Speaking of great speakers- how about the Symposium Panorama?
default -- Sun, 03/08/2009 - 21:21
Hi Jonathan-
I've read with interest all of your work on the current crop of outstanding (and ultra expensive) loudspeakers. I've been particularly fascinated by the Symposium Panoramas, which I head at Rocky Mountain and Pre-2009 CES shows. When might we see a full review of these? Looks like that one is needed to complete the "set" of mbl, Magico, CLX, et all.
Thanks!
Steve
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Steve,
I have my hands full of M5s at the moment. But the Symposium Panoramas are on my list. Great loudspeakers.
Jon
Hello there,
These may be great sounding speakers, and perhaps in many aspects ... but ... in my humble opinion with my tastes, etc. ... they are some of the most visually ugly, hideous, cold, sterile, repulsive, industrial science project looking "things" that I have ever seen in an attempt to create a loudspeaker system. This is one of the worst examples that my other post of "Don't speaker designers have a clue that looks actually do matter ?" and was actually the one that I was thinking of when I created that post. I cannot think of anyone who would willingly have them in their home ... especially the wife who actually cares about the decor and has some self respect for how her and their home looks on the inside. A few others come to mind too ... that list shall be shared at a later time though. Have fun listening to them, but perhaps a blind test would not be a bad idea so as to prevent your body's reverse paristaltic movement from how ugly they are. Rodney Dangerfield had a joke that comes to mind and bears such great relevance to this speaker: he said that this person was so ugly that the spouse wore a bag over his head in case the one over her head breaks ... it is that ugly.
Just hideous.
Nice photo ... nice room ... nice audio gear ... BUTT UGLY speakers. I would gladly accept a pair as a gift ... and go get something else that actually is pleasant looking and an attractive asset to our home ... or perhaps set up a good portion of a college trust fund for our son. Industrial design may be great for speakers, but the looks are unacceptable. To me, this is similar to those supposed "works of art" made out of steel beams in some twisted and welded arrangement with some paint on them in front of a building in center city. They are also butt ugly as these speakers are. These speakers make B&W's bowling ball heads and Cabasse's "Sphere" and the Helsinki Gradient, along with ... oh ... dare I have the nerve or guts to say this ... Wilson Audio (various models) look charming and like a welcome visitor instead of these laboratory device looking structures that are just not easy on the eyes despite how wonderful they may be on the ears. Grossly ugly.
Yet one more absolutely hideously ugly speaker ... the Magico Ultimate.
You seems to be ignoring the fact that these speakers have a function that determine the way they look. If you want “pretty” things, you should try art first, not audio. You should also add the “IMHO” before every sentence you write. I am sure many here do not share your aesthetic values. I thought that the Symposium look just fine, not to mention the B&W or the Magico Ultimate. My wife thinks that the Wilson W/P is missing a pedal to look just like a trash can. If that what you call “charming “... Regardless, high-end loudspeakers should sound good first, and then have a high quality build. It is hard enough to find ones that fit these 2 criteria so looks is totally a bonus, IMHO.
Perhaps people should read my other post titled "Do speaker designers have a clue that looks actually do matter ?" ... In that post, I mention that I understand that form follows function, laws of physics, etc. I agree fully that high end (and all actually ... oh yeah ... here it is ... IMHO) speakers should sound good (if not far superior to merely good) first and then have a high quality build. I also agree fully that many do not share my HO's on the looks of these speakers. However, I am also certain that there are many who do or would. My tastes are not the reference standard for anyone but me. Now there is one HO.
From my post:
Hello,
We have all seen them ... those butt ugly, hideous, unsightly, interior decorator (or wife) unacceptable speakers ... does the designer, or the design team perhaps, have any clue at all that appearane actually does matter ? (despite function or technical aspects or laws of physics, etc.)
There are some that come to mind, and so that I will not be sued, I will not mention them. However, how can something that looks those ways even be considerable for someone to have in his or their home ? How can something that ugly, and often times just oozing of "industrial design" all over it, be something that anyone with any sense of decor would even consider despite how good the sound may be ?
Just maybe the designers need to get a grip on the reality that home owners, and apartment dwellers, want something that is actually an attractive and decor enhancing investment instead of the looks of some sort of left over industrial waste product of sheet metals of various kinds, weird shapes, brazen colors to be kind, looking like a robot, etc.
