That's because those 'reviewers' are just influencers, nothing more. If you could design a terrible speaker but have a company name and send it out and an odd incentive here and there you get these people hyping it up. One guy called Steve, he even sniggers to himself as he reviews certain products, and he was a salesman for audio back in the day, literally mocking his own audience because he knows people are gullible as hell.
@@zefrog7482 spinorama is still not available so i don't know the tonality score. for reference using Erin's data, tonality score for KLH model 5 is 4.6 which is same as Micca RB42 (ASR data). Given research shows that tonality is highly correlated to speaker preference do i discount erin's praise of the model 5 as a false reading of the measurements?
@@zefrog7482 One lone review that people latch onto because they say something different. No wonder Trump does so well. There are a good few reviewers who like these or other QA speakers that Erin doesn't like that know what they are talking about.
Q Acoustics: "Deep bass dynamics are also claimed to be improved, with tighter, better-damped low-end response allowing more flexibility in the placement of speakers near the wall boundaries of the listening room". I guess it's kinda tuned that way.. I also noticed that many reviews blaim 'bright sounding sources or gear' for the speakers to sound sibilant and edgy at times. This is a good example why measurement come in handy, before swapping out gear to mitigate some brightness.
It really boils down to the midbass dip. The compression and distortion are good and the horizontal dispersion is nice. But that midbass droop means either place it close to a wall or don’t bother.
Hi Erin, enjoy your cool yet objective style you institute, while reviewing speakers. Could you please consider doing a review for the SVS ultra towers? All the very best to you. Cheers!
Everyone else seems to love these. I've had a pair of 3030i's and they had great bass for a bookshelf and weren't bright. I'm kind of a Kef fan right now.
This looks to be a well engineered speaker, albeit not one that’s measurements will appeal to the typically well informed subscribers to this channel. My assumption is that this speaker is designed for small rooms hence the bass shelf to suit close wall positioning. The wide horizontal dispersion will help it sound “big” in small rooms. The predicted in-room response shows a very typical treble boost which I think manufacturers deliberately include through fear of losing a short showroom demo to a competitor that delivers more superficial detail. The poor vertical directivity could be avoided if this was a 2.5 way design but that would sacrifice midrange efficiency. It looks great and the brand has a great reputation. I doubt this speaker will harm that.
Interesting. Picked a pair of these up in an open box/returns clearance sale discounted to £700 recently. Haven't noticed any siblilence at all except from one Adele CD (21) where the vocals sound wierdly processed to me. By chance I've positioned them pretty much in the sweet spot, according to Erin's review, at 18" from the rear wall. They're also accompanied by a sub, which does help.. For me these were a massive upgrade from a pair of 80/90s Monitor Audio stand mounted monitors both as a part of a 5.1 system and for general listening, to the extent I'm relistening to a bunch of music and rewatching movies. I don't know what that says apart from a lot of this is subjective and I don't have audiophile ears.
10:30 taking a view on that frequency response tells me that those enclosures need to have more volume in order to lower the 500 hz region and boost the 100 hz, I know this because I am speaker builder other than repair
Dear Erin, I love your reviews. They are unique, very informative and basically include all tests that cannot be done at home. My two cents: You don't want to equalize any speaker above the room transient (Schroeder's ) frequency and especially refrain from using boost filters. The peak energy time for high frequencies will shift by an IIR filter and that will degrade the sound. It will be at the right SPL level but it will sound throttled. Have you considered repeating the spinorama measurements after applying crossover phase correction to the speakers?
I think it's OK to equalize a speaker above Fo as long as you're equalizing the *speaker* and not for the room response. That's the main difference. Below this you're free to use EQ to fix the *room*. It's no worse than what many good active designs are already doing. As long as the EQ is placed reasonably (i.e., not 5dB at a tweeter's Fs). I have provided before/after SPIN data for a few speakers using EQ in the past but it's not something I typically do because it takes additional time and I'm not sure I always see the need.
I couldn't agree more on correcting the speaker above the transient but in my countless A/B double blind tests even after gated windows and maximum octave band smoothing, music sounds a bit throttled compared to the original if I EQ HF but your test setup is probably a lot more accurate than simple gating and the EQ requirements you find out could be more precise. I was talking about phase correction rather than EQ filters. These are time-inverted "allpass" filters which compensate for crossover and/or box/port phase shifts of the speaker and basically align the timing of the drivers between each other. I am sure they will make a difference in vertical axis responses. You can find out more info on how to create them (FIR filters only) in my channel if you happen to consider some day. Cheers!@@ErinsAudioCorner
Agreed, but that adds filtering cost, at a critical region ... thus, quality coils and caps to avoid smearing. That adds significantly to the ultimate cost. Perhaps the tight vertical was the sacrifice for not hanging additional elements onto the driver.
@@FOH3663 ffs just throw an iron core inductor and the cheapest electrolytic bipolar in there. We've seen it done in offerings which cost a fraction of this turd's price.
@@john2335 Agreed Cheaply pulling down the top end of one of those woofers could obviate that problem ... but, at a cost of smearing hysteresis atop phase differences. Post change, perhaps the two woofer drivers wouldn't necessarily sum in the same manner ... all this right in the critical vocal range where our discernment is highest. Granted ... this is pure speculation and I wouldn't know for sure without all the relevant variables in front of me for experimentation.
I wonder if the grille helps with the sibilance at all? Every time you mention speaker grilles, I remember the Wharfedale Lintons which have a much more linear response with the grilles on. Thanks for another great review!
Thank you for putting a review out for these. I was very close to pulling the trigger before your review came out, but wanted to wait to hear what you had to say. My ideal HT setup is going to be 5.1.2, but I also want to be able to stream and enjoy lossless music. I've narrowed my choices down to the SVS Prime Pinnacle Speaker, Paradigm Premier 800F, or the Polk Audio Reserve R700. Do you have any plans to review these or have a potential preference?
I auditioned both the SVS and Polks and recommend them both. I preferred the Polks. Awesome bass with the woofers and X-port. The SVS bass was sweet too just not as deep or powerful. Didn’t try the Paradigms but they were under consideration. You can audition both the SVS and Polk if you buy direct from the manufacturer and return for a full refund if you’re not satisfied. Good luck!
@@user-mz6lt2pr9sThanks for the feedback. I’d be pairing the SVS Pinnacles with the PB1000 Pro which I read is one of the best in the business, so slightly less bass from the towers would be okay I’m assuming.
No wonder they sounded so darn thin everytime I hear them, and I have heard them in at least 5 different rooms, 2 of them with the speakers really near the back wall. Still thin. That lower end response is just crazy, enhancing clarity and I always ask myself why does this speaker sound so clear and 'sparkly', almost Focal-like. No upper bass and tipped up treble + wide dispersion = airy crystal clear sound. A response like this is just unacceptable.
My guess is (without even ever seeing 5040's) that these are designed for the customer who doesn't have the space to pull speakers 1.5 meters into the room. Pricing seems to confirm that. What I gather from this review, these are excellent for apartments/smaller rooms for people who don't want bookshelves
Hi Erin, apologies again for another off topic comment, as this is the only place where I can directly communicate with you, but I'd like to ask, have you ever had interest in measuring the Partybox lineup by JBL? It's very unconventional relative to what you usually measure and review, but the deep bass response is one that really catches my attention. Frankly, I do not expect FR to be that good, with all sorts of funky lobing between the tweeters and woofers due to the orientation they're all in, and the tweeters themselves being massive and therefore likely beaming and have break up modes screwing with the upper treble FR, but I'm mainly curious if FR is still half decent, and how the compression test, THD and multitone distortion look like. I actually have a pair at home, and maybe it's due to my untrained ears, but I personally find them an alright set haha. But of course, nothing beats having actual anechoic data 😉
@@ErinsAudioCorner Oh, I'm curious, why'd they grab your attention? And which set specifically? I'd personally like to see reviews of either the Encore and 110 models, they're the most affordable, plus have plenty of SPL and Extension for most casual use cases after all.
