Stereophile review of Escalante Fremont

JKalman: The overripe bass would be your WattPuppies (unless, of course, you've EQ'd that 7 db. hump out, which of course makes your sound perfect).

I am the friend Cincy_Bob referred to.

I have been running a pair of Escalante Fremonts for a couple of weeks now, which I bought used from someone who is local. The measurements in my room, derived from warble tones, are indeed poor and track with what Atkinson measured in Stereophile. There is a suckout of roughly 6 db. at the midrange/tweeter crossover point. The bass is peaky, but I have a bad room for bass and for aesthetic reasons, am quite limited as to what I can do to improve it. Incidentally, I do not question Stereophile's integrity and make decisions about equipment on the basis of what I hear, what I hear from friends whose judgment I trust, and a variety of other information -- I bought mine after reading the Stereophile review.

The long and the short of it is that the speakers sound pretty damn good to me, and there are prominent reviewers (and others like renowned mastering engineer Steve Hoffman) who own them and sing their praises. There have only been a couple of familiar recordings thus far in which I can hear response aberrations, but it is less offputting than other things I hear in speakers that really bug me (slow bass, dynamic reticence, lack of resolution, overall lack of naturalness). While I see what is said about the midrange and measured for myself the suckout at the crossover point, I find the midrange to be clear, open and timbre-correct. Here is what Hoffman said about the mids (and the rest of his comments), which largely tracks with what I hear:

http://www.escalantedesign.com/media/pdfs/Steve_Hoffman_Release.pdf

They are very efficient, very dynamic, have quick bass and bass slam, and image like a bitch due to the ring revelator tweeter. I have heard a lot of different speakers and own or have owned some pretty good ones (Salons for three years, still own Ultimate Monitors, Dynaudios for two years, Dunlavys for five years, V.A. Mahlers for five years) run with what most people would consider very good electronics -- none is better than the Escalantes, at least subjectively (and that's what counts). I will likely sell them for a much more expensive speaker in the near future, but I have been asking myself whether I really need to do this. I really like the way these things sound, and at least used, think they are high value.

Measurements are very useful and they are important, but they do not tell the entire story. In addition, most people rely too much on reviews due to their ignorance of high-end gear, lack of contacts in the industry, lack of access to high-end dealers, etc. I think that reviewers generally have integrity (except for the Absolute Sound -- that's a topic for another day), but readers need to understand that their listening biases, listening rooms, the equipment they review gear with, and many other factors shape their perception of what they hear. Michael Fremer, for example, is a lovely guy and has contributed a lot to this sport, but he listens to a lot of rock and roll on huge Wilsons in a 15' x 18' basement with monstrous solid-state amplification -- I'm going to make my own judgments based upon what I know and hear and like (zero-feedback triode amplification, battery-powered preamplification, and symphonic music from vinyl).

JKalman: I understand that you are currently experimenting with Salon 2's up against your WP-8's. I will be curious to read your findings. I compared the WP-7 to the original Salon (I owned Salons for three years), finding the Wilsons to be punchier and quicker, while the Salons had more accurate timbre and deeper bass. Both had their strengths, but I chose Salons because I could not accept what the WP-7's did to strings and much preferred the Salons' aesthetics. Let us know what you hear.

PS - I would imagine the beryllium tweeter in the Salon 2's needs a good 500 hours to fully come around.

JKalman: Metal tweeters take a long time to break in, as do crossover parts. Manufacturers tend to say "100-200 hours", but 500 hours is what it generally takes with speakers to get to 95%. The final 5% in my experience takes another 500 hours. Verity is honest about this and says "750 hours" (it's in the specs for their speakers). I would call Harmon out in California (NOT Harmon International in New Bedford -- I have spoken to shockingly ignorant techs there) to confirm that it is okay to wire one speaker out of phase for purposes of break in (should be fine, but call), and then just play the hell out of them 24/7 for a month (of course, if you live in a house, are single and can just crank them normally, do that). At that point, you'll be able to position them and start to draw some conclusions.

Unfortunately, Dhaan above is correct about the WP and the hot Focal tweeter -- the breakup resonance indeed causes distortion throughout the presence region, and this is plainly audible in the original Focal (JM Labs) Utopias and the Wilsons. I once heard the Grand Utopia run with the On-Gaku, and the combo of the tweeter with typical high-ish tube amp output impedance made the speaker absolutely unlistenable (it was owned by an industry pro in NYC who is famous for being partially deaf).

I was referring to the WP7 and was not aware that the WP8 uses a different tweeter. The WP7 tweeter exhibited harshness in the presence region (3 Khz. - 7 Khz.). Atkinson wrote the following in the measurements section of Stereophile's WP8 review:

"Despite my caution about the tweeter's dome resonance being close to the audioband, very little delayed energy seems to be associated with it, which will minimize any audible problems. The latest version of this Focal tweeter is definitely better than the one used in the W/P7."

That is good news!