Yes, I do understand that form often times follows function, laws of physics, size requirements for drivers, time alignment, etc. and different ways to achieve them in a balanced form if possible. However, come on designers, ... instead of your next speaker being the proverbial girl at the ball that can do all the waltzes perfectly but is butt ugly, could you make "her" capable of the same performance but actually give "her" a pretty "face and body" to admire while "she" does it please ? Just because it does all this and then some does not mean that it is the one that you want to wake up to and see first thing every day for the rest of your life. It's like the designers don't realize that a beautiful sounding voice is nicer to hear than to see the ugly person who owns it using it if that is the case.
TOM F,
greetings! Could you be so kind as to indulge me with an example or two of your idea of "BEAUTIFUL" speakers.
Hello there "zead,"
First and foremost ... the most beautiful speaker that I know of is my personal Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Second to Him is my wife Erin. Third in this list is our son Richard. Then there's my mother. God created all of them with wonderful beauty.
As far as loudspeakers that are beautiful IMHO ... Some that come to mind (off hand) are: Sonus Faber (most in general), Usher Dancer Series, Opera, Revel, ... the list will continue as I think of more ... what I deem "beautiful" (to use your term) about them are the shapes, the fabulously crafted woodwork, the finishes, the use of real wood, polished brass or leather adorned, etc. ... Legacy comes to mind too as they are made like fine furniture in certain aspects. I am listing these as some ... regardless if I actually like the sound of them or not ... or if anyone on here does or not.
"Zead" ... what are your favorites ? (looks, sound, etc.)
TOM F,
well Tom beauty and speakers come in two categories.....BEAUTIFUL MOMENTS & EXQUISITE WORKMANSHIP.
As for the first: i've had two standout moments: One was at STEREO EXCHANGE in NYC back in the day....when i heard the original PROAC 150...still remember the magic of that sound...Guess what!......i think that became my HP MOMENT...MY REFERENCE WAS ESTABLISHED......i could never look back. The second was hearing the B&W SILVER EDITION MONITORS........oh man.....i wish i could have afforded that shit back then.....there was beauty in all its shades and senses.....i loved these B&W silver edition speakers.
With regard to the WORKMANSHIP.....the finish of a Sonus Faber or Wilson's Paint-job and the Kef Muon.........just brings a smile to my face...
Having said all of this however, i'd pick the SYMPOSIUM anyday......if it bowls me over with its sound.
Thanks TOM F
Zead,
I forgot about the KEF Muon. Now that is something quite special to look at. The water forming methods used to make it are quite interesting too. It sounds like you really had a great time with those original ProAc's and B&W's. One of my most enjoyable times listening to music was just last year at a store in Chambersburg, PA (a 2 1/2 hour drive from us ... and we live in PA too) called Squire's Electronics. They had the Usher Be-718's, but they also had the bigger Be-10's (2nd from the top) and a full Parasound system powering them with a modest Rotel CD player and MIT interconnects and speaker cables of only about $500 or so for a pair. It was toe tapping fun, engaging, great sounding (even though the room was way too small for that much bass from the Be-10's) it was so much fun. Another great system I heard was in Falls Church, VA back in 2000 or so maybe. It had a pair of Focal / JM Lab Mini Utopia's on their stands with a YBA CD player and an old Marantz 35wpc EL34 tube amp driving them. It was amazingly robust and visceral. We were fairly close to the old SoundEx in Willow Grove, PA before they closed and wish that they ahdn't. One of the salesmen told my wife and I that so many of their former clients simply did not pay their bills ... and most of them he said were attorneys, engineers, doctors, etc. (professionals) He said that there were so many of them and that such a high percentage of them were many months behind on their payments that the owners deemed it unrealistic or unlikely to be able to recover the majority of the debts that they decided to close the place, etc. What a shame. It was a great place to go listen to some great gear.
Ugly vs Beauty Speaker poll:
Lets see what happens:
Wilson
B&W
Focal
Magico
YG
MBL
Magnepan
Martin Logan
Vandersteen
Kef
Kharma
Scaena
Quad
Sound Labs
Meridian
Thiel
( add others I can think of any more right this second and I apologize to anyone I forgot)
Please vote copy the names and put a U for ugly and B for beautiful
BTW the Panorma is BU for Butt Ugly
If any of the ladies in my life, past or present, were voting, they would be all BU. For them the best speaker is the small one you can put behind the couch, where no one can see. Past that, it doesn't really matter as they are all in the BU category. However, one did take a particularly big dislike to my Maggies - said it blocked the view, to which I replied that they were other windows in the house and she didn't have to get stuck on seeing out of that particular one ...