@@ErinsAudioCorner But, I do believe realistically the best performing partybox is likely going to be the Partybox 1000. It's the only model with any form of a waveguide, plus it relies on a compression driver instead of a massive tweeter, so the beaming and breakup issues present on all the large cone tweeters of the rest of the lineups won't be present. It's also a three way, so it has a single compression driver, two woofers and a larger woofer that essentially acts as a subwoofer. Disappointingly though, JBL says it only goes down to 30hz -6dB, which is pretty poor imo. But regardless, it's likely going to be the model with the cleanest directivity of the whole bunch of speakers, and with a good bit of EQing assuming FR isn't that great, could likely end up being a decent set. It's going to be an expensive tower to purchase just to review though hahaha
Your thumbnail question: Is bigger better? Yes, always, right up until sonic detail becomes muddied or replaced by brute force pressure waves. Simply meaning, if you really want that presence, then you really have to move some air. Big speakers do it, little speakers just don't. It's a safe bet everyone everywhere would much prefer the sound from a pair of 8" towers over a pair of little baby satellite speakers or a sound bar. I mean it's just physically physics 😁. Cheers man 🍻
I'd agree with notes, like expensive Electronic equalizers to compensate ( the small KEF sub ). or that I'd think the 5 in two way are designed to be used with subs. ( I've had the Q 3020 , now Meta 50's.
Have owned the Concept 500 speakers in the past. Midrange was relatively smooth, but you would definitely need a subwoofer to fully enjoy them long term. Also, the highs were lacking some clarity.
@@SpinnerPaddlefoot That were a dream were you own the speaker, the 500's is not smooth is just very neutral FR and measurements confirm this, no even need a subwoofer because of the flat 30hz in-room, highs is among the best you can ever hear in a speaker of any price range. It's extremely clean and measure fllawless. The tweeter is pure perfection.
Would there be a better set of floorstanders for ~18 square meter room, for both music and movies, with a placement close to the wall (ideally ~11 inches) and in roughly similar price (+/- 50%) ? Could Q Acoustics 5050 be better than 5040 thanks to bigger woofers?
First time watching this channel, my two cents are that these are for home theatre not music. They're unlikely to be placed more than 30cm/1ft away from the wall. Few People using these for home theatre are running them at 91 dB, now with that said does it make them worth the money... No, should they be better.. Yes but let's say I bought these in a home theatre set up in my UK sized house and I EQ them, I bet they sound great with the rest of the collection ie the centre, bookshelves and subwoofers. I'll have to watch more of the content on here to understand how speaker measurements compare as these looked fine for me!
Hi Erin very nice review... So my thing is I own this speakers for around 9 months the sound really nice , very clear, the instrument seperation is very nice..but sometimes I just missing a bit more of the bass... But depends on the song sometimes the bass is more than enough ....my room is 30m2 and the speaker are around 60-70cm from the back wall. I was thinking first to add a nice subwoofer but now i found some FYNE 502 for good price and thinking maybe to sell the 5040 and get the 502 instead what you think...im bit worry that the bass on fyne 502 will be to boomy and will go over the rest( instrument etc.)
Hi there - first time viewer - first time commenter. I really enjoyed your video. I’m new to anything in the realm of “audiophile” and it’s been overwhelming to say the least. I really appreciate(d) your commentary on speaker positioning as I’m still trying to figure out the optimum setup for my tiny space. I was curious about how far to distance my speakers from the wall. I have a pair of AudioEngine HD6 bookshelf speakers (on stands) against a 70” wall. I’m wondering if there’s any general differences between bookshelf speakers and tower/floor-standing insomuch as relative distance to the wall? Any perspective is really appreciated. Thanks!
Good stuff. Maybe these are designed for near back wall placement. more practical / realistic to me. probably before your time I think it was ' Allison spks ' ( former AR engineer ) designed high end spks with different tower shapes advertised to ' cure' err mitigate room issues. one was kinda triangle for corners , another had speakers on oppose sides. be real interesting what modern 'puter oriented testing' would show.... have Ya ever tested Bose, just for fun - the original 901 with several 4 inch full range & the very important equalizer. / the larger more trad models with separate bass & reflecting treble. maybe best speakers Ive ever heard ( totally not ' expert' or musician of any type ) were EPI towers which were I think 3 of the classic epi 100 , 2 ways one on each side to simplify description. maybe I was just in a good mood.
Roy Allison would put woofers very close to floor and cross them around 300Hz to mids to keep the room response more linear, also with woofer close to the floor the energy reflected from the floor would boost overall efficiency of the spkr.
What Hi-fi is a joke, it's ran by shills for the industry. It's extra specially flattering to anything British especially, even more so if Richer Sounds sell the product in question.
It’s possible that they were designed to be closer to the back wall. Stereo phile was saying the same thing about the bass when reviewing these speakers. And every room is different. Never had the opportunity to listen to q acoustics other than RUclips videos
I am not interested in these, except for their context in Klippel testing. So, I would never expect a 2x5” speaker to ever perform well below about 250 hz, unless severely limited on achievable spl. From what I have seen on 5” driver testing, you should expect good low distortion performance between about 300 and 2500 hz…outside that range you sacrifice distortion or dispersion. (Purifi drivers might expend that range with their high displacement, low distortion performance, but generally those limits seem to apply.) Realistic bass performance, it seems to me, needs displacement that currently can’t be achieved except with larger drivers?
The British Whathifi review said : ''Low-frequency notes come and go with little overhang yet lack nothing when it comes to punch and authority''. So its funny that they did not hear the lack of bass which you complain of
What Hi-Fi are firmly in the pockets of several manafacturers. Never a negative review of B&W, Chord, or Q Acoustics. They're shills of the highest order.
I tried and passed on the Q Acoustics 5010's. I thought they sounded ok but did nothing well. (I'm near field/small room) I also thought they were goofy looking and blandly finished. The "Q" logo with half glossy, half matte background was a poor design decision imho. But that's just my opinion...
You have to do the concept 50! People telling us that its the best under 3-4K. I have heard these 5040 and i found it tiresom and shouty. But still good in some ways. We Need to know if concept 50 fixes all problems and deliver the goods🙂
I'm a Concept 50 owner - the short answer is, no. Not to my taste at least. The overpraising reviews, using definitive jargon like GIANT KILLER! ENDGAME SPEAKER!, lacking any objective measurements, are just a joke, sorry. I'm going to replace them with either Arendals, Dynaudios or Buchardts.
Thanks for another great review Erin. I was looking at these , arendal 1961($ 1260) at clearance price and possibly polk r700 ( open box $1500) My rooms not huge so polk r700 might not give me best it has to offer in my 12' by 16' room. Even considering kefQ750. Any thoughts on this audio dilemma? Lol😊
I don’t think the Polks would be too much in my experience. Arendal is great . Don’t have experience with the 1961 but loved both the 1723S and 1723 towers. I have the 1723 towers now.
Thanks for the reply. Wish i could afford the 1723, they are wY out of budget. Trying to cap budget at around $1600. Already own pair of Css Audio Criton 1TDX, which sound hreat. But the scale is small in sound.@user-mz6lt2pr9s
Id be curious about the actual sound qualities of kit speakers. Namely Solstice of Parts Express. Ive listened to them and was amazed at the clarity in the mid to high range and human voice sound quality (use of subs for low end) . How do they compare?
