Grandinote Mach 8 XL vs Mach 9 speakers

[Kozak170]

False, Does not work at all with e.g dome tweeters

That’s not quite right either.
Even in dome tweeters, the acoustic center still corresponds closely to the point where motion originates, the voice coil or diaphragm apex depending on geometry.
The dome’s curvature shifts the apparent center slightly forward, but it doesn’t change the fact that timing alignment is defined by the origin of motion, not the visible surface.
That’s why designers still measure the effective acoustic center of each driver when aligning systems, regardless of cone or dome type.

Just look at designs from Vandersteen or Thiel, both use dome tweeters yet employ sloped baffles to achieve proper physical time alignment.

Passive loudspeakers have a significant time delay for low frequencies anyway. If well designed, 10 ms..are really good

Group delay explanation and measurement (in audio)

Group delay is often confused with phase delay, and for good reasons. Here is a clear group delay explanation, and measurement using ARTA.

audiojudgement.com

That’s a different kind of delay, Group delay in low frequencies is mostly caused by the system’s acoustic loading and crossover slope, not by misalignment between drivers.
It affects the phase rotation of bass frequencies but has little to do with the physical time offset between the acoustic centers of mid and high drivers.
When we talk about time alignment, we’re referring to the synchronization of transient arrival across drivers, not low-frequency group delay.
A system can have excellent bass group delay and still suffer from poor time coherence if the drivers are not physically aligned.

Of course, an active loudspeaker with a FIR filter transmits an input signal with almost no time delay (take a look at the group delay measurement of the loudspeakers). Talk to Neumann in Berlin; they have perfected this technology.

P.S
If anyone is interested, this explains very well where the acoustic center is defined.

Time/Phase Alignment, Acoustic Center, Lobing etc.

What is up and down?

purifi-audio.com

P.P.S
They make amazing woofers too

That’s true for active systems, but that’s a different design philosophy.
FIR correction can linearize phase and group delay very effectively, but it does so through digital signal processing, not through acoustic geometry.
In passive designs, the acoustic alignment of the voice coils and the natural time behavior of the drivers still define coherence at the source.
Digital correction is impressive, but it’s a separate approach, one that compensates after the conversion, not through the mechanical integrity of the system itself.
Both methods can work beautifully when executed well; they just solve the problem from opposite ends.

 

[sbo6]

I read it but it was so generic that it didn't merit comment. You were making a point of the fact that Kozak is criticizing 1/2 the speaker designs, which implies that you think those are good designs...otherwise, you would have simply agreed with him

You misinterpreted and assumed.

Unlike you few who seem to judge and know all about speaker design, I go by my ears and 40 years' experience. And what that has told me is - There's more than one way to design a speaker and all implementations can be excellent <> horrible and everything in between.

Same with audio gear, I'd argue you get more sonic performance now more than ever, hardly "most are crap" IME. So, we'll have to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[sbo6]

No, if the drivers are poor and mismatched, there is too much cabinet (whatetever the material), complexity in crossover, requires more grip, all these factors in one speaker add up, require bad electronics, and you can only make them horrible or less horrible.

That's called a bad implementation. See my post above.

 

[morricab]

You misinterpreted and assumed.

Unlike you few who seem to judge and know all about speaker design, I go by my ears and 40 years' experience. And what that has told me is - There's more than one way to design a speaker and all implementations can be excellent <> horrible and everything in between.

Same with audio gear, I'd argue you get more sonic performance now more than ever, hardly "most are crap" IME. So, we'll have to disagree and leave it at that.

I have about the same amount of experience and I stand by my statement. Perhaps my years as a reviewer have made me much more critical and difficult to impress.

 

[sbo6]

I have about the same amount of experience and I stand by my statement. Perhaps my years as a reviewer have made me much more critical and difficult to impress.

You are funny... You think because you get paid to do what everyone does makes you better at it?

Here's the difference -

Subjectively - I'm a musician and know what instruments sound like on and off the stage and in the studio.
Objectively - I can verifiably hear -45DB distortion level between a reproduced and original stimulus via the Klippel listening test (on my office system, not headphones). Take the test and feel free to share your results, reviewer.

