or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Philharmonic Audio - Dennis Murphy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Philharmonic Audio - Dennis Murphy - Page 138

post #4111 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

So Dennis, any chance you want to throw together a smallish sealed center with the tang band, fountek, and a pair o them SB 18s for those of us (read: me) with wide off axis listening positions??

biggrin.gif

Don't know how smallish it would be with 6.5" woofers. I am developing a wmtw with the ER15's, tang band, and RAAL. I might also do one with the fountek.
post #4112 of 4614
sounds good to me, as long as I can afford it!
post #4113 of 4614
Loving the looks of the Slims!

I came to AVS looking for recommendations on floor standers and was redirected here. Read around 100 pages on various forums and the Philharmonic Audio line really are getting some great feedback.

Firstly, in regards to the slims (whenever they're out), how would they pair with a Plinius SA Reference? 300 into 8ohms, 450 into 4 ohms.

Secondly, anyone compared the Philharmonics line to the Sonus Faber Venere 3.0? This speaker is on the top of my list right now. I like the idea of a more laid back/relaxed sound, though I'm willing to give that up for neutrality and detail if Philharmonics really are that good.

Thanks in advance.
post #4114 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by colyolyoly View Post

Loving the looks of the Slims!

I came to AVS looking for recommendations on floor standers and was redirected here. Read around 100 pages on various forums and the Philharmonic Audio line really are getting some great feedback.

Firstly, in regards to the slims (whenever they're out), how would they pair with a Plinius SA Reference? 300 into 8ohms, 450 into 4 ohms.

Secondly, anyone compared the Philharmonics line to the Sonus Faber Venere 3.0? This speaker is on the top of my list right now. I like the idea of a more laid back/relaxed sound, though I'm willing to give that up for neutrality and detail if Philharmonics really are that good.

Thanks in advance.

Hi The Slims haven't been formally introduced yet--that will happen at the Capital Audio Fest in July. There's only one pair in a customer's hands so far, so I don't think you can expect much feedback. That owner will post a review, hopefully within a week or so. I haven't heard the Venere, although it certainly looks interesting. The Phil may go a little lower than the Venere, although it's not as sensitive. The Phil also has the RAAL ribbon tweet and an open-back midrange, but it's the sound that counts, not the driver types or configuration. Aside from that one impending review, I don't think you'll find any more info on the Slims until the July audio show. Oh--any amplifier with an honest 100 watts will do fine with the Slims. They're a very easy load to drive.
post #4115 of 4614
That sole owner is me. I am working on my review of the slims and hope to have it out soon. In the meantime, all that I can say is that they are phenomenal and as neutral as one can get. They sound open, airy and go low, really low. They have all the qualities one can ask for in a speaker.
post #4116 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio1246 View Post

That sole owner is me. I am working on my review of the slims and hope to have it out soon. In the meantime, all that I can say is that they are phenomenal and as neutral as one can get. They sound open, airy and go low, really low. They have all the qualities one can ask for in a speaker.

Looking forward to reading your review. smile.gif
post #4117 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by colyolyoly View Post

Loving the looks of the Slims!

I came to AVS looking for recommendations on floor standers and was redirected here. Read around 100 pages on various forums and the Philharmonic Audio line really are getting some great feedback.

Firstly, in regards to the slims (whenever they're out), how would they pair with a Plinius SA Reference? 300 into 8ohms, 450 into 4 ohms.

Secondly, anyone compared the Philharmonics line to the Sonus Faber Venere 3.0? This speaker is on the top of my list right now. I like the idea of a more laid back/relaxed sound, though I'm willing to give that up for neutrality and detail if Philharmonics really are that good.

Thanks in advance.

Here is my completely biased 2 cents. I was in the same place you are. I saw the Sonus Faber Venere's and immediately wanted them. They had the WAF that I needed in order to get tower speakers. I had some mammoth Eosone RSF 1000 that my wife hated and figured every tower speaker would be an eye sore. It probably did not help that I was running RSF 400 towers as surrounds. I was set to take about 216 mile drive to listen to some. I had already auditioned some Bowers and Wilkins and Paradigm speakers at a couple of dealerships. I was cruising through these forums and happened upon a set of speakers made by another company that Dennis had designed and made the crossovers for. I was able to go audition a pair that could be considered the slightly bigger brother to what I was looking at but still using the same RAAL tweeter. I loved that tweeter and immediately knew I did not need to look at any other speakers and placed my order shortly after.