Wow thanks Erin. I listened to the 5040's in a showroom in a fast comparison to a few pairs of speakers in the £1000 to £1500 (UK) region. I seriously thought the 5040's were incorrecty wired, they sounded broken. I asked the assistant if I could experirmt with placement and the improvements were marginal at best - it ticks all the 'narrow boxes are the modern sound'. Not for me..
Yikes! I don't think they'll take that well to EQ. EQ'ing the LW to flat, I would expect an in-room sound that's scooped out starting from as low as 700Hz all the way up to 4kHz, and then too bright above 4kHz.
With screw up like this even the Klippel won't help them. Competent people can design proper spkrs without Klippel, although such tool can make design process easier.
I want to try and use an analogy to try and understand whether perfectly flat speaker measurements mean that they are the best. In soccer we have 11 players who can play in a match. You need a good balance of defence and attack. Normally that means a formation that balances defence (including the keeper), midfield, and attack. If sonic frequency response across the spectrum is the same as a balanced football team then if you go too underweight in a particular area of your formation then it could be bad. However, that doesn't necessarily make you a bad team or mean that you will lose. If Manchester City (best team in the world?) played a Sunday league pub team with 11 attackers then I'm guessing that they would still easily win. In fact, they might actually win by more than if they played with a balanced team because they're going to dominate the ball and play with more of an attacking field tilt. So if these Q Acoustics 5040 are not balanced/flat then does that make them bad? They actually still could be the best speaker in their price category if they have all of the other qualities to make up for that imbalance. For example, if you took someone out of your team and only played with 10 men but Messi was still on your team then maybe you'd still have the advantage. Measurements, data and statistics in showing flat frequency response is no doubt important (and I for one take notice of your reviews Erin) but bring the best audio performance in each part of the frequency response is also important. It's actually why so many people like balanced armature driver earphones, despite the fact that they are weak in the bass department. They shine in other areas and that makes up for their weaknesses.
A speaker and its tonality/neutrality is not analogous to a Premier league football club pubstomping a Sunday league team The only similarity is if you are stuck between several "less than perfect" (i.e. non-neutral) speakers, sure you have to pick which strength and weaknesses are acceptable to you, e.g. bass extension or radiation pattern. But if you're choosing between a speaker that is neutral AND has good bass extension AND good radiation pattern etc, versus a speaker that falls short in one of these areas, I struggle to see where the confusion would lie
@@officialchill1706 You clearly didn't understand my logic. Are you saying that a $200 neutral speaker will sound better than a $200,000 speaker that has one part of the frequency response that isn't neutral? That's what my anology was about. You cannot state that a flat response is the key factor in determining sound quality. Otherwise Messi wouldn't have been the best player in the world because he's a not good at defending or being in goal.
@@c0mbat15 I did actually mention other factors like radiation pattern. If the $200,000 speaker had better radiation, directivity, bass extension, compression etc, then possibly. If not, the $200 speaker would be better
@@officialchill1706 This is the thing that gets me about measurements. People get so caught up with them. But they only tell part of the story. It's like judging a cake on the balance of the ingredients and ignoring the quality of the ingredients.
Awesome review as always. P.S. I would love to see your video on a home theater speakers recommendations. Like what would be a recommended linear speaker for LCR, which has good linearity, can play rather loud, is equalisable and at the smallest cost possible?
I own the Concept 50 and am genuinely terrified yet highly anticipating you reviewing them. Have to say I'm somewhat disappointed, my previous speakers, Dali Ikon 2 MK2 which are bookshelves, sounded much better in every aspect.
I've got Concept 50's and 30's and Concept 50 is literally hands down the best speaker I've heard in that price range. Especially when compared to B&W and Monitor Audio in the same pricing. Neutral and super elegant sound without giving any emphasis to any particular frequency. 50's are a keeper for years it seems after my first full year with them
@@mdrlz as a owner of concept 500, i can confirm this speaker is shockinly good, i guess the concept 50 is a bit of step below to the flagship but still must share most of it's technnology, just not as perfect as the 500's. The 500's sounds extremely natural yet very clear and clean
@@ACM1000000PT yeah, these are deffo not for the people who like speakers that add their certain signature sound to everything. very neutral, easy to drive, easy to set up and also look good in modern living. all that for a super reasonable price, absolute winners
They have port on the rear of the cabinet so what else did you expected? Surely must be closer to a wall. Main point is, speakers must do low freq in all directions like TAD monitors
Sorry, but that’s incorrect. Port on the rear or the front has nothing to do with dictating where placement is. You can put the port on the front and have the same response.
hmm maybe. but i still maintain that bass from ports or passive radiators should envelop the speaker in all directions, not be just on one side@@ErinsAudioCorner
@@quant2011 to an extent. Which doesn’t go with your assertion that because it has rear ports then it should be placed against the wall. Unless I misunderstood you.
Ok, when the speaker is rear ported and you hear weak bass or midbass, logical step is to put it closer to a wall. Sure, the same will apply if weak bass is from front ported design. This trait of more powerful bass depending on placement is a proof that bass should be dispersed in all directions from the speaker. Agree?@@ErinsAudioCorner
the most honest and correct review i have heard in a while about this speakers. All on the internet were praising them and saying how good they are but having them personally listened them some days ago i would say that they are bad honestly really bad.All the same level speakers that i have listened performed much better. Even my old 3030i sounded better....
Yeah, it's all supposed to be really good, that's the problem.😂 If you buy them I'd do like the guy who got these and send to Erin so you can return if needed.
@@mdrlz I do, but I can tell if a speaker is halfway decent very easily due to years of D.I.Y. Sad thing is, a lot of society though go with the view of the majority, hence why what Erin does is so valid as it's actually being honest with people giving them the chance to actually get the best for their money.
@@zefrog7482 what he does is that he gives opinions. I have my opinions. Worst thing of all is to have no opinions and lean towards someone who’s opinions matter to you
@@mdrlz opinions are just that, but this channel provides actual scientific measurements which is really helpful. Don't get me wrong, I'm not all about absolute flat frequency response and all that as I like a variety of speakers. However as someone who has experience in building speakers and subsequently crossovers, looking at this thing and it's response it tells me very little effort was made. Literally looks like they took two components and then looked up values for the crossover based on the premise of the speaker being a constant ohm loading. It's sad, but too many manafacturers do this kind of thing because most people, even those who consider themselves 'audiophiles' actually won't question or even notice. A vast majority of people will watch a RUclips review from an influencer and they swear by what was stated, it's natural human psychology, people are easily led to conclusions without actual facts. Here though Erin is giving us facts. I'm sure some would really enjoy the speaker, hell I might even if I heard it, but when you listen and read other reviews online it makes you realise how disingenuous most are these days. Real reviewers are very scarce these days, what we have are influencers, it's also been the fete of modern journalism across all realms these days, it's just how times are now.
It's an incomplete speaker. If you already have them, they will be fine once you place two cheap 10" subwoofers next to them to act as midbass modules. Place them away from the wall, cross them at 80Hz to lower distortion if you can but if you can't don't bother, and let the subs bleed in till approximately 160Hz to lift that dip up. The "subs" need to be cheap (say Polk PS10) because you only want them to act as midbass modules and cheap subs are good at that.
Amazingly poor design. I had the opposite problem with my Paradigms, 4dB too much bass at 150Hz. I spaced them 1/4 wavelength at 150Hz (2ft) from the rear wall to counter the bass peak. Years later I started listening to FM radio & noticed male announcers sounded 'chesty' & realized my spacing theory was ineffective. A 3dB Twin-T electronic notch filter at 150Hz, between my pre & power amp, was a better solution. Does the the 3050 have the same problem, they are amazingly cheap (closeout?) at the moment?