Perhaps you're fooling yourself, perhaps.

 

[DasguteOhr]

That’s not quite right either.
Even in dome tweeters, the acoustic center still corresponds closely to the point where motion originates, the voice coil or diaphragm apex depending on geometry.
The dome’s curvature shifts the apparent center slightly forward, but it doesn’t change the fact that timing alignment is defined by the origin of motion, not the visible surface.
That’s why designers still measure the effective acoustic center of each driver when aligning systems, regardless of cone or dome type.

Just look at designs from Vandersteen or Thiel, both use dome tweeters yet employ sloped baffles to achieve proper physical time alignment.

This is a very poor example; this slanted baffle may provide an excellent impulse response. However, in vertical terms, the window becomes very small for a flat frequency response. As far as I know, Thiel used 6 dB filters. In order to produce a flat frequency response, many correction elements had to be integrated into the crossover to enlarge the window for listening to music.An angled baffle without taking the crossover into account and an impulse measurement is useless.

Sorry offtopic , I'm outta here.

 

[Kozak170]

This is a very poor example; this slanted baffle may provide an excellent impulse response. However, in vertical terms, the window becomes very small for a flat frequency response. As far as I know, Thiel used 6 dB filters. In order to produce a flat frequency response, many correction elements had to be integrated into the crossover to enlarge the window for listening to music.An angled baffle without taking the crossover into account and an impulse measurement is useless.View attachment 161095

Sorry offtopic , I'm outta here.

That’s a fair observation, but it’s only part of the picture. Yes, Thiel’s designs did rely on shallow 6 dB slopes and precise physical alignment, and that inherently narrows the vertical listening window. But that’s a trade-off made in favor of true time and phase coherence, something most multi-order crossovers can’t achieve no matter how much correction is applied.
A sloped baffle alone is meaningless, but when combined with a phase-coherent 6 dB network, it preserves impulse integrity at the source rather than fixing it after the fact.

 

[morricab]

You are funny... You think because you get paid to do what everyone does makes you better at it?

Here's the difference -

Subjectively - I'm a musician and know what instruments sound like on and off the stage and in the studio.
Objectively - I can verifiably hear -45DB distortion level between a reproduced and original stimulus via the Klippel listening test (on my office system, not headphones). Take the test and feel free to share your results, reviewer.

Perhaps you're fooling yourself, perhaps.

I didn’t get paid other than a nominal fee and I did it because I am good at it. I know you probably think you hear well (Dunning Kruger effect working its magic)…you probably don’t.

40 years experience and you think this is what listening is about? Whether or not you can hear the quality of a system or component has almost nothing to do with the mechanics of your hearing and almost everything to do with cognitive function. Critical analysis and the ability to mentally compare, not only gear to gear but gear to live, unamplified sound, is paramount.
I have found that very few musicians can do this kind of analytical comparison because it is not part (usually) of being a musician. It is a totally different skill from making music. The few that could do it well that I knew were invariably classical musicians, with high IQs and the need to be analytical due to complexity of the music they played.

If I am fooling myself then I have fooled a lot of others who know and respect my ability to hear when it’s right or not. I am pretty sure you are fooling yourself because of how you misunderstand how it really works. So, keep quoting your distortion detection limits and that you are a musician…neither really matters when it comes to discriminating between things that sound realistic and those that don’t.

 

[sbo6]

That’s the point, Most modern loudspeakers are engineered to measure impressively or to fit seamlessly into living rooms rather than to achieve genuine acoustic coherence.
True integration between drivers and natural time behavior is rare today because it demands commitment to physics, not marketing.
That’s why, when you finally hear a system that gets it right, it doesn’t sound impressive. It just sounds real.

So, you're saying the 1/2 ton massive monolith M9, "fits seamlessly into living rooms rather than to achieve genuine acoustic coherence"?

I call BS. When you get to the 5 - figure range, most speakers are designed for performance and sure aesthetics too, but if it doesn't perform to some higher degree, they'll go out of business.

 

[sbo6]

I didn’t get paid other than a nominal fee and I did it because I am good at it. I know you probably think you hear well (Dunning Kruger effect working its magic)…you probably don’t.