Now having said that if the Phil Slims had been out before I placed my order I would have given them serious thought, especially with the upgraded finish possibilities. Sorry Dennis but the Phil 2's and 3's did not meet WAF.... The Phil Slims would have. I have asked Dennis a couple of questions through PM and he has been very helpful, as he has to anyone who asks questions here on the forums. I like his work on other speakers so I am pretty sure I would like these also. I unfortunately am not versed enough in speaker sound nuances to wax on in colorful prose about them. I will tell you I know what I like when I hear it, and so far the speakers that Dennis has had a hand in have sold me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio1246 View Post

That sole owner is me. I am working on my review of the slims and hope to have it out soon. In the meantime, all that I can say is that they are phenomenal and as neutral as one can get. They sound open, airy and go low, really low. They have all the qualities one can ask for in a speaker.

I am also looking forward to reading your review.
post #4118 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdgate View Post


Sorry Dennis but the Phil 2's and 3's did not meet WAF.... The Phil Slims would have. I
I am also looking forward to reading your review.

Hey--no apologies needed. The 3's are definitely guy-type speakers, and not all guys. There's a reason I'm coming out with a new model that doesn't look like a church steeple.
post #4119 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by colyolyoly View Post

Secondly, anyone compared the Philharmonics line to the Sonus Faber Venere 3.0? This speaker is on the top of my list right now.

Don't know about 3.0, but 2.5 certainly doesn't measure as well as Philharmonics:
http://www.hometheater.com/content/sonus-faber-venere-25-speaker-system-ht-labs-measures
post #4120 of 4614
I'd vouch that the Phils could compare favorably to some of Sonus Faber's speakers that are higher up on the food chain. Just to offer some perspective about value, the Phil Slims houses a variant of the Scan-Speak Revelator woofer. The smaller 5.5" version of the same woofer was used in Sonus Faber's Cremona speakers, which retailed for $7,500 a pair. The Cremona also used an OEM version of Vifa's XT25 tweeter, a really well regarded ring radiator but not nearly on the same level as a RAAL ribbon in my opinion. Of course drivers aren't everything and comparing speakers of different lines from different companies can be an apples to oranges thing.

it goes without saying however that the crossover design in any of Dennis's speakers does justice to the quality drivers, you can rest assured.

Oh, and Sonus Faber makes really pretty cabinets.
post #4121 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kisakuku View Post

Don't know about 3.0, but 2.5 certainly doesn't measure as well as Philharmonics:
http://www.hometheater.com/content/sonus-faber-venere-25-speaker-system-ht-labs-measures

Wow! that is a significant dip at 7K! While I realize that FR curves are only a beginning in looking at speakers. But, a 11db difference between 7k and 10k? I guess these frequencies are outside of the fundamental frequencies of most instruments…. but it still seems that it would 'color' the sound.
post #4122 of 4614
From a lot of the reviews on those 2.5 it seems that people like the sound signature of the speaker. I think that dip is intentional to make the sound appear more warm and to "color" the sound. Again some people like it others not so much. One thing to add is the off angle response of a speaker. Look at Dennis off-axis all the way up to 60 deg and look at how pencil straight is stays. That is usually a very good characteristic to have and usually leads to much better control when placed in a less than ideal room.
post #4123 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kisakuku View Post

Don't know about 3.0, but 2.5 certainly doesn't measure as well as Philharmonics:
http://www.hometheater.com/content/sonus-faber-venere-25-speaker-system-ht-labs-measures

Has the Philharmonics also been measured by HTM? If so please post a link because I could not find it.
post #4124 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65 Electra Glide View Post

Has the Philharmonics also been measured by HTM? If so please post a link because I could not find it.

Naturally, no, but you can look at the measurements posted on Mr. Murphy's Philharmonic Audio site.
post #4125 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kisakuku View Post

Naturally, no, but you can look at the measurements posted on Mr. Murphy's Philharmonic Audio site.

In that case, it is not an apples to apples comparison.

For a minute there I thought that maybe HTM had reviewed & measured Dennis' speakers.
post #4126 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65 Electra Glide View Post

In that case, it is not an apples to apples comparison.

For a minute there I thought that maybe HTM had reviewed & measured Dennis' speakers.

You're comparing near-field on-axis response above 200 Hz for two sets of speakers. What's not apples to apples here? Or are you saying you don't trust the OP's posted measurements?
post #4127 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kisakuku View Post

You're comparing near-field on-axis response above 200 Hz for two sets of speakers. What's not apples to apples here? Or are you saying you don't trust the OP's posted measurements?