As far as I am concerned, I don't buy speakers to ogle, but to listen to music. Half the time, I have my eyes closed anyway :) If pushed, I would say that the Sonus Fabers and Magicos (the mini 2 is the least ugly in the range) are closest to what would fit my decor. I suppose if you have a very modern house, MBLs or M-L might look at home. I also think that the Panoramas (which I've only seen in pictures) take the cake in the ugliness factor. Let's face it though: none of us would buy any speaker for decoration purposes!
My only care is: "How does it sound?"
Your ONLY care ??? I find that VERY difficult to believe. NO ONE with any self respect or class wants (or will have) a butt ugly ANYTHING in his or her or their home. (I am not yelling with the CAPS ... just emphasing)
I've owned original Quads and my wife HATED them. They stayed, because I LOVED the sound, especially with a Futterman amp driving them.
I have run a store in the audio business for over 35 years and I can tell you that it does matter to many people. If there are two speakers they like the ugly one will alaways loose. Maggies , Revel, Martin Logan etc are either loved or hated and so it has a major effect.
When I lived up north many people made the basement thier listening room however at the price points today and many areas where the speakers go into a public area that is not the case.
I dont believe all speakers are ugly, many are like sculptures and many are just the same ole box.
Just for fun VOTE. It will be interesting to see what peoples opinions are.
I wish that there were other ratings offered ... haha ... but if only B or U ... sound quality aside ... craftsmanship aside ... materials used aside ... colors or finishes aside ...
Wilson - U
B&W - U
Focal - B
Magico - B (except for the Ultimate ... that is still BUTT UGLY)
YG - U
MBL - U
Magnepan - B
Martin Logan - U (they remind me of razor blade cartridges)
Vandersteen - U
Kef - B
Kharma - B
Scaena - B
Quad - U
Sound Labs - U
Meridian - U
Thiel - B
Sonus Faber ... B
Its all important however looks are important and companies that do not attempt to address that issue are kidding themsleves.
For me the visual beauty of a loudspeaker must be put into context.
A speaker can be harmonious and attractive in one room, but look hideous in another.
Large planar speakers need an appropriate-sized room to look and sound right, just as small speakers need a room where you can be intimate with them.
I believe that even the "ugliest" most industrial speakers can look smashing in a room that has a similar design aesthetic.
In short a speaker must fit the room for me to consider the final result to be beautiful.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Mr. Stone,
While I understand your perspective, and respect your right to an opinion and to express it, I cannot agree with you for the following reason.
If putting a given speaker in a certain environment makes it "ugly" or "beautiful" to you (to use the terms in this forum so far), that invalidates the beauty (or lack thereof) of the speaker in and of itself ... on its own ... independent upon the environment that it is in.
For example, a person deemed beautiful by one person would most likely be deemed the same way if assessed by the same person regardless of the environment that the person is in at the time of being assessed; be it favorably or unfavorably. A person deemed as ugly is not going to even appear to be any less ugly if he or she goes into a diamond store or a grocery store or a Ferrari dealership or a Dollar Store. While a psychological association may be made to link that person with that environment; the person in question, or speaker for that matter, does not change or improve or reduce in visual appeal based on that. The person, or in this case, the speaker, must be assessed on its own merits or lack thereof ... 100% independent upon the environment it is in at the time ... at least as far as being visually appealing or repulsive, etc. (beautiful or ugly to use this forum's terms again).
As for the speaker being of a physically appropriate or proportional size for the room it is in and based on the type of speaker it is with regard to its function and interaction with the room; I agree with you completely ... but that must remain independent of the visual assessment of the item otherwise the conditions under which the assessment was given are inconsistent and are dependent upon external or other factors that are, quite simply; irrelevant, and must therefore be kept so. IMHO
Tom
Tom F,
Context and beauty are irrevocably intertwined.
To try to isolate any object or design outside the environment where it will be seen and used is silly. In a incongruous location ANY object can appear ugly. Trying to establish aesthetics in a void is a fatuous exercise. Both the environment and the cultural context are inexorably connected to any contemporary concept of beauty IMHO.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Again Mr. Stone, I understand your statements. An ugly woman will always be an ugly woman whether she is in shopping for luxury items in the finest of stores or at Walmart. An ugly speaker will always be an ugly speaker whether it is in a similar looking environment or not. IMHO
Ugly, by its nature is a cultural concept and, as such, is culturally defined.
That ugly woman in one culture might be a babe in another. In some cultures slender is ugly while voluptuous is beautiful. Even in our western culture if you go back 150 years you'd be surprised how differently they viewed the concept of beautiful as it related to humans.