Not really sure what point the reviewer is trying to make here. Lots of technical sophistry and no real punchline. So, positioning is important and is different for different speakers design - what's new? I was genuinely blown away at the performance of these speakers as most listeners have been but understand some listeners won't be. For the price point these speakers are among the best all things considered
How is it technical sophistry? How is he being deceitful? You're trying to rationalize your purchase of the speakers, that's fine. Enjoy them! That's wonderful you love them. To me it sounds like you have doubts, if you really loved them then why does it matter if the measurements aren't good? You said it yourself, you like them! Not sure why it matters if others also like them or dislike them. Still genuinely trying to understand how Erin is being deceitful here. He provided his listening experience, which you clearly disagree with. He also provided measurements. What issues do you have with the measurements? TBH, your comment comes off as melodramatic sophistry to justify your speaker purchase.
@pickleadaykeepsthedoctoraw5542 I never said the reviewer was deceitful nor did I say I had purchased these particularly speakers, although have auditioned them and was mightly impressed as others have suggested. Sophistry is a convincing proposition or argument that is ultimately bogus and I believe, in this case, the term is apt. However, I do agree the reviewer is honest with his option and certainly entitled to it. When it comes to sound we listen with our ears, not our eyes and ultimately the sound analysis is irrelevant to the discussion
@@Pianoman8and as you heard in the video and he does this for ALL HIS REVIEWS... HE LISTENS TO MUSIC ON THEM FOR DAYS AND NOTES DOWN HIS SUBJECTIVE THOUGHTS AND THEN CORRELATES THEM WITH DATA AND FOR THE MOST OF HIS REVIEWS THEY ALIGN! How do these subjective numb nuts always seem to have dementia about him actually listening to the speakers before messuring. Hell he has a whole long video almost 40 minutes about songs he uses during his tests ffs
@Mishael_Agyei-Boamah All listening reviews are subjective. My point is that incorporating this type of technical analysis into a subjective review is ultimately misleading even if it is entertaining to some. Like I said, I don't doubt the reviewers sincerity but I think it's a futile and even counterproductive deconstruct a listeners subjective thoughts and reconstruct them using this type of technical analysis.
@@Pianoman8 will every speaker he's measured that I've heard... And thankfully I heard many of them before even knowing what Erin Audio Conner was... Had characteristics he pointed out out alluded to in his reviews... Cos I was starting to get frustrated with the nonsense sugar coating of these reviews that say shit and can't tell whatever was at least plausible for that. Using data as a backbone for you review whilst adding in subjective anecdotes it's fantastic review style and I'd take this over every other nonsensical audio reviewer who all clearly just like to sniff their own farts. Measurements is the great Equaliser and I've learned enough about it these past 5 years to have a confident grasp on if something would be outright egregious regardless of if WhatHiFi gave is 11 stars... That's what the value of his reviews give to many. I have a Dolby 5.2.4 system and I made most of the purchases before his reviews but thankfully the data not his subjective review of those speakers made me make sense of what I was hearing and even improve my system. That's more valuable than any non data RUclipsr and that's a fact
IMHO that's an unacceptable measurement for a $1500 speaker. There's just too much competition out there in that price range. Unfortunate because they are an aesthetically pleasing speaker.
Floorstanders should not need a sub to sound decent. Good musical subs are very expensive and these speakers suck without a sub. So I would personally buy literally anything else a this price point. If you do have a real nice sub already though, then these are ok.
I think this is a pretty terrible design for $1,500 but they look pretty. I mean a Revel F35 is so dramatically better than these in just about any metric, for the same cost.
You may want to keep on mind that you can easily buy the Q-Acoustics in Europe for 1.299€, while you won’t even find the F35s (or Revel) selling in Europe, and on those countries who have them, they cost 1.999€. Maybe you can directly compare those two speakers in USA, but over here, you might want to take a look (for instance) at the Focal 926, that you can buy (until stock lasts) for 1.998€ a pair. 😉
Dear God! Why can't any of these companies actually engineer these things rather than just buy whatever is cheapest and then trying to get components to work with a basic crossover calculator.🤦 They could even just use XSIM and at least get in the general ballpark, this is just laziness. Funny thing is, influencer's will have people champing at the bit for these things and giving the generalised audiophool nonsense.😂
Dude....I do enjoy your reviews. But damn, so many specs and not enough just listening to the speaker. Its not all about specs dude. When did we stop just enjoying the music??
I’m not sure why you would just automatically assume that I didn’t listen to the speakers. Look, there are probably hundreds of RUclips channels with Talking Heads. My channel is different. If that’s not what you’re after then that’s understandable. But there’s no need for the condescending tone.
I kept these after A/B comparing them for 30 days with the Buchardt P300's. I heard the 5040's brightness but chose them over the P300's because the sensitivity specs (91.5dB vs. 86dB) were a better match. Erin's analysis helped me get the most out of this speaker. Shout out to you (and your specs), Erin!
Wow, who designed this thing. Many DIY people can do better, with more linear frequency response. To me there's definitely not enough baffle step compensation and some crossover redesign to get rid of the peaking in the highs.
So funny. This review is the complete opposite from other reviewers. This is such a fun hobby.
That's because those 'reviewers' are just influencers, nothing more. If you could design a terrible speaker but have a company name and send it out and an odd incentive here and there you get these people hyping it up.
One guy called Steve, he even sniggers to himself as he reviews certain products, and he was a salesman for audio back in the day, literally mocking his own audience because he knows people are gullible as hell.
@@vincentpedalino618 And many of those reviewers never met a product they didn’t like.
@@zefrog7482 spinorama is still not available so i don't know the tonality score. for reference using Erin's data, tonality score for KLH model 5 is 4.6 which is same as Micca RB42 (ASR data). Given research shows that tonality is highly correlated to speaker preference do i discount erin's praise of the model 5 as a false reading of the measurements?
@@Zenos174Gutenberg
@@zefrog7482 One lone review that people latch onto because they say something different. No wonder Trump does so well.
There are a good few reviewers who like these or other QA speakers that Erin doesn't like that know what they are talking about.
Q Acoustics: "Deep bass dynamics are also claimed to be improved, with tighter, better-damped low-end response allowing more flexibility in the placement of speakers near the wall boundaries of the listening room".
I guess it's kinda tuned that way..
I also noticed that many reviews blaim 'bright sounding sources or gear' for the speakers to sound sibilant and edgy at times. This is a good example why measurement come in handy, before swapping out gear to mitigate some brightness.
The position doesn't matter if there is no bass rollsafe.jpg
I asked for this review a couple of days ago. Man, you are the best! ❤
Oh, wow! Thank you for the donation!
Thanks Erin. I enjoy your reviews and your explanations.
Glad you like them!
You are more generous with your comments on this speaker then I would have been based on the data. You of course heard the speaker where I have not
It really boils down to the midbass dip. The compression and distortion are good and the horizontal dispersion is nice. But that midbass droop means either place it close to a wall or don’t bother.
@@ErinsAudioCorner I would assume the close wall placement would kill soundstage depth.
@@ChicagoRob2 it could certainly impact it. Good call.
Hi Erin, enjoy your cool yet objective style you institute, while reviewing speakers. Could you please consider doing a review for the SVS ultra towers? All the very best to you. Cheers!
this is very helpful...thanks for the details!
E Dizzle pumpin out the vids😊
Everyone else seems to love these. I've had a pair of 3030i's and they had great bass for a bookshelf and weren't bright. I'm kind of a Kef fan right now.
Love the 3030i’s. Q acoustics put some special sauce in those speakers.
This looks to be a well engineered speaker, albeit not one that’s measurements will appeal to the typically well informed subscribers to this channel.
My assumption is that this speaker is designed for small rooms hence the bass shelf to suit close wall positioning. The wide horizontal dispersion will help it sound “big” in small rooms.
The predicted in-room response shows a very typical treble boost which I think manufacturers deliberately include through fear of losing a short showroom demo to a competitor that delivers more superficial detail.