I consider them to be apples to apples only when the measurements were subjected to the exact same identical set of measurement data/criteria performed by the exact same objective 3rd party. Far too many variables come into play otherwise.

For a random example, compare the NHT Classic Three's measurements on HTM & S&V (not to mention Soundstage, and Stereophile). The same speaker model's measurements look nothing alike on them.
post #4128 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65 Electra Glide View Post

I consider them to be apples to apples only when the measurements were subjected to the exact same identical set of measurement data/criteria performed by the exact same objective 3rd party. Far too many variables come into play otherwise.

For a random example, compare the NHT Classic Three's measurements on HTM & S&V (not to mention Soundstage, and Stereophile). The same speaker model's measurements look nothing alike on them.

That's certainly a valid point--you don't know whether they're being measured at the same distance, or what the mic position was relative to the tweeter, and there will be differences in resolution, smoothing application (I don't use any), and microphone
calibration. But none of that would explain the big dip in the mid treble. That's either a conscious design decision, or there is some kind of phase issue between the drivers. I'm assuming it's the former, although I would have expected the depression to be a little lower down--more like in the 2500 - 3500 Hz
region. That will give a more relaxed feeling to some recorded material and perhaps make for a seemingly more spacious sound.
post #4129 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Murphy View Post

That's certainly a valid point--you don't know whether they're being measured at the same distance, or what the mic position was relative to the tweeter, and there will be differences in resolution, smoothing application (I don't use any), and microphone
calibration. But none of that would explain the big dip in the mid treble. That's either a conscious design decision, or there is some kind of phase issue between the drivers. I'm assuming it's the former, although I would have expected the depression to be a little lower down--more like in the 2500 - 3500 Hz region. That will give a more relaxed feeling to some recorded material and perhaps make for a seemingly more spacious sound.

And I think that's the sound that I identify with Sonus Faber...relaxed, spacious, but definitely not possessing a flat FR. I actually like the sound of SF's, but wouldn't trade my Phils for nuttin'.

Here is a look at another SF, the Minuetto, compliments of Stereophile. One can see the familial resemblance....



Fig.2 Sonus Faber Minuetto, acoustic crossover on tweeter axis at 45" corrected for microphone response, with nearfield woofer and port responses below 300Hz and 1kHz, respectively.
post #4130 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mudslide View Post

And I think that's the sound that I identify with Sonus Faber...relaxed, spacious, but definitely not possessing a flat FR. I actually like the sound of SF's, but wouldn't trade my Phils for nuttin'.

Here is a look at another SF, the Minuetto, compliments of Stereophile. One can see the familial resemblance....



Fig.2 Sonus Faber Minuetto, acoustic crossover on tweeter axis at 45" corrected for microphone response, with nearfield woofer and port responses below 300Hz and 1kHz, respectively.

But that's more in line with what I would have expected from the 2.5--a U-shaped response centered in the lower treble at the crossover . The dip for the 2.5 is higher up, completely out of the range of any fundamentals that
an instrument would generate. It's kind of strange.
post #4131 of 4614
good day to all:

since i have lived vicarously threw this thread foe over a year i need to here from everyone who has the 3zzzzzz seems like they are all done talking and just listening, but i would rather read about anythig about the threes. its better then reading about other speakers on this thread about which one is better who cares if you read this thread and still have questions your not ready to jump like the rest of us.since they read over 100 pages lol iv read over both sites about the threezzzz and twoz over three times need fresh in put about my three i got till aug to get mine so some thing new would be greatly appriciated. :-)

so if you have any question about the speakers let me tell you after reseaching everything about this guy named dennise murphy all the way done to being a original dyi er from years ago there is not one not even one bad thing or sly remark on him its all praises about all his work which is a lot you should look it up its amaaaazing the work he has done. AND this from some one who has never heard any of his speakers but there are way to manny good things out there about denise that i cant wait to hear what he has put togeather for me cuz i have no fear in what he can and has accomplished!!!!!!!!!!!! plz send some feed back on your three and two just need somthing new lol>.

ok im done till i get my pictures of my olive burl cabs
you all have a great day
james from miami :-)
:-p
post #4132 of 4614
I'm not really experienced with reading measurements :sad face:

Here's a freq response graph posted for the 3.0s if anyone cares to comment. Not sure if there are any other graphs kicking around, but I'll keep an eye out.
http://www.ultraaudio.com/index.php/equipment-menu/347-sonus-faber-venere-3-0-loudspeakers

ps. The slims are looking mighty attractive. July can't come soon enough..
post #4133 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by colyolyoly View Post

I'm not really experienced with reading measurements :sad face:

Here's a freq response graph posted for the 3.0s if anyone cares to comment. Not sure if there are any other graphs kicking around, but I'll keep an eye out.
http://www.ultraaudio.com/index.php/equipment-menu/347-sonus-faber-venere-3-0-loudspeakers

ps. The slims are looking mighty attractive. July can't come soon enough..
looks similar in shape to the Minuetto… which is what Dennis was expecting.