And don't get me started on Craftsman, Prairie, and French provincial furniture...
As you might guess I have some rather strong and well-developed ideas about beauty, but I would never try to impose them on anyone else. While in 30 years of reviewing audio equipment I've seen more than a few speakers that I wouldn't let within a mile of my home, but usually this was based on their appropriateness to my own environment rather than aesthetics.
Again context is the key...
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Are we done yet? Is it just me or are you driving your point too hard? Didn’t your “personal Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” teach you that there are no such thing as “ugly women”. The ugliness is all in your mind. I think you should just keep it there and move on.
TOM F,
i hope you realize that "UGLY" is subjective.to begin with......you know that "UGLY" woman might look mighty fine in an evening outfit at a night club......Stones' argument makes sense...especially in audio..where our sensibilities are unanimously dethroned by "HOW IT SOUNDS"..which can be subjectively transferred too: "How it Fits the room"
To Elliott,
i wanna ask! How do you rate the FOCAL GRANDE UTOPIA as per your scale?
Dear NirB ... there is no such teaching as you suggested, so the answer to your question is no. The ugliness of this speaker, and that of others that are ugly, is not in my mind ... but in front of my eyes as I see pictures of them or see them in front of me. Beauty, and ugliness, is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps having even a small sense of decorum in choosing to not decorate or furnish our home with some pathetically ugly piece of industrial art ... let alone four of them in this speaker's case as it is a four cabinet system ... generates this forum's intensity. NO speaker, for this man, will ever be allowed to be purchased when it looks that ugly. It is similar to having the infamous beer goggles ... it is like that handles superbly well but is butt ugly ... you might want to drive it, but at night when no one can see you in it. IMHO
Enough already!
Mr. Stone,
Your statement of "As you might guess I have some rather strong and well-developed ideas about beauty" is a great thing to have. It seems like we all do so far in this forum, and that is terrific. I am not trying to impose my beliefs or thoughts onto others ... but am merely trying to engage in a forum about what it is about. Your statement of (paraphrased) that which is considered one way or another in this culture may be considered the opposite in another or our own culture just 150 years ago ... all true and correct and agreed to fully.
Mr. NirB ... if a point is not capable of being driven hard ... is it worth driving at all, or for that matter ... even worth having ?
Zead ... yes, I do realize that ugly or beautiful is a subjective thing, and very strongly so as much as it is a very personal thing too.
Mr. Stone,
What are the speakers that you wouldn't let come within a mile of your home ? What speakers do you think are ugly ? (even once they were within your home)
After my previous responses how can you ask me this?
It's the audiophile equivalent of, "Do you still beat your wife?"
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Why is it on this site that a simple answer is never possible!
To answer the other question, I think The Graqnd Utopias are a beautiful work of art and the responses I got from them were almost uniformly the same from clients.
Grand Utopias?? You got to be kidding. What is beautiful about a mammoth, cheaply painted MDF boxes tilting forward? You are apparently easy to please. I think that they are ugly. Or BUTT UGLY as Tom will say. They also sound the way the look - BUTT UGLY…
Just to amuse me NirB,
what is it that you would say are beautiful and sound good?
I do not care for big, cheaply painted, or veneered, boxes. Since I am into Hot Roads, I know a good paint job when I see one. Let me assure you that I have not seen anything that even come close to it in the high-end world. A truly good paint job is simply too expensive for any manufacture to endure. Including the king of high gloss - Wilson. Therefore I prefer a more “honest” look. The Magico or Sonicweld come to mind. I think that the original Apogee were impressive. I can easily like the Panorama if the level of execution is high (Never seen them in person).
Thanks for you input.
NirB ... I too appreciate the time and effort of hand rubbed multiple coats of laquer and wet sanding each coat on a finely crafted custom hot rod. Cary Audio and Prima Luna attempt to use those methods. I know about Cary ... I worked for them in 2004.
As for speaking for me regarding my assumed response or assessment to the Focal / JM Lab Grande Utopias ... I think that they are fabulous works of art and are highy beautiful and a reference standard to aspire to in numerous ways. I watched the video that Mr. Gould offered a link to and it is very fascinating and impressive. I use the same CAD (computer aided drafting) program that they use (Solidworks) and found it quite dazzling and inspiring. I have also always liked the sound of that company's products for years; both in the home and car audio arenas very much. http://www.grande-utopia-em.com/en/video.php
Tom
I am simply not impress with MDF milling. If they were building kitchen cabinets , it may have been another story. I am also not “inspire” by their use of CAD. SW is a basic tool used by many. Since I audition these, I can tell you that they are a lot less impressive looking in the real. Big bulky and mediocrely finished, they did not do it for me.