40 years experience and you think this is what listening is about? Whether or not you can hear the quality of a system or component has almost nothing to do with the mechanics of your hearing and almost everything to do with cognitive function. Critical analysis and the ability to mentally compare, not only gear to gear but gear to live, unamplified sound, is paramount.
I have found that very few musicians can do this kind of analytical comparison because it is not part (usually) of being a musician. It is a totally different skill from making music. The few that could do it well that I knew were invariably classical musicians, with high IQs and the need to be analytical due to complexity of the music they played.

If I am fooling myself then I have fooled a lot of others who know and respect my ability to hear when it’s right or not. I am pretty sure you are fooling yourself because of how you misunderstand how it really works. So, keep quoting your distortion detection limits and that you are a musician…neither really matters when it comes to discriminating between things that sound realistic and those that don’t.

"I didn’t get paid other than a nominal fee and I did it because I am good at it" - then goes on to claim someone else is a victim of Dunning - Kruger effect.

"I have found that very few musicians can do this kind of analytical comparison because it is not part (usually) of being a musician." - says the non - musician.

"The few that could do it well that I knew were invariably classical musicians, with high IQs and the need to be analytical due to complexity of the music they played." - based on what, the self-fulfilling analysis in your head based on your non - musical experience?

Might be time for you to buy a mirror or three, my friend, I think we're done here. Go ahead, get in the last self - aggrandizing swipe.

 

[treitz3]

Can we please lighten the tone here, gentlemen?

Tom

 

[Kozak170]

So, you're saying the 1/2 ton massive monolith M9, "fits seamlessly into living rooms rather than to achieve genuine acoustic coherence"?

I call BS. When you get to the 5 - figure range, most speakers are designed for performance and sure aesthetics too, but if it doesn't perform to some higher degree, they'll go out of business.

It’s not about luxury, it’s about physics.
Efficiency dropped faster than natural tone when engineering gave way to marketing, and five-figure toys were born.
History sums it up better than specs ever could.

 

[morricab]

It’s not about luxury, it’s about physics.
Efficiency dropped faster than natural tone when engineering gave way to marketing, and five-figure toys were born.
History sums it up better than specs ever could.

View attachment 161123

Number 2 on the JBL list is one of the best ever.

 

[AudioLibertarian]

Grandinote Evoluzione
View attachment 160234

I have heard those at the Capital Audio Fest last week, and they sounded fantastic! Whether they are worth asked $140K is a matter of opinion....

 

[Kozak170]

I have heard those at the Capital Audio Fest last week, and they sounded fantastic! Whether they are worth asked $140K is a matter of opinion....

That new Grandinote with the carbon body looks really cool, though not quite as cool as its $140K price tag! By the way, you mentioned in your earlier post here that you heard both the AG Duo GT and the Grandinote Mach 8 XL at AXPONA 2024 and found the Duo one of the best and the highlight of the show. Now, how did you personally find the sound of that new $140K Grandinote compared to the $108K AG Mezzo, if you happened to hear the Mezzo at the CAF as well?

 

[AudioLibertarian]

That new Grandinote with the carbon body looks really cool, though not quite as cool as its $140K price tag! By the way, you mentioned in your earlier post here that you heard both the AG Duo GT and the Grandinote Mach 8 XL at AXPONA 2024 and found the Duo one of the best and the highlight of the show. Now, how did you personally find the sound of that new $140K Grandinote compared to the $108K AG Mezzo, if you happened to hear the Mezzo at the CAF as well?

