshelves.
FWIW the 4310/11 (L100) was meant to be placed on a console, woofer up with midrange-tweeters at ear level. That way the overall sound was better balanced without bass booming. The idea of placing them on the floor, woofer down, was not part of the plan--at least until Maxell came along.
Last edited:
digicidal
Major Contributor
If this was about a third of the price, and the mid-range boost carried a bit further (~2.5K) I'd think they'd be pretty fantastic in my den as TV-only speakers. Nice dialog increase built-in and the bass issues resolved by the subs. Sadly the price alone eliminates that possibility for me - my TV speakers need to be cheaper so the money can go to music reproduction in another room.
You going soft mate ? What's happened, have you fallen in love or something?Actually feel bad that the manufacturer took the risk to send the speaker only to see it get beat up here.
Not many will take that risk knowing that only the facts will be presented and not softened by advertising dollars.
We do need to be more charitable in these cases, and that includes myself.
digicidal
Major Contributor
Actually feel bad that the manufacturer took the risk to send the speaker only to see it get beat up here.
Not many will take that risk knowing that only the facts will be presented and not softened by advertising dollars.
We do need to be more charitable in these cases, and that includes myself.
It's a fine line for sure. On the other hand, as we've already seen in a few cases - a manufacturer who can see past the vitriol and strives to significantly improve their product, may find an entirely new set of consumers. I know I would rather support a manufacturer willing to face honest criticism than one that hides from measurements and strives only to sell their products to wealthy, dazed CE conventioneers who are similarly convinced that they sound best when used with mega-buck cables and bags of rocks.
tuga
Major Contributor
digicidal
Major Contributor
And that's for those that could get past the (IMO only of course) pug fugliness of those two speakers in order to actually consider how significantly flawed the sound produced by them is. Of course, that's influenced by age as much as anything else, and purely subjective in nature - but definitely still a factor in selection of something that would visually dominate any room I could put either of them in.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2020
- Messages
- 29
- Likes
- 124
It is the T25 Tweeter and the L18. These drivers were selected because they are the exact same size as the Millenium tweeter and the Excel driver. The goal is to minimize inventory on
To be fair, you can also consciously choose to ignore the baffle step influence. There are developers who do not fully compensate for this.
However, if the manufacturer uses a speaker setup as shown on the website as a reference, you shouldn't be surprised. The shown corner placement should raise the low bass by a good 10-15dB.
View attachment 58707
Which in turn would explain the statement on the website:
The manufacturer should turn the "weakness" into a "strength" and add the following note
"Optimized for corner installation"
This was only to take a photo with a clean enough background to be removed. This is not where the speaker was placed for modeling or listening. That being said, both speakers do quite well with near wall placement and I would recommend placement 12" to 18" from the wall for optimal performance.
Similar threads