The poor vertical directivity could be avoided if this was a 2.5 way design but that would sacrifice midrange efficiency.
It looks great and the brand has a great reputation. I doubt this speaker will harm that.
Agreed to much you're saying, hence my other comment, however, for a 'showroom sound' you also need some bass.
These are British designed speakers so suit smaller homes so quite possibly.
Hey Erin! Do you have any favorite bookshelf speaker recommendations at the $750-$1000 price point? Thanks!
Erin, I am learning so much your channel. Thank you. And have you ever heard Audiovector QR3 or any QR series speakers in their product range?
Interesting. Picked a pair of these up in an open box/returns clearance sale discounted to £700 recently. Haven't noticed any siblilence at all except from one Adele CD (21) where the vocals sound wierdly processed to me. By chance I've positioned them pretty much in the sweet spot, according to Erin's review, at 18" from the rear wall. They're also accompanied by a sub, which does help..
For me these were a massive upgrade from a pair of 80/90s Monitor Audio stand mounted monitors both as a part of a 5.1 system and for general listening, to the extent I'm relistening to a bunch of music and rewatching movies. I don't know what that says apart from a lot of this is subjective and I don't have audiophile ears.
They are known in the UK for near Wall placement ,their models usually love it unlike my tannoys
Usually ceiling to floor modes are the strongest and thus the height of the woofers from the floor effects the in-room response dramatically as well.
10:30 taking a view on that frequency response tells me that those enclosures need to have more volume in order to lower the 500 hz region and boost the 100 hz, I know this because I am speaker builder other than repair
Dear Erin, I love your reviews. They are unique, very informative and basically include all tests that cannot be done at home.
My two cents:
You don't want to equalize any speaker above the room transient (Schroeder's ) frequency and especially refrain from using boost filters. The peak energy time for high frequencies will shift by an IIR filter and that will degrade the sound. It will be at the right SPL level but it will sound throttled.
Have you considered repeating the spinorama measurements after applying crossover phase correction to the speakers?
I think it's OK to equalize a speaker above Fo as long as you're equalizing the *speaker* and not for the room response. That's the main difference. Below this you're free to use EQ to fix the *room*. It's no worse than what many good active designs are already doing. As long as the EQ is placed reasonably (i.e., not 5dB at a tweeter's Fs).
I have provided before/after SPIN data for a few speakers using EQ in the past but it's not something I typically do because it takes additional time and I'm not sure I always see the need.
I couldn't agree more on correcting the speaker above the transient but in my countless A/B double blind tests even after gated windows and maximum octave band smoothing, music sounds a bit throttled compared to the original if I EQ HF but your test setup is probably a lot more accurate than simple gating and the EQ requirements you find out could be more precise.
I was talking about phase correction rather than EQ filters. These are time-inverted "allpass" filters which compensate for crossover and/or box/port phase shifts of the speaker and basically align the timing of the drivers between each other. I am sure they will make a difference in vertical axis responses. You can find out more info on how to create them (FIR filters only) in my channel if you happen to consider some day.
Cheers!@@ErinsAudioCorner
For the price these really should have been 2.5 way to avoid the vertical directivity issues.
Thanks Erin!
Agreed, but that adds filtering cost, at a critical region ... thus, quality coils and caps to avoid smearing. That adds significantly to the ultimate cost.
Perhaps the tight vertical was the sacrifice for not hanging additional elements onto the driver.
@@FOH3663 ffs just throw an iron core inductor and the cheapest electrolytic bipolar in there. We've seen it done in offerings which cost a fraction of this turd's price.
@@john2335
Agreed
Cheaply pulling down the top end of one of those woofers could obviate that problem ... but, at a cost of smearing hysteresis atop phase differences.
Post change, perhaps the two woofer drivers wouldn't necessarily sum in the same manner ... all this right in the critical vocal range where our discernment is highest.
Granted ... this is pure speculation and I wouldn't know for sure without all the relevant variables in front of me for experimentation.
@@Zenos174 how else to describe the broken amplitude/frequency response? It looks like a white van 100$ per pair effort.
I wonder if the grille helps with the sibilance at all? Every time you mention speaker grilles, I remember the Wharfedale Lintons which have a much more linear response with the grilles on. Thanks for another great review!
awesome.. thanks! 👍
You bet!
Thank you for putting a review out for these. I was very close to pulling the trigger before your review came out, but wanted to wait to hear what you had to say. My ideal HT setup is going to be 5.1.2, but I also want to be able to stream and enjoy lossless music. I've narrowed my choices down to the SVS Prime Pinnacle Speaker, Paradigm Premier 800F, or the Polk Audio Reserve R700. Do you have any plans to review these or have a potential preference?
Thanks. A review of those aren’t in the current plans but never say never. If someone chooses to drop ship a pair to me I’d be happy to.
I auditioned both the SVS and Polks and recommend them both. I preferred the Polks. Awesome bass with the woofers and X-port. The SVS bass was sweet too just not as deep or powerful. Didn’t try the Paradigms but they were under consideration. You can audition both the SVS and Polk if you buy direct from the manufacturer and return for a full refund if you’re not satisfied. Good luck!
@@user-mz6lt2pr9sThanks for the feedback. I’d be pairing the SVS Pinnacles with the PB1000 Pro which I read is one of the best in the business, so slightly less bass from the towers would be okay I’m assuming.
The Polk is the best one there
No wonder they sounded so darn thin everytime I hear them, and I have heard them in at least 5 different rooms, 2 of them with the speakers really near the back wall. Still thin. That lower end response is just crazy, enhancing clarity and I always ask myself why does this speaker sound so clear and 'sparkly', almost Focal-like. No upper bass and tipped up treble + wide dispersion = airy crystal clear sound. A response like this is just unacceptable.
If I buy this speaker I'd put a LCR choke circuit to lower that 700 hz peak
My guess is (without even ever seeing 5040's) that these are designed for the customer who doesn't have the space to pull speakers 1.5 meters into the room. Pricing seems to confirm that. What I gather from this review, these are excellent for apartments/smaller rooms for people who don't want bookshelves
These are British designed speakers so suit smaller homes so quite possibly.
Hi Erin, apologies again for another off topic comment, as this is the only place where I can directly communicate with you, but I'd like to ask, have you ever had interest in measuring the Partybox lineup by JBL? It's very unconventional relative to what you usually measure and review, but the deep bass response is one that really catches my attention. Frankly, I do not expect FR to be that good, with all sorts of funky lobing between the tweeters and woofers due to the orientation they're all in, and the tweeters themselves being massive and therefore likely beaming and have break up modes screwing with the upper treble FR, but I'm mainly curious if FR is still half decent, and how the compression test, THD and multitone distortion look like. I actually have a pair at home, and maybe it's due to my untrained ears, but I personally find them an alright set haha. But of course, nothing beats having actual anechoic data 😉
Actually, I do. There are a couple that are sold at target that caught my attention a few weeks ago. Along with an Altec Lansing version.
@@ErinsAudioCorner I was astounded by the open air sound presentaion of JBL Partybox 100.
@@ErinsAudioCorner Oh, I'm curious, why'd they grab your attention? And which set specifically? I'd personally like to see reviews of either the Encore and 110 models, they're the most affordable, plus have plenty of SPL and Extension for most casual use cases after all.
@@ErinsAudioCorner But, I do believe realistically the best performing partybox is likely going to be the Partybox 1000. It's the only model with any form of a waveguide, plus it relies on a compression driver instead of a massive tweeter, so the beaming and breakup issues present on all the large cone tweeters of the rest of the lineups won't be present. It's also a three way, so it has a single compression driver, two woofers and a larger woofer that essentially acts as a subwoofer. Disappointingly though, JBL says it only goes down to 30hz -6dB, which is pretty poor imo. But regardless, it's likely going to be the model with the cleanest directivity of the whole bunch of speakers, and with a good bit of EQing assuming FR isn't that great, could likely end up being a decent set. It's going to be an expensive tower to purchase just to review though hahaha
Your thumbnail question: Is bigger better?