Yes I did hear both of those. These are two different sounding speakers, so here is my impressions breakdown: At the last year's Axpona the Avantgarde set up was in large suite and one of the best sounding one, but you had to sit at least 8-9 feet away. I don't recall paying much attention to the Grandinote last year at Axpona, however I did listen to them at the last year's CAF and they sounded utterly disappointing, however the room at CAF was waaay too small for those. At this year's Axpona I walked into Grandinote demo room when I saw the head of company, Max, hanging out in the hallway. I was gonna rant about sucky their sound was at the show last year, but the way the new carbon models sounded made me shut up. These carbon models were shown in the very same room as last year, yet sounded surpsingly coherent for such a design. The amp used was their own integrated, I can only imagine how good these would sound with some of the great SET or PP tube amps, not to say that Grandinote amp was bad. Avantgarde again had a very good sounding conference hall, that was at least 20 times size of the Grandinote's hotel room, but proper direct comparisons would be difficult. I would imagine the Grandinote also would sound marvelous in that huge room, but the fact that they were so good sounding in a typical 200 sq ft Hilton hotel room speaks volume of their potential. I would imagine the Avantgarde Uno more suitable for the rooms of about 200-280 sq ft. What was noteworthy to me was the proper height of image of the Grandinote Carbon, as that aspect is very important to me. I made them play complex choral music (1st track of Bach St Johns passion, Handel's Susanna, etc.) and even at lower volume levels their sound was very coherent and organic. However whether these worth asking $140K is another matter. Same goes for the Avantgarde's prices.

 

[Kozak170]

What was noteworthy to me was the proper height of image of the Grandinote Carbon, as that aspect is very important to me. I made them play complex choral music (1st track of Bach St Johns passion, Handel's Susanna, etc.) and even at lower volume levels their sound was very coherent and organic. However whether these worth asking $140K is another matter. Same goes for the Avantgarde's prices.

It’s great to hear that, because most brands don’t even dare to play demanding, complex music on request at shows, as they’re often afraid it might expose weaknesses in the system. Based on what you’re describing, it seems the new Grandinote with its bigger cabinet not only handles complex choral works very well but also maintains a proper height of sound image and stays coherent and organic even at lower or higher volume levels. It’s particularly impressive if it can deliver the depth and scale of such works in the 40–80 Hz region without losing composure, which is truly remarkable for a full-range design that doesn’t use completely separate woofers for lower bass and upper bass, like Wilsons.

 

[AudioLibertarian]

It’s great to hear that, because most brands don’t even dare to play demanding, complex music on request at shows, as they’re often afraid it might expose weaknesses in the system. Based on what you’re describing, it seems the new Grandinote with its bigger cabinet not only handles complex choral works very well but also maintains a proper height of sound image and stays coherent and organic even at lower or higher volume levels. It’s particularly impressive if it can deliver the depth and scale of such works in the 40–80 Hz region without losing composure, which is truly remarkable for a full-range design that doesn’t use completely separate woofers for lower bass and upper bass, like Wilsons.

There have been few companies at CAF that take musical requests, and those usually are with the better sound in my experience, as they are sure their set-up can handle all genre of music. I usually wary of those that don't take requests, whether its fair, or not. Grandinote people just handed me the Ipad with Qobuz... Overall quite a good product, too bad they too have succumbed to the hysterical and totally unjustified price increase practices of late. An audiophile buddy of mine owns top of the line Grandinote 36 (in red aluminum), perhaps the only pair in the world, and he bought that pair at relatively "reasonable" for such a flagship price, albeit 6-7 years ago, but still... I think this price increase race will put a final nail in the coffin of the HIgh End, sadly. I could already smell the desperation from many exhibitors and dealers. Excuse my rant of course.

 

[Kozak170]

I think this price increase race will put a final nail in the coffin of the HIgh End, sadly. I could already smell the desperation from many exhibitors and dealers. Excuse my rant of course.

Sadly, you're probably right. It’s tough when passion for sound starts to feel like a luxury tax. But hey, maybe we’ll see a resurgence of hidden gems at the lower price points; every industry goes through this cycle.

 

[AudioLibertarian]

Sadly, you're probably right. It’s tough when passion for sound starts to feel like a luxury tax. But hey, maybe we’ll see a resurgence of hidden gems at the lower price points; every industry goes through this cycle.

There are still plenty of hidden gems to be had, fortunately!
FYI If carbon fiber body speakers are desired, the Perlisten has just come with their own such model S7 & LE, at 29K, with street prices likely in low 20s. I'm not big fan of that brand for few other reasons, but looks very interesting from speaker aficionado's point of view, I must admit, as they seem to have copied rather well many design cues from European and American companies. Apologies for mentioning those in the Grandinote thread, just in case