Squeezing a quart into a pint pot ... or expectation surprise?

[drummerman]

I think small things (Hifi) may have a natural advantage. A bit like David vs Goliath.

We like underdogs, we celebrate achievement against expectations. - If something is BIG we/I kind of assume it will sound that way. - On the other hand, neat and small things sounding big will probably automatically trigger a 'wow' moment.

A thread on Devialet's Phantom/s (with a picture kindly copied from PF by Vladimir, showing a set of tiny Phantom's next to some huge B&W's) made me think. The person comparing the two said that they are close in performance even though the Phantoms have just been plonked on the floor.

I can't comment as I haven't heard them but have to say 'realistically' ie. everything I know about hifi/physics (not to much admittedly) ... it seems unlikely that such a performance from something so small is possible.

Perhaps it is but I think it is more likely that they (Phantoms) just exceed what one would expect from something that size and that this factor helps it in reviews and comparisons.

I am not trying to take engineering ingenuity away from Devialet but the hyped up power figures (no distortion mentioned and quoted as 'peak') do make me wonder if these little 'miracles' can indeed outperform a 'grown up' hifi of, as good as they may be.

Of course, even if they can't but come close then that is still an achievement (at a price).

There are/have been other examples of small things sounding big and they don't necesseraly have to cost a fortune; Denon's Micro Systems, Marantz's 610, Cyrus's 200 and 300watt shoebox amplifiers and Devialet's own, gorgeous, slim amplifiers.

So, this probably kind of has to put manufacturers in a conundrum. On one hand, big, bold and attention grabbing will make an initially strong impression (and has traditionally has been the hallmark of much high end) but in a like for like comparison may loose out?

How are your reactions if you hear something performing against expectations?

 

[Vladimir]

... that phrase Devialet used for the Phantoms, Miniaturization, it seems inevitable from technological progress/trend perspective. Smaler computers, smaller phones, smaller loudspeakers and smaller amps. A giant collection of records can now fit into a flash memory chip that you can carry with you, incapable of evaluating its weight with our senses. Eventually everything is going towards nanotechnolgoy and greater integration with us as biological beings.

Zingularity, ya!

 

[drummerman]

I am sure you're right (and a good thing it is too ... I loove small things) but with speakers I do wonder. Mind, not everyone has the space or indeed need for behemots and club level volume.

Has Devialet stumbled upon something truly revolutionary or are the compromises just to great?

I guess I never know unless the Graham Slee loan scheme is including Devialet

 

[Frank Harvey]

A thread on Devialet's Phantom/s (with a picture kindly copied from PF by Vladimir, showing a set of tiny Phantom's next to some huge B&W's) made me think. The person comparing the two said that they are close in performance even though the Phantoms have just been plonked on the floor.

I can't comment as I haven't heard them but have to say 'realistically' ie. everything I know about hifi/physics (not to much admittedly) ... it seems unlikely that such a performance from something so small is possible.

Perhaps it is but I think it is more likely that they (Phantoms) just exceed what one would expect from something that size and that this factor helps it in reviews and comparisons.

I am not trying to take engineering ingenuity away from Devialet but the hyped up power figures (no distortion mentioned and quoted as 'peak') do make me wonder if these little 'miracles' can indeed outperform a 'grown up' hifi of, as good as they may be.

Of course, even if they can't but come close then that is still an achievement (at a price).

Good post.

 

[ID.]

I tend to suspect some trickery, or that it is somehow fake. To be honest I'm not sure I have sufficient experience of truly big speakers with massive drivers to hear the difference and evaluate whether it just looks good on paper.

Also, because that gap and how much value one places on it depends on the subjective values of each person, that almost the same for one person might be the world of difference for another.

Either way, I get suspicous when people tout the seemingly impossible. Even with regular speakers I get suspicious when they say "it has great bass" followed in small print by "for a small speaker" because in almost all cases it is the latter that is most important. While they rave about it as if it is as good as a bigger speaker with decent bass that so often isn't the case. Then again, I've been very impressed with what my Genelecs can do for their size, but someone like Lindsayt would probably just put that down to port trickery.

I want to believe, but I don't think the singularity is coming in my lifetime. Beam me up, Scotty.

 

[Vladimir]

The whole point of isobaric speakers or opposing tandem of woofers is to save on cabinet volume but achieve good bass response with low distortion. That is old tech from 40 + years ago, as is dual concentric constelation of mid and high frequency drivers, or active amplification and crossovers. Even DSP had its grandad in the form of Philips MFB (Motional Feedback) technology. Let us not forget that computer aided design is something KEF prided on pioneering in the 70s. When you think about it, there is nothing new in the Phantoms except the more efficient combination of technologies with current production capabilities and materials at hand. Interestingly it all leads to miniaturization. Even if Devialet didn't want the Phantoms to be small, they simply would be as a result of the design and manufacturing process.

 

[lindsayt]

What do you think happens when you compare a speaker that has "great bass for a small speaker" with a speaker that has "great bass for a huge speaker" (in a room capable of handling a large amount of bass without echoing it too much)?

 

[ID.]

At this stage I'd have to say that a pair of Phantoms have leapfrogged B&O Beolab 5s as my dream system.

 

[drummerman]

Some time ago I heard a lovely (but not cheap) system comprising Project's small top level components and a pair of MyAudio speakers.

My reaction was wow, this sounds incredible for the size ...

On a similar note, a few years ago, in a dealer room, there was an entry level NAD system (with matching small NAD speakers) sounding glorious and a much more expensive Musical Fidelity one which seemed lifeless in comparison.

I guess in under the right circumstances the MF would have without doubt have outperfomed the NAD but as it was ... the low price, small size (and good sound) would have convinced me it was not worth spending more.

