Sonus Faber Amati Homage versus Vandersteen 5A

Beauty of Amati is in the integration. Vandersteen 5 is nice, but it's also a problem by leaving the owner to tune bass freq and output. If tuning those two parameters were so easy, why would anyone on earth want to buy big speakers when they can buy small speakers and mate with subs? On top, small speakers have better imaging.

And I doubt there is any speaker that is truly phase correct. All Sonus Faber are tilted to time align the tweeter. Most Sonus Faber also employs 1st order x-over to retain as much phase correctness as possible. Using more passive parts like in Thiel will only create more phase problem, not correct it. It's simple electronic 101, try solving (or even guessing) 1st order vs. higher order x-over behavior with twice as many parts on paper and you will know what I mean.

I have heard both and own Amati currently. Vanersteen 5 is a "complicated" speaker with flaws that can be heard occasionally, like Amati which also possesses some flaws of its own. Overall, Amati is still more transparent and musical to my ears and definitely a winner in look as well.

Funny how some people think one "data" equals to a fact. When reviewer measured speakers, do they measure them at listening distance, say 6'? No, it's more like a foot away. How sound and freq propagate over a longer distance is a complicated equation, not something Stereophile measurement can tell you.

And go pickup a circuit design 101 text book before you argue with me about phase. I spend years in school studying electrical engineering, I should have this common sense.

And about the slope of bass roll off. Go pick up a speaker design book 101, you will learn that bass roll off has as much to do with cross over as well as box design.

What matters at the end is how it sounds, and I have never ever heard a pair of Thiel that makes me think I am listening to live music. Isn't live music most phase and time coherent?

We should be able to tell Stevecham's taste from his gears - Krell pre + power w/ Thiel. Nothing personal, but something a lot, and I do mean a lot, of audiophiles will stay away from. Ahh, enough said.

Ok, I have to speak in order to stop people like Stevecham from making incorrect claims.

Sound speed is definitely freq dependent. But in order to truly make a speaker time correct, you will need to have infinite number of drivers to cover each freq and align them on different time axis. This is is not possible since each driver covers a certain freq range, not one freq, and the designer "picks" a freq to time align it. Not the whole freq range since it's not possible. Therefore reviewer tests the same way, one freq on tweeter axis. So if the reviewer doesn't test the designer's freq, it will not appear time correct.

As for phase correct, the worst thing to do is to use anything higher than 1st order crossover like in Thiel. This is a common sense and often practiced by well regarded manufacture including Sonus Faber and Dynaudio. I challege Stevecham to solve an op-amp in 4 pole equation, it will involves 1st to 4th order slope and will show it's impossible to keep phase correct with high order x-over. I hold a MS in EE and have been in semicondutor field for 10+ years, it's almost embarrassing to hear people like Stevecham making unsound claim without any technical background.

And thank God there is people like Stevecham on earth to keep company like Thiel alive who picks equipment by one data set, not by his own ears.

And this site is great for people who listen with their ears, not for people who bash other manufactures without knowing what they are talking about.

I suspected Stevecham was the same guy who worked in Music Lover Audio who bashed everything and discredited anything they didn't like. They claimed Dunlavy and Spectral were the most accurate products out there and anything else were not worth listening to even though they carried them. They even went as far to tell their customers they should not be in this hobby if customers did not agree with their "reference" system. So narrow minded.

Semicondutor is a billion times more advance than audio product, and that's why Applied Materials can be where they are today. What I learned from semicondutor is current metrology can't interpret all behaviors, let along audio measurements where only a VERY small handful of people are doing research on. Semiconductor has billion of dollars to back up this industry every year and there are still a lot to learn, Stevecham is so sure the one data from Stereophile explains everything? What a joke.

And if measurement alone will determine the sound, why buy Krell when Adcom will do since they all measure the same? And I bet Thiel CS6 won't measure that differently from CS3.6, why spend the extra money.

Go to school to learn how to interpret data and understand analog circuit design first before you argue with others and waste others time. BTW, my study was on digital, analog, and device physic.

Since someone likes to pick fight, here is one for you.

So Ferrari uses Pirelli on their cars, does that make Pirelli the best tires on earth?

Many classical recording studios use B&W 801 III, does that make B&W 801 III the best speaker on earth?

Wilson Audio Watt/Puppy are the best selling speaker in that price range (according to Wilson), does that make Wilson Watt/Puppy the best speaker around $20k?

Some people just don't get it. Guess idiot will always remain as idiot.

Good point. We are here to help each other and many of us feel Amati reproduces music in a very special way regardless what the current industrial measurements indicate. When you measure a real Guarneri vs. a $500 violin, there will not be much of a difference. I have talked with several big name amplifier engineers and they openly admitted measurements were for reference only, not absolute final design which were done by ears. I knew because I had to send in my amps for service (lack of bass) and they said measurement were fine, but they also heard lack of bass!

Bottom line is I have owned too many speakers and settled on a pair of Amati (along with two other pairs of SF for "backup") for one reason, they reproduce music with greater emotion which is what most of us try to recreate at home. I was a big fan of Dynaudio and owned several fine Dynaudio speakers in the past including the fame C5 several times, but their latest offering (C4 in particular) lost my business due to "fat" bass and weird styling. Otherwise, Dynaudio is another fine choice among other elite speakers.

I am not a big fan of MTM design, let along MTTM in newer Dynaudio. One can usually hear the smearing effect of critical midrange with MTM, whether it's adding or subtracting. At least in this department, SF, Thiel, and Vandersteen all chose the right approach.

Nothing against Vandersteen 5, but they don't have that "jump" factor you often get when listening to live music. Randy of Optimal Enchantment (Santa Monica, Ca) is a big Vandersteen fan and I have heard V5 there seveal times with very fine front end (ARC Ref 2 Mk II, ARC Ref Phono, Oracle V, Graham 2.2, ARC VTM-200, AQ something). Bass extension is quite a bit better than Amati as expected, but for lack of words, they still sound like other Vandersteen except more refined.

Bruce (forgot his user name) had a V5 for sale on Audiogon a couple years back, I introduced him to Dynaudio C5 and he never looked back and have gone thru several pairs of Dynaudio since. Not saying Dynaudio is better, but I am not alone in thinking V5 is a little soul-less.

Good luck with your search. Buy whatever that please your ears, you are the one who is spending the money.

I agree Sonus Faber site can use some improvement. Afterall, they are selling electronics.

But Italian thinks differently, they think of their creations as art and can't be captioned with spec or description. They want people to judge their products based on how they sound, not spec. Maybe they are right, maybe not?

Like Rolls Royce, they don't quote their HP.

Stevecham, guess you are a F1 fan as well :)