Stereophile review of Escalante Fremont


Has anyone read Stereophile review (Feb '08) of Escalante Design Fremont spkrs ?
Reviewed by Larry Greenhill & measured by Jon Atkinson .

How come they make a review of the spkrs without proper setup :
- LG didn't attached the stand spikes because of his new wood floor & put some bad comments (nasal / coloured tonal).
- JA measured the spkrs with above condition .
- No information if the spkrs burned-in

In my experience , result could be very sensitive for full range spkrs setup ( freq. resp : 18 hz - 50 khz ) .

How can such a great magazine editor allow to publish review with above condition ?

Really different with Positive-Feedback (by Greg Weaver) & Stereo Times (by Dave Thomas & Greg Petan) reviews .
This three reviewers has bought Fremont after made the review .

Seems our international respectable Stereophile magazine has a lot of degradation in their quality .
Is there politics inside this magazine ?
What a waste review ... i think ...
riwin_h
Beryllium tweeters have breakups too. Quite nasty ones but at a much higher frequency then Titanium. BTW, the Focal TLR, which was used in the latest Utopias before the Be series, was a much better Titanium implemented design then the ones Wilson is using.
Jkalman,

You should really listen to a good implementation of a ring radiator. I Just read on avguide that you may be getting a Mini in. You should use your time with the Mini to, if nothing else, hear a truly linear, low distortion, design. And as I told you before, the Mini actually goes lower in freq. then the W/P. And maybe, just maybe, you will see the lightÂ…
Dhaan,

I didn't like the Mini at HE2007...

To be fair, the room was completely untreated, which is in and of itself sort of silly. A speaker company should be at least familiar enough with the acoustics of sound in a room to add a curtain and/or some first order reflection point diffusion and/or absorption. I am very interested in hearing them in my well treated listening room.

IMO, there is a point of diminishing returns where the technology isn't offering anything greater sound-wise (to the human ear which has sever limitations), but certainly is technologically attractive (though likewise more expensive as well). However, I do think in my particular situation, I may benefit best from monitors since my shared multiple room dimensions are causing so many low frequency response humps. I am also a fan of technology, specifically nano-technology (I'm in venture projects of that sort). I also appreciate a nicely built cabinet.
What about Beryllium? What sacrifice