Yes, always, right up until sonic detail becomes muddied or replaced by brute force pressure waves. Simply meaning, if you really want that presence, then you really have to move some air. Big speakers do it, little speakers just don't. It's a safe bet everyone everywhere would much prefer the sound from a pair of 8" towers over a pair of little baby satellite speakers or a sound bar. I mean it's just physically physics 😁.
Cheers man 🍻
I'd agree with notes, like expensive Electronic equalizers to compensate ( the small KEF sub ). or that I'd think the 5 in two way are designed to be used with subs. ( I've had the Q 3020 , now Meta 50's.
@@rickc661:
I'm not sure you understood my comment. Size matters only in the way of making air move!
Cheers 🍻
Nice review 👍
Thanks! 👍
I would like to see Q Acoustics 3030i review someday ;) and also q acoustics concept 500
Have owned the Concept 500 speakers in the past. Midrange was relatively smooth, but you would definitely need a subwoofer to fully enjoy them long term. Also, the highs were lacking some clarity.
@@SpinnerPaddlefoot That were a dream were you own the speaker, the 500's is not smooth is just very neutral FR and measurements confirm this, no even need a subwoofer because of the flat 30hz in-room, highs is among the best you can ever hear in a speaker of any price range. It's extremely clean and measure fllawless. The tweeter is pure perfection.
Would there be a better set of floorstanders for ~18 square meter room, for both music and movies, with a placement close to the wall (ideally ~11 inches) and in roughly similar price (+/- 50%) ? Could Q Acoustics 5050 be better than 5040 thanks to bigger woofers?
Please review the 3050i
First time watching this channel, my two cents are that these are for home theatre not music. They're unlikely to be placed more than 30cm/1ft away from the wall. Few People using these for home theatre are running them at 91 dB, now with that said does it make them worth the money... No, should they be better.. Yes but let's say I bought these in a home theatre set up in my UK sized house and I EQ them, I bet they sound great with the rest of the collection ie the centre, bookshelves and subwoofers.
I'll have to watch more of the content on here to understand how speaker measurements compare as these looked fine for me!
Hi Erin very nice review...
So my thing is I own this speakers for around 9 months the sound really nice , very clear, the instrument seperation is very nice..but sometimes I just missing a bit more of the bass... But depends on the song sometimes the bass is more than enough ....my room is 30m2 and the speaker are around 60-70cm from the back wall.
I was thinking first to add a nice subwoofer but now i found some FYNE 502 for good price and thinking maybe to sell the 5040 and get the 502 instead what you think...im bit worry that the bass on fyne 502 will be to boomy and will go over the rest( instrument etc.)
How you calculate de vertical °? im sitting at the top woofer level at 1.5 1.6m, how much is that? xD
Erin?
What is the best all around 2 way bookshelf speaker you've ever heard?
Dutch and Dutch 8c
Hi there - first time viewer - first time commenter. I really enjoyed your video. I’m new to anything in the realm of “audiophile” and it’s been overwhelming to say the least.
I really appreciate(d) your commentary on speaker positioning as I’m still trying to figure out the optimum setup for my tiny space.
I was curious about how far to distance my speakers from the wall. I have a pair of AudioEngine HD6 bookshelf speakers (on stands) against a 70” wall. I’m wondering if there’s any general differences between bookshelf speakers and tower/floor-standing insomuch as relative distance to the wall?
Any perspective is really appreciated. Thanks!
The 5000 series changed the house sound of previous models.
Good stuff. Maybe these are designed for near back wall placement. more practical / realistic to me. probably before your time I think it was ' Allison spks ' ( former AR engineer ) designed high end spks with different tower shapes advertised to ' cure' err mitigate room issues. one was kinda triangle for corners , another had speakers on oppose sides. be real interesting what modern 'puter oriented testing' would show....
have Ya ever tested Bose, just for fun - the original 901 with several 4 inch full range & the very important equalizer. / the larger more trad models with separate bass & reflecting treble. maybe best speakers Ive ever heard ( totally not ' expert' or musician of any type ) were EPI towers which were I think 3 of the classic epi 100 , 2 ways one on each side to simplify description. maybe I was just in a good mood.
Roy Allison would put woofers very close to floor and cross them around 300Hz to mids to keep the room response more linear, also with woofer close to the floor the energy reflected from the floor would boost overall efficiency of the spkr.
Seems to me they've forgone baffle step compensation for a higher sensitivity rating, probably a good candidate for Danny at GR's to play with
Would never have figured you for an NSYNC fan.
B-but the ultimate authoroty of whathifi gave it 5 stars citing "Excellent clarity and detail resolution" It's almost as if they were full of crap 😎
Anything in Whathifi is basically a paid advertisement
What Hi-fi is a joke, it's ran by shills for the industry. It's extra specially flattering to anything British especially, even more so if Richer Sounds sell the product in question.
Makes you wonder if one of the woofers wasn't working?
It’s possible that they were designed to be closer to the back wall. Stereo phile was saying the same thing about the bass when reviewing these speakers. And every room is different. Never had the opportunity to listen to q acoustics other than RUclips videos
I am not interested in these, except for their context in Klippel testing.
So, I would never expect a 2x5” speaker to ever perform well below about 250 hz, unless severely limited on achievable spl. From what I have seen on 5” driver testing, you should expect good low distortion performance between about 300 and 2500 hz…outside that range you sacrifice distortion or dispersion. (Purifi drivers might expend that range with their high displacement, low distortion performance, but generally those limits seem to apply.)
Realistic bass performance, it seems to me, needs displacement that currently can’t be achieved except with larger drivers?
The British Whathifi review said : ''Low-frequency notes come and go with little overhang yet lack nothing when it comes to punch and authority''. So its funny that they did not hear the lack of bass which you complain of
What Hi-Fi are firmly in the pockets of several manafacturers. Never a negative review of B&W, Chord, or Q Acoustics. They're shills of the highest order.
I tried and passed on the Q Acoustics 5010's. I thought they sounded ok but did nothing well. (I'm near field/small room) I also thought they were goofy looking and blandly finished. The "Q" logo with half glossy, half matte background was a poor design decision imho. But that's just my opinion...
They should have pushed everything above 200hz down and gotten a linear response with lower sensitivity.
You have to do the concept 50!
People telling us that its the best under 3-4K.
I have heard these 5040 and i found it tiresom and shouty. But still good in some ways.
We Need to know if concept 50 fixes all problems and deliver the goods🙂
I'm a Concept 50 owner - the short answer is, no. Not to my taste at least. The overpraising reviews, using definitive jargon like GIANT KILLER! ENDGAME SPEAKER!, lacking any objective measurements, are just a joke, sorry. I'm going to replace them with either Arendals, Dynaudios or Buchardts.
@@danfisher6154 really! Wow. Thanx for answer. Maybe i should try the Kef R3 meta instead.
Thanks for another great review Erin.
I was looking at these , arendal 1961($ 1260) at clearance price and possibly polk r700 ( open box $1500)
My rooms not huge so polk r700 might not give me best it has to offer in my 12' by 16' room.
Even considering kefQ750.
Any thoughts on this audio dilemma? Lol😊
I don’t think the Polks would be too much in my experience. Arendal is great . Don’t have experience with the 1961 but loved both the 1723S and 1723 towers. I have the 1723 towers now.
You can find Revel F35 for around $470/ea if you don't mind gloss white.
