[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai /forum/post/20722560


Cabinets being made by Salk?

Cabinets are not made by Salk.


The Phil 1 and Phil 2 come with cabinets sourced from overseas, in black only. As someone else already said above, the Phil 3 cabinets are made to order domestically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmichaelf /forum/post/20722817


It all looks great until 85db a 2.83v.

I heard these speakers (both Phil 1 & 3) at the Capital Audiofest in a large room, 25 x 26 x 9 feet, with a concrete floor and walls of unknown construction, driven by a 200 watt/channel amp (Audio by van Alstine Fet Valve Ultra 350+). I sat at a distance of 15 feet or more. These speakers cannot be characterized as weak or not dynamic. I did play with the volume control and found that I could easily set them far too loud for comfortable listening.


For what its worth, other speakers designed by Dennis Murphy seem to have rather conservative sensitivity ratings. For example, the SongTower is said to have 88 dB/2.83 volt sensitivity. Yet when it was directly compared with other speakers (same room, same electronic gear, same volume knob setting), of greater advertised sensitivity (91 dB), the SongTower was found to be louder.


The Philharmonics are an outstanding value. I consider them the "poorman's" SoundScape.

 

[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang /forum/post/20723468


That could also mean that other speaker's rating is suspect.

Your words, my thoughts

.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang /forum/post/20723468


How would compare them to the SongTowers? What about the Philharmonic-1's to the SongTowers?

They share a strong family resemblance, especially in the midrange. The Phil 1's bass goes noticeably deeper than the SongTower, down to roughly 31 or 32 Hz. The Phil 3 goes even deeper.


I really like the sound of the planar midrange driver. But it goes beyond nice tonal balance. The mid is a dipole, and the rear of the upper cabinet is open and can be variably stuffed, allowing you to adjust the balance between the front and rear waves coming off this driver. It is hard to describe, but sounds wonderful. Other than the SoundScapes, I've never heard speakers that could do this.


Electrostats, such as some Martin Logan models, are dipoles but lack the option of varying the front/rear balance. So sometimes (depending on room placement) these speakers can sound to me as if their soundstage is too large.

 

[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai /forum/post/20727739


Any truth DM will be offering the Kardashian option for those who prefer a larger bottom end?

That would be the Philharmonic 3. Not only is the bottom end larger, it goes deeper and remains tight. Once you try transmission line, you'll never go back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjg100 /forum/post/20728924


I did not see the Ohm rating for their speakers. Are they 8 ohm? If less than 8 ohm, then the sensitivity is even lower.

Like many broad generalizations this kind of statement is often false. Why speculate when full data is available (for 2 models) at the website?

Philharmonic 1

Philharmonic 3


Be sure to scroll down and read it all. From the frequency vs. impedance curves (labled Complex Impedance), both speakers have about 4 ohm impedance, but they don't dip much lower. If you are not used to looking at these types of curves (most speakers makers don't publish them), they show very little swing in impedance phase degree. And wide variations in impedance phase is what usually makes speakers difficult loads for amplifiers.


These speakers are probably not difficult to drive, but I have heard them only with the amp used at the audio show, so I won't speculate. The predicted bass output for the Phil 1 is 102-103 dB at 30 watts, and about 105 dB at 40 watts for the Phil 3.

 

[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Murphy /forum/post/21367195


Thanks for the suggestion about showing the 2 and 3 next to each other. I'll do that in the New Year.

You already did a photo of the Phil 1 and 3 next to each other. The Phil 2 cabinet is the same as the 1, right? That and other photos can be found here .

 

[R Swerdlow]

metro gnome, thanks for that review!


Add this info to the photos:

Philharmonic 1 (on right)

41.5" tall x 11.5" wide x 21" deep


Philharmonic 3 (on left)

43" tall x 12" wide x 24" deep
The Phi 3 is 1½" taller, ½" wider, and 3" deeper. It is also heavier

.

 

[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by azb120 /forum/post/21826485


How about NHT centers ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by d_m1010 /forum/post/21826517


I have three NHT centers which are great, but they won't be timbre matched to the Phils. I would just forgo a center untill you can afford the Phil center.

Just a word or two about my experience with an NHT SuperCenter and my SongTowers. I purchased the NHT back in 2000 and the STs in 2007. Until last November, I used the NHT with the STs without major problems. Both speakers share enough general sound qualities, a neutral tonal voicing and a reasonably flat in frequency response across the midrange, that using them together worked. I used the center speaker primarily for movies, and for music I switched to 2-channel.