BTW, has Dennis published a Phil Slim FR curve? I can't seem to find it… but sometimes I am blind. wink.gif
post #4134 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by D54Smith View Post

looks similar in shape to the Minuetto… which is what Dennis was expecting.

BTW, has Dennis published a Phil Slim FR curve? I can't seem to find it… but sometimes I am blind. wink.gif

I've not seen one yet, but based on his previous work I've seen, you can expect a very flat looking response. wink.gif
post #4135 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturn94 View Post

I've not seen one yet, but based on his previous work I've seen, you can expect a very flat looking response. wink.gif

I have a bajillion of them, but I won't publish anything until the speakers are formally introduced and on my site.
post #4136 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65 Electra Glide View Post

I consider them to be apples to apples only when the measurements were subjected to the exact same identical set of measurement data/criteria performed by the exact same objective 3rd party. Far too many variables come into play otherwise.

For a random example, compare the NHT Classic Three's measurements on HTM & S&V (not to mention Soundstage, and Stereophile). The same speaker model's measurements look nothing alike on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Murphy View Post

That's certainly a valid point--you don't know whether they're being measured at the same distance, or what the mic position was relative to the tweeter, and there will be differences in resolution, smoothing application (I don't use any), and microphone
calibration. But none of that would explain the big dip in the mid treble. That's either a conscious design decision, or there is some kind of phase issue between the drivers. I'm assuming it's the former, although I would have expected the depression to be a little lower down--more like in the 2500 - 3500 Hz
region. That will give a more relaxed feeling to some recorded material and perhaps make for a seemingly more spacious sound.

One thing to note with HTM is that they measure with grills on... and as Stereophile showed with the Classic Three, the grills really mess up response between 3-10kHz (roughly), causing alot of dips and ragged response: http://www.stereophile.com/content/nht-classic-three-loudspeaker-measurements

Since it would appear HTM uses alot more smoothing in their graphs, the raggedness of that region doesn't show up, and it instead jsut looks like a big dip.

Without the grills through (Soundstage and Stereophile measurements), that dip isn't there.

This is why I don't put much stock in HTM's measurements...
post #4137 of 4614
Good Morning Mr. Murphy,

Sent you an e-mail and PM. Need some speakers!smile.gif

Thanks,

Scott
post #4138 of 4614
I just bought a pair of Philharmonitors!!!! Woo Hoo!!!!

Any recommendation on an integrated amp? and CD Player?

Thanks!

Scott
post #4139 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwayne View Post

I just bought a pair of Philharmonitors!!!! Woo Hoo!!!!

Any recommendation on an integrated amp? and CD Player?

Thanks!

Scott

When I think of Integrated Stereo Amp, I think of NAD. They have a wide range from about $400 to $6,000…

I owned one back in the dark ages… it was my first piece of "real" audio gear and I liked it a lot.

Its a matter of matching power and features that you need. But, all NAD equipment has a very clean sound. Since the Philharmonitor is pretty easy to drive 87dB and 8 Ohms… even the low price range should work well. IMO, the big thing is deciding if you want a DAC. I know that I have digitized most of my music and enjoy listening to it off a server. Much easier than sorting through hundreds of CDs.

Have fun in your search. biggrin.gif
Edited by D54Smith - 5/27/13 at 9:45am
post #4140 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by D54Smith View Post

When I think of Integrated Stereo Amp, I think of NAD. They have a wide range from about $400 to $6,000…

I owned one back in the dark ages… it was my first piece of "real" audio gear and I liked it a lot.

Have fun in your search. biggrin.gif

I've personally found the more recent NAD to be a bit on the harsh side - but then again, I'm real sensitive about high frequencies. I'd look into Cambridge Audio integrated amps. I've read that their CD players aren't as good.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Philharmonic Audio - Dennis Murphy