Thanks for the reply. Wish i could afford the 1723, they are wY out of budget. Trying to cap budget at around $1600. Already own pair of Css Audio Criton 1TDX, which sound hreat. But the scale is small in sound.@user-mz6lt2pr9s
Id be curious about the actual sound qualities of kit speakers. Namely Solstice of Parts Express. Ive listened to them and was amazed at the clarity in the mid to high range and human voice sound quality (use of subs for low end) . How do they compare?
Wow thanks Erin. I listened to the 5040's in a showroom in a fast comparison to a few pairs of speakers in the £1000 to £1500 (UK) region. I seriously thought the 5040's were incorrecty wired, they sounded broken. I asked the assistant if I could experirmt with placement and the improvements were marginal at best - it ticks all the 'narrow boxes are the modern sound'. Not for me..
Will these work well with a WIIM AMP?
If you’re in a small to medium-size room and are not sitting more than about 10 feet away, you should be OK.
Thanks for GREAT review like always! Is there any chance that you could review any GR-Research speakers? They are kind of hot topic right now.
Yikes! I don't think they'll take that well to EQ. EQ'ing the LW to flat, I would expect an in-room sound that's scooped out starting from as low as 700Hz all the way up to 4kHz, and then too bright above 4kHz.
Q Acoustics should step up their game and utilize a Klippel.
With screw up like this even the Klippel won't help them. Competent people can design proper spkrs without Klippel, although such tool can make design process easier.
I want to try and use an analogy to try and understand whether perfectly flat speaker measurements mean that they are the best. In soccer we have 11 players who can play in a match. You need a good balance of defence and attack. Normally that means a formation that balances defence (including the keeper), midfield, and attack. If sonic frequency response across the spectrum is the same as a balanced football team then if you go too underweight in a particular area of your formation then it could be bad. However, that doesn't necessarily make you a bad team or mean that you will lose. If Manchester City (best team in the world?) played a Sunday league pub team with 11 attackers then I'm guessing that they would still easily win. In fact, they might actually win by more than if they played with a balanced team because they're going to dominate the ball and play with more of an attacking field tilt. So if these Q Acoustics 5040 are not balanced/flat then does that make them bad? They actually still could be the best speaker in their price category if they have all of the other qualities to make up for that imbalance. For example, if you took someone out of your team and only played with 10 men but Messi was still on your team then maybe you'd still have the advantage. Measurements, data and statistics in showing flat frequency response is no doubt important (and I for one take notice of your reviews Erin) but bring the best audio performance in each part of the frequency response is also important. It's actually why so many people like balanced armature driver earphones, despite the fact that they are weak in the bass department. They shine in other areas and that makes up for their weaknesses.
A speaker and its tonality/neutrality is not analogous to a Premier league football club pubstomping a Sunday league team
The only similarity is if you are stuck between several "less than perfect" (i.e. non-neutral) speakers, sure you have to pick which strength and weaknesses are acceptable to you, e.g. bass extension or radiation pattern. But if you're choosing between a speaker that is neutral AND has good bass extension AND good radiation pattern etc, versus a speaker that falls short in one of these areas, I struggle to see where the confusion would lie
@@officialchill1706 You clearly didn't understand my logic. Are you saying that a $200 neutral speaker will sound better than a $200,000 speaker that has one part of the frequency response that isn't neutral? That's what my anology was about. You cannot state that a flat response is the key factor in determining sound quality. Otherwise Messi wouldn't have been the best player in the world because he's a not good at defending or being in goal.
@@c0mbat15 I did actually mention other factors like radiation pattern. If the $200,000 speaker had better radiation, directivity, bass extension, compression etc, then possibly. If not, the $200 speaker would be better
@@officialchill1706 This is the thing that gets me about measurements. People get so caught up with them. But they only tell part of the story. It's like judging a cake on the balance of the ingredients and ignoring the quality of the ingredients.
@@c0mbat15 what part of the story are they missing? lol
Awesome review as always.
P.S. I would love to see your video on a home theater speakers recommendations.
Like what would be a recommended linear speaker for LCR, which has good linearity, can play rather loud, is equalisable and at the smallest cost possible?
In that case, I think you’ll be interested in my next video!
@@ErinsAudioCorner I'm always interested in your new videos 😂😂😂
I own the Concept 50 and am genuinely terrified yet highly anticipating you reviewing them. Have to say I'm somewhat disappointed, my previous speakers, Dali Ikon 2 MK2 which are bookshelves, sounded much better in every aspect.
I've got Concept 50's and 30's and Concept 50 is literally hands down the best speaker I've heard in that price range. Especially when compared to B&W and Monitor Audio in the same pricing. Neutral and super elegant sound without giving any emphasis to any particular frequency. 50's are a keeper for years it seems after my first full year with them
@@mdrlz as a owner of concept 500, i can confirm this speaker is shockinly good, i guess the concept 50 is a bit of step below to the flagship but still must share most of it's technnology, just not as perfect as the 500's. The 500's sounds extremely natural yet very clear and clean
@@ACM1000000PT yeah, these are deffo not for the people who like speakers that add their certain signature sound to everything. very neutral, easy to drive, easy to set up and also look good in modern living. all that for a super reasonable price, absolute winners
Seems like they might be better suited to people who are experiencing age related hearing loss.
Q acoustic seemed to be making better sound with their 6.5 inch driver. Not sure why they abandoned it.
Agreed, I have a pair of 3050i and I am very happy with their performance. Not sure if the 5040 sound much better for the extra you pay.
3000c series looks available . No YT reviews. Just sayin.
I wonder what the port is doing in this one.
They have port on the rear of the cabinet so what else did you expected? Surely must be closer to a wall. Main point is, speakers must do low freq in all directions like TAD monitors
Sorry, but that’s incorrect. Port on the rear or the front has nothing to do with dictating where placement is. You can put the port on the front and have the same response.
hmm maybe. but i still maintain that bass from ports or passive radiators should envelop the speaker in all directions, not be just on one side@@ErinsAudioCorner
@@quant2011 to an extent. Which doesn’t go with your assertion that because it has rear ports then it should be placed against the wall. Unless I misunderstood you.
Ok, when the speaker is rear ported and you hear weak bass or midbass, logical step is to put it closer to a wall. Sure, the same will apply if weak bass is from front ported design. This trait of more powerful bass depending on placement is a proof that bass should be dispersed in all directions from the speaker. Agree?@@ErinsAudioCorner
@@quant2011 that’s not conditional of the port placement, though.
Nice shirt, did you lose a bet?
Only with my pride. LOL
@@ErinsAudioCorner
☺️
@@crazyprayingmantis5596I’m playin. I bought this shirt myself. Not even as a joke.
@@ErinsAudioCorner
You're a brave man
the most honest and correct review i have heard in a while about this speakers. All on the internet were praising them and saying how good they are but having them personally listened them some days ago i would say that they are bad honestly really bad.All the same level speakers that i have listened performed much better. Even my old 3030i sounded better....
I srill like mine better than my Lintons.
The Concept 500 is supposed to be really good. Of course it costs like $ 6,000…
Yeah, it's all supposed to be really good, that's the problem.😂
If you buy them I'd do like the guy who got these and send to Erin so you can return if needed.
@@zefrog7482 you literally have no opinion of your own?
@@mdrlz I do, but I can tell if a speaker is halfway decent very easily due to years of D.I.Y. Sad thing is, a lot of society though go with the view of the majority, hence why what Erin does is so valid as it's actually being honest with people giving them the chance to actually get the best for their money.