 

[Vladimir]

 

[Vladimir]

What do you think happens when you compare a speaker that has "great bass for a small speaker" with a speaker that has "great bass for a huge speaker" (in a room capable of handling a large amount of bass without echoing it too much)?

Don't you find the Phantoms specification (let's presume it's all true) impressive for any speaker, regardless of size?

 

[ID.]

What do you think happens when you compare a speaker that has "great bass for a small speaker" with a speaker that has "great bass for a huge speaker" (in a room capable of handling a large amount of bass without echoing it too much)?

I think it's even when comparing small speakers with "great bass" to bigger speakers with decent bass. You question takes it too far to the other extreme. One might as well ask, and what happens when you compare speakers with "great bass for a huge speaker" in a room that can barely contain them.


What? You mean someone will come along and whack me with a great big stick if I'm not approaching satori while listening to them?

 

[Vladimir]

What? You mean someone will come along and whack me with a great big stick if I'm not approaching satori while listening to them?

Not a stick but Acoustic Zen Tsunami III power cable. After 3 hits on the head during your zazens, you automatically enter kensho. And such.

 

[nopiano]

I missed the launch of the Phantom, but am planning to sort that out soon. Having heard Devialet amps before many in the UK, I was completely smitten; truly straight wire with gain (unlike any Quad, who I believe once used that tagline).

Back in the day I'm pretty sure ProAc used to demo their little Tablette atop some fairly huge model, which they let you think were playing. Then they revealed it was the teeny ones all along.

I've rarely found that very large speakers (e.g. big traditional Tannoys) work well in most Bristish domestic settings.

 

[Chris Firth]

Has Devialet stumbled upon something truly revolutionary or are the compromises just to great?

I guess I never know unless the Graham Slee loan scheme is including Devialet

You could borrow some proper audio equipment from the Graham Slee loan scheme.

Equipment that's designed, developed and built in England, by Englishmen.

 

[Chris Firth]

As if by magic a review of one of Graham Slee's excellent audio equipment can be found on this very site http://www.whathifi.com/graham-slee/gram-amp-2-communicator/review

 

[lindsayt]

What do you think happens when you compare a speaker that has "great bass for a small speaker" with a speaker that has "great bass for a huge speaker" (in a room capable of handling a large amount of bass without echoing it too much)?

Don't you find the Phantoms specification (let's presume it's all true) impressive for any speaker, regardless of size?

Not when it's achieved by the use of a massive amount of equalisation.

Not when the specification is combined with such a mediocre listening experience.

 

[Vladimir]

What do you think happens when you compare a speaker that has "great bass for a small speaker" with a speaker that has "great bass for a huge speaker" (in a room capable of handling a large amount of bass without echoing it too much)?

Don't you find the Phantoms specification (let's presume it's all true) impressive for any speaker, regardless of size?

Not when it's achieved by the use of a massive amount of equalisation.

Not when the specification is combined with such a mediocre listening experience.

That bad, huh? I doubt I'll have the chance to hear a pair anytime soon, but I'm interested what others that have think about them.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Has Devialet stumbled upon something truly revolutionary or are the compromises just to great?

I guess I never know unless the Graham Slee loan scheme is including Devialet

You could borrow some proper audio equipment from the Graham Slee loan scheme.

Equipment that's designed, developed and built in England, by Englishmen.

Have you heard the Phantoms or a Devialet Amp? - and what do you mean by 'proper'?

 

[matt49]

Not when the specification is combined with such a mediocre listening experience.

Well, that's your opinion. There are others who think differently, as you know.

 

[Andrewjvt]

Has Devialet stumbled upon something truly revolutionary or are the compromises just to great?

I guess I never know unless the Graham Slee loan scheme is including Devialet

You could borrow some proper audio equipment from the Graham Slee loan scheme.

Equipment that's designed, developed and built in England, by Englishmen.

Have you heard the Phantoms or a Devialet Amp? - and what do you mean by 'proper'?

Made by 7 english drawfs singing football songs

 

[Andrew17321]

I think small things (Hifi) may have a natural advantage. .... If something is BIG we/I kind of assume it will sound that way. - On the other hand, neat and small ....

I can't comment as I haven't heard them but have to say 'realistically' ie. everything I know about hifi/physics (not to much admittedly) ... it seems unlikely that such a performance from something so small is possible.

Perhaps it is but I think it is more likely that they (Phantoms) just exceed what one would expect from something that size and that this factor helps it in reviews and comparisons.

I am not trying to take engineering ingenuity away from Devialet but the hyped up power figures (no distortion mentioned and quoted as 'peak') do make me wonder if these little 'miracles' can indeed outperform a 'grown up' hifi of, as good as they may

How are your reactions if you hear something performing against expectations?

For many years I have been pleasantly surprised to find smaller and smaller speakers having great sound quality, including the bass, at quite high volumes. I only understood how this was possible when I learned that magnetic materials had improved so much that it was technically possible to reduce the size of the magnets by a factor of 4.

I carry in my pocket computing power greater than the first computer I used, and that had its own climate controlled building the size of a school. My iPod is smaller than any valve I used in the first amplifier I built. So, maybe we should not be too surprsed by things like the Devialet Phantoms, or too suspicious.

The technologies used in the Phantoms are all sound, most not new, but their combination is. They sound amazing. Better than my Spendor floorstanders! They do look a bit odd, and not at all authoritative, but I can live with that. I'll by a pair when Devialet get their software sorted out.

 

[Chris Firth]

Have you heard the Phantoms or a Devialet Amp?

I have heard a Devialet amp.

It looks like it should sound good - it sounded OK.

I have heard a lot better.

- and what do you mean by 'proper'?

Just well made, reliable and decent sounding equipment.

Emphasis on decent sounding *smile*

 

[Chris Firth]

Made by 7 english drawfs singing football songs

*biggrin*