My apology to Mr. Goldman ... I referred to him in error as Mr. Gould in my post above. I was very tired and somewhat distracted at the time and got confused with the actor.
NirB ... I agree with you on the use of MDF in general as it is a very generic and mass market available material. Klipsch is even using particle board in parts of their new high end models. I guess that is where some of the profit comes from. Ya think ?
Also (NirB) ... I too liked the original Apogees very much. Touring their facility in September of 1996 for the book on home audio that I was writing and drawing up at the time was a really neat experience. The former owner, Mr. Jason Bloom, now deceased as many may know, and the senior engineer at the time, Mr. Mark Nazar, now working for Boston Acoustics for several years, took me around the whole place and showed me how they make the ribbons using a vacuum and a few gears for the ribbed shape, custom modify coils for the best sound (to them) by removing a few turns here and there, etc. They clarified some spects of how things are made and tested and gave me guidance on how to draw up diagrams for my book at the time. No it never got published ... too much similar stuff on the internet even in the mid 90's.
Have you ever used Solidworks or any CAD software ? I've used Autocad since 1988 doing electrical, mechanical, PLS system, and fire alarm system layout and wiring diagrams and have been learning Solidworks at home since November of 2008 and it is anything but a basic tool. It may be used by many, including Focal / JM Lab, but basic it is not. That might just be why they choose to use it.
This talk about the subjectivity of beauty reminds me of a Seinfeld episode. in the episode, Jerry was dating a 'babe' who always liked to be naked. However, after a while he found this nudity to be quite ugly and termed (i think) 'bad nudity'; the key example was her struggling to open a pickle jar but you can imagine many others. I agree with Steven Stone that there is a 'context' to beauty. i felt this way about the Grand Utopia mentioned above. i wont go into their finish but i thought in picture they were beautiful; furthermore, i bet they would be beautiful in a room that had 20 foot ceilings. but in most normal size rooms they were too much IMHO. so i guess this can be said of most of the speakers. i don't like the look of the Wilsons and do think they are cheap. Sonus probably are the most beautiful to me; although i wouldn't buy them as they aren't the sound i want. i am with the masses on the Symposium Panorama's (i.e. the Butt Ugly category) but i guess there is a context in which they would look beautiful (maybe on stage in a Blue Man show) ;)
Hello,
I just read JV's write up for last year's RMAF and the Symposium Panorama loudspeakers. Here is a copy of his writing on them:
However, that honor goes this year, as it did last year, to the $110k Symposium Acoustics Panoramas, driven by Fred Volz’s marvelous Emotive Audio Vita amplifiers and Epifania preamp. Almost (but not quite—after all, I knew what to expect this year) as astonishing as they were at the last RMAF, where Robert Harley, Jacob Heilbrunn, and I named them Best of Show, they were once again very free of driver and enclosure coloration, very big and open with lots of air and bloom and extremely fine resolution of detail. As impressively neutral as they sounded, the Pans looked even more impressive. Gone was any vestige of “garage build.” Indeed, the “production model” Pans are gorgeous. Beautifully constructed of black-anodized 6061T aluminum and glimmering stainless steel, they would fit proudly in any listening room.
The comment that they would fit proudly in any listening room ... is at a minimum an insult to anyone with any sense of self respect and sense of decorum for his or her or their home ... They would never be in ours ... never ... why ? They are BUTT UGLY. Whether we can or ever could afford them ... which I admit that we cannot and never will be able to ... but even if we could with ease ... no way ... never ... they are hideously ugly. If we won the biggest lottery in the world and could buy any speaker system at any cost ... no matter how good they may sound ... the ywould not even be considered simply due to looks alone. That which IS ugly does not and cannot become beautiful in a different environment or context. It may function or fit or blend better, but its ugliness will never go away or diminish. IMHYCO (In My Humble Yet Confident Opinion)
Dude:
How many more times are you going to tell us that you don't like the speakers? I for one, don't care!
Sunday ... good for you. It is simply fun to drive a point to see what happens with it from a variety of people ... such as is the case in this particular forum. We all know that audiophiles have their (often times quite strong) opinions on these topics, and I would like to hear them.
Can anyone comment on the OHM Walsh line of speakers? I was looking hard at purchasing Magnepans that will do double duty as my music system and home theater. However, I have read really good reports on the OHM speaker line. Just need to know if anyone has first hand ear-to-the-music experience.