@@zefrog7482 what he does is that he gives opinions. I have my opinions. Worst thing of all is to have no opinions and lean towards someone who’s opinions matter to you
@@mdrlz opinions are just that, but this channel provides actual scientific measurements which is really helpful. Don't get me wrong, I'm not all about absolute flat frequency response and all that as I like a variety of speakers. However as someone who has experience in building speakers and subsequently crossovers, looking at this thing and it's response it tells me very little effort was made. Literally looks like they took two components and then looked up values for the crossover based on the premise of the speaker being a constant ohm loading. It's sad, but too many manafacturers do this kind of thing because most people, even those who consider themselves 'audiophiles' actually won't question or even notice.
A vast majority of people will watch a RUclips review from an influencer and they swear by what was stated, it's natural human psychology, people are easily led to conclusions without actual facts.
Here though Erin is giving us facts.
I'm sure some would really enjoy the speaker, hell I might even if I heard it, but when you listen and read other reviews online it makes you realise how disingenuous most are these days. Real reviewers are very scarce these days, what we have are influencers, it's also been the fete of modern journalism across all realms these days, it's just how times are now.
It's an incomplete speaker. If you already have them, they will be fine once you place two cheap 10" subwoofers next to them to act as midbass modules. Place them away from the wall, cross them at 80Hz to lower distortion if you can but if you can't don't bother, and let the subs bleed in till approximately 160Hz to lift that dip up. The "subs" need to be cheap (say Polk PS10) because you only want them to act as midbass modules and cheap subs are good at that.
Amazingly poor design. I had the opposite problem with my Paradigms, 4dB too much bass at 150Hz. I spaced them 1/4 wavelength at 150Hz (2ft) from the rear wall to counter the bass peak. Years later I started listening to FM radio & noticed male announcers sounded 'chesty' & realized my spacing theory was ineffective. A 3dB Twin-T electronic notch filter at 150Hz, between my pre & power amp, was a better solution.
Does the the 3050 have the same problem, they are amazingly cheap (closeout?) at the moment?
Not really sure what point the reviewer is trying to make here. Lots of technical sophistry and no real punchline. So, positioning is important and is different for different speakers design - what's new? I was genuinely blown away at the performance of these speakers as most listeners have been but understand some listeners won't be. For the price point these speakers are among the best all things considered
How is it technical sophistry? How is he being deceitful?
You're trying to rationalize your purchase of the speakers, that's fine. Enjoy them! That's wonderful you love them. To me it sounds like you have doubts, if you really loved them then why does it matter if the measurements aren't good? You said it yourself, you like them! Not sure why it matters if others also like them or dislike them.
Still genuinely trying to understand how Erin is being deceitful here. He provided his listening experience, which you clearly disagree with. He also provided measurements. What issues do you have with the measurements?
TBH, your comment comes off as melodramatic sophistry to justify your speaker purchase.
@pickleadaykeepsthedoctoraw5542
I never said the reviewer was deceitful nor did I say I had purchased these particularly speakers, although have auditioned them and was mightly impressed as others have suggested. Sophistry is a convincing proposition or argument that is ultimately bogus and I believe, in this case, the term is apt. However, I do agree the reviewer is honest with his option and certainly entitled to it. When it comes to sound we listen with our ears, not our eyes and ultimately the sound analysis is irrelevant to the discussion
@@Pianoman8and as you heard in the video and he does this for ALL HIS REVIEWS... HE LISTENS TO MUSIC ON THEM FOR DAYS AND NOTES DOWN HIS SUBJECTIVE THOUGHTS AND THEN CORRELATES THEM WITH DATA AND FOR THE MOST OF HIS REVIEWS THEY ALIGN! How do these subjective numb nuts always seem to have dementia about him actually listening to the speakers before messuring. Hell he has a whole long video almost 40 minutes about songs he uses during his tests ffs
@Mishael_Agyei-Boamah
All listening reviews are subjective. My point is that incorporating this type of technical analysis into a subjective review is ultimately misleading even if it is entertaining to some. Like I said, I don't doubt the reviewers sincerity but I think it's a futile and even counterproductive deconstruct a listeners subjective thoughts and reconstruct them using this type of technical analysis.
@@Pianoman8 will every speaker he's measured that I've heard... And thankfully I heard many of them before even knowing what Erin Audio Conner was... Had characteristics he pointed out out alluded to in his reviews... Cos I was starting to get frustrated with the nonsense sugar coating of these reviews that say shit and can't tell whatever was at least plausible for that.
Using data as a backbone for you review whilst adding in subjective anecdotes it's fantastic review style and I'd take this over every other nonsensical audio reviewer who all clearly just like to sniff their own farts.
Measurements is the great Equaliser and I've learned enough about it these past 5 years to have a confident grasp on if something would be outright egregious regardless of if WhatHiFi gave is 11 stars... That's what the value of his reviews give to many. I have a Dolby 5.2.4 system and I made most of the purchases before his reviews but thankfully the data not his subjective review of those speakers made me make sense of what I was hearing and even improve my system. That's more valuable than any non data RUclipsr and that's a fact
They're not as good as the Wharfedale Dimiond range of speakers.
IMHO that's an unacceptable measurement for a $1500 speaker. There's just too much competition out there in that price range. Unfortunate because they are an aesthetically pleasing speaker.
This would be pretty shocking on a $100 dollar speaker.😂
Floorstanders should not need a sub to sound decent. Good musical subs are very expensive and these speakers suck without a sub. So I would personally buy literally anything else a this price point. If you do have a real nice sub already though, then these are ok.
Sounds like home theater voicing
I think this is a pretty terrible design for $1,500 but they look pretty. I mean a Revel F35 is so dramatically better than these in just about any metric, for the same cost.
Terrible design means that’s your opinion. I think they look sexy and modern.
@@Prometheus1979Terrible sonically not looks wise.
@@Prometheus1979but they rounded the edges on the wrong axis. I'm afraid even looks won't redeem these.
You may want to keep on mind that you can easily buy the Q-Acoustics in Europe for 1.299€, while you won’t even find the F35s (or Revel) selling in Europe, and on those countries who have them, they cost 1.999€.
Maybe you can directly compare those two speakers in USA, but over here, you might want to take a look (for instance) at the Focal 926, that you can buy (until stock lasts) for 1.998€ a pair. 😉
@@MrRocktuga why would I keep that in mind when I live in the US? The market in Europe is irrelevant to me.
That is genuinely terrible for $1500. What were they thinking?
Mediocre
Dear God! Why can't any of these companies actually engineer these things rather than just buy whatever is cheapest and then trying to get components to work with a basic crossover calculator.🤦 They could even just use XSIM and at least get in the general ballpark, this is just laziness.
Funny thing is, influencer's will have people champing at the bit for these things and giving the generalised audiophool nonsense.😂
Any seasoned diy designer could do better. What a screw up...
Dude....I do enjoy your reviews. But damn, so many specs and not enough just listening to the speaker. Its not all about specs dude. When did we stop just enjoying the music??
I’m not sure why you would just automatically assume that I didn’t listen to the speakers. Look, there are probably hundreds of RUclips channels with Talking Heads. My channel is different. If that’s not what you’re after then that’s understandable. But there’s no need for the condescending tone.
I kept these after A/B comparing them for 30 days with the Buchardt P300's. I heard the 5040's brightness but chose them over the P300's because the sensitivity specs (91.5dB vs. 86dB) were a better match. Erin's analysis helped me get the most out of this speaker. Shout out to you (and your specs), Erin!
Wow, who designed this thing. Many DIY people can do better, with more linear frequency response. To me there's definitely not enough baffle step compensation and some crossover redesign to get rid of the peaking in the highs.
Wow , I dont expect these so rubbish. What Hi-Fi? Awards 2023 winner.!!!
This is not a good speaker for the price! Looks nice but NO! I'm good with that speaker. It's a ripoff.
There are no excuses for a response like this from a company that is apparently a professional speaker manufacturer….
Disgraceful.
Just skip this brand and you are good :)
This is one of the worst speakers you have measured for my tastes… no bass = no fun…