One virtue of the Devialet is that it’s (fairly) portable. Today I packed it up and took it on its first outing. (You’ll notice that unlike Doc’s female Devialet, mine is still resolutely neuter in gender.) So off to Walrus Systems in Marylebone to try out the obscure but well regarded Marshall Choong speakers.
The marketing spiel is that the designer of these boxes has tried to emulate the “walk-in” realism of the Quad ESL63’s mid-range, but with the advantages of a box’s bass extension. The review of the FS1 on Hifi Pig
here seems to fall for this “Quad-ESL-in-a-box” shtick. I’m not so sure, as you’ll see.
The Devialet was fed by a Pure Sound A8000 CDP via SPDIF.
Marshall Choong FS1
These are two-way floorstanders, about 1m tall, with a bass port about half way up the rear panel. They’re very well finished in oak veneer. They retail for £2400.
The first impression is of a subtle and pleasantly airy, but slightly boxy presentation. Certainly the sound was very fast and vividly present in the room. Piano was nice and sharp, violin was pure, airy, and delicate. That was combined with well extended but nicely controlled bass. Altogether plenty of impact but also control. Dynamics were excellent. I was also impressed by the integration of the drivers: the crossover seemed pretty well invisible.
Now for the downside. I was unhappy with the boxiness. It affected voices especially, which sounded a tad nasal and strangled. Also the top end, though it had good presence, was a bit aggressive and,yes, even distorted.
Having said that, for their price these are extremely respectable speakers. But I’d rather have my Sonus fabers, which just sound more natural.
Marshall Choong CM3
Now the next rung up the ladder, and a different format. The CM3s are a BBC-style, sealed-box design, of the same format and size as the Harbeth SHL5s. An interesting comparison, though at £3400 they’re a bit pricier. And there are some differences in design. Both are three-way designs, but whereas the SHL5s’ “third driver” is a 20mm supertweeter, in the CM3s it’s a 150mm mid-woofer. Also the bass drivers are of different materials: Harbeth uses its proprietary RADIAL™ stuff; the Marshall Choongs use aluminium.
Initially the presentation seems quite similar to the Harbies: airy, musical, natural. The texture on piano is very revealing, but at the same time the top end is much less edgy than the FS1s: better controlled, more civilised, purer, and also it seems to reach higher. I guess it’s just a better tweeter than the one used in the FS1s.
I was impressed by the extremely precise imaging. On one of my demo opera tracks, two voices that in most systems seem to come from the same place, were clearly standing right next to one another: close but separate.
Again, like the Harbeths, the CM3s did very fine discrimination between instrumental timbres. Acoustic guitars were particularly lovely. Arguably bass was less deep and rich than with the FS1s. And all in all I felt there was something a bit restrained or reined in. Big choral stuff just didn't have as much scale as it should, even though the music was spread nicely across the stage. Sure, the CM3s went nice and loud without distortion. But there was still a bit of boxiness that I don’t get with my Sonus fabers.
So a bit of a mixed bag. Of their type and at their price point, these are very good speakers. The CM3s are markedly better than the FS1s: side-by-side comparison with the Harbeth SHL5s would be interesting (though the Harbeths would surely win). But both the Marshall Choong models have a slight boxiness and are more forward and less natural-sounding than my Sonus fabers.
I went to the opera last night. My Sonus fabers, small though they are, do a great job of reproducing the experience of live opera. I'm not sure that the Marshall Choongs do.
:cheers:
Matt