In November I replaced the NHT with a SongCenter and noticed the biggest difference was improved dynamic range followed by somewhat improved level of detail. Other than that, for movies, the NHT had been acceptable for me for several years.


The NHT SuperCenter had two 4.5" midwoofers and a 1" fabric dome tweeter in a sealed cabinet. There was little or no bass below 80-90 Hz. This was the smallest and least expensive of NHT's various center speakers. I recently sold it.


My SongTowers are the standard variety with ¾" silk dome tweeters. There are enough similarities in tonal balance between the ST and the Philharmonic speakers (I've heard the Phil 1 and 3), especially across the midrange, that I feel confident predicting that other NHT center speakers might work OK with Philharmonics. If you already have them, go ahead and use them.

 

[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by lou99 /forum/post/21829677


Question: Does anyone have pictures of Philharmonic-2's of the back and side profile?

The Philharmonic 1 and 2 cabinets are identical. The only visible difference is the tweeter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lou99 /forum/post/21829677


I don't know how a open-back design would work in my room which is so small... and the speakers need to be pressed within "3 of the rear wall.

The beauty of the open-back design that allows the user to vary the amount of stuffing is that you have greater flexibility in room placement. For example, if you place them far from the rear wall with the speaker fronts about 4' from the wall, you will probably use less stuffing. If your room requires putting them as close as possible to the rear wall, compensate by adding more stuffing. Its easy to remove or add stuffing until you like the result.


Even with the rear of the Phil 1/2 bass module (21" deep) right up against the wall (yes that's possible), the mid/tweeter module will have some extra room (5-10"?). Ask Dennis what the depth of the upper module is.

 

[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturn94 /forum/post/21830462


Given the similar voicing of Phils and Salks, I wouldn't hesitate recommending using an NHT center with Phils (or Salks) if the budget doesn't allow the purchase of a matching center.

Thanks Jim. I was hoping you would speak up on this subject too.

 

[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkish54 /forum/post/21891214


I've never heard a Wilson speaker, but they seem to get bashed alot on AVS. Why do people dislike them so?

I've heard one Wilson model, at an audio show last summer. It was positively awful sounding. It was so bright and shrill that I was afraid not just of bleeding at the ears and nose, but of cranial hemorrhage

. I can't remember what model it was (that bright sound probably affected my short term memory too), but it was this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by energyfun /forum/post/21888322


Not sure who it is by, but believe it is some full orchestra rather than Mannheim Steamroller, though I have never heard their version so guess it could be that one. I love the authoritative drum hits as well as the horns.

Dennis has a Telarc CD by the Atlanta Symphony with Fanfare for the Common Man on it. He likes to use that to demo speakers, and I'd guess that may be what he put on his disc.

Nuance - Remember those Phil2s aren't yours. So remember to wash your hands before you fondle them

.

 

[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by d_m1010 /forum/post/21891375


Stereophile always raves about the Wilsons. I guess Wilson pays a lot in advertising.

I don't know about any other Wilson models, but those speakers quickly drove me out of the room. Keep in mind that they cost somewhere between $25,000 and $30,000.


They were in the room right next to Dennis & Jim with the Philharmonics and the SoundScape 10. The difference between the rooms was enormous.

 

[R Swerdlow]

We could get T shirts that say:


Dennis Murphy Fanboy Club


And get thrown out of the other speaker display rooms

 

[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jclif77 /forum/post/21953850


Hi Everyone, I'm anticipating the CAF so I can finally hear the Phils...is there anything that I need to know in advance? Best day to attend, should I make a weekend of it....etc. I've never been to an exhibition and am excited. Let me know please, thanks...

Many display rooms at these audio shows are small hotel rooms, with concrete floors and possibly concrete walls too. Some rooms are fine and some are terrible sounding. You should expect that speakers in them won't sound anything like the same speakers in rooms in your home. So be prepared for that. Experienced speaker designers know how to make the best of these sometimes limited rooms. If you go on Sunday, they have had time to sort out the best speaker/listener positions and what music to avoid playing.


Bring some CDs of your own with music that you are familiar with. That helps when listening to new speakers.


Be prepared to see and hear a lot of nonsense about how speakers and amps ought to work

.


Wear comfortable shoes.

 

[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by azb120 /forum/post/21954448


BTW whatever happened to the Dennis Fanboy Club T-shirts

...I guess these would be a bit hit at CAF too...

Here is a design

 

[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans /forum/post/21955474


I don't understand how the measurements wouldn't pick that up either.

Did Nuance take his measurements from a stereo pair or a single speaker? If it was a single speaker, it was a 50/50 chance he measured the undamaged one.

 

[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans  /t/1348949/philharmonic-audio-dennis-murphy/3030#post_22223308


Good stuff Dennis. I'm curious what your thoughts were around the Fet Valve amp vs the Synergy amp. Did you notice any difference? How did they sound?

I'm not Dennis, but I heard the set up on Thursday afternoon and again on Saturday.


The room was 24×25 feet and the ceilings were 8 or 9 feet tall. The ceiling was made with suspended tiles, so the apparent volume may have been larger depending on the sound wavelength. All in all, a pretty large room. At the show, listeners tended to sit about 15 feet or more away from the speakers. Other than the speakers, table of electronic gear, and listeners, it was empty.


Both amps, the Fetvalve 600R (300 wpc rated at 8 ohms) and the Synergy 450 (225 wpc rated at 8 ohms) were plenty powerful for either the Phil 2 or 3. So I think the Synergy 450 is more than sufficient to drive those nominally 4 ohm speakers to extremely loud levels. Whether the 600R sounded different or better was something I didn't notice.

 

[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbie01  /t/1348949/philharmonic-audio-dennis-murphy/3750#post_23082797


Well my Phil 2's arrived today. Getting them out of the boxes was a little work out. Denis shipped them yesterday and they got here today...

We don't live that far from each other..about 150 miles.


Popped in a few CD's and listened to them. Various music from pop, classical to jazz.


Just as a reminder I bought these absolutely blind..never heard them before (A HUGE no-no)


I still need to do some adjustments and get a better feel for them but my first impression...


HOLY CRAP!!##! These things are the best thing I have ever heard.....ever. I listened to the 20k-100k speakers before. I know its almost a cliche but holy crap batman...these things are good!


I will give a full review in a few weeks but honestly... They surpassed my expectations and then some. Amazing! Simply amazing. Dennis thank you so much...


Absolutely unbelievable. They are so clear. The sound stage is amazing. (I think I used the word Amazing once or twice already.) They defy the laws of the universe...in that they are both neutral but have an energy about them that adds to the music and makes it alive.


Imaging is pin point precise... Bass...deep and agile. Perfect without getting muddy...ever. Just beyond words.

So nice to read this. Congrats Newbie!

 

[R Swerdlow]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbie01  /t/1348949/philharmonic-audio-dennis-murphy/3750#post_23082771


Dennis...don't want to put you in a difficult position... If you had to compare these to the PhilMonitors...how do they compare?


I saw the Zaph Audio reference but it seemed to say that ribbon tweeters over all blow...include the Fundtek 2.0... (They didn't test the RAAL though...) And that the Vifa tweeter beat all the ribbons out...

Generally other DIY speaker builders consider Zaph's measurements as an excellent reference. If I recall, his measurements of tweeter harmonic distortion are made without taking a crossover into account. As a result, some tweeters, including most ribbons, produce significant harmonic distortion when fed signals at low enough frequencies. If a speaker design uses a ribbon tweeter where the crossover rolls it in at frequencies higher than those, the distortion Zaph measures cannot occur.


This is why you rarely see ribbon tweeters in good 2-way designs. I think ribbon tweeter is still a relatively new technology compared to dome tweeters, and we will see more ribbons capable of operating at lower frequencies without distortion in the future.


Dennis – please correct me if I'm wrong or have oversimplified.


Richard

 

[R Swerdlow]

I heard the Philharmonic Slims today, and I do like them

.


They were in the same room with the Philharmonic 3s. The only easily noticeable difference was the deeper bass of the Phil 3. Depending on the bass content of the music, it could be very hard for me to tell the difference between these two speakers.


Dennis says he can hear subtle differences with the two different mid range drivers, but he has spent many hours fussing over them. The only mid range differences I may have heard were subtle, and impossible for me to put into words. I could live happily with either speaker.

 

[R Swerdlow]

I own SongTowers (since 2007) and the new Philharmonic shares a strong family resemblance in overall tonal balance. They are both smooth and detailed across the mid range.


The new Phil, of course, has the open backed mid range with its variable stuffing that allows adjustable balance between the front wave and rear wave. It can create a more spacious sound than the monopole SongTower.


I think, but I'm not certain, that the SongTower is a bit more sensitive.


The Phil also goes deeper in bass. The Phil ribbon tweeter is more comparable to the ribbon ST, and not the less expensive dome tweeter version I have.


I'd say the new Phil has the smaller footprint of the SongTower, with the nice features of the larger Phils.


I haven't heard the Sierra Tower.

 

[R Swerdlow]

Hi Jim. You already know how Dennis's speakers have a common sound. The new Phil will sound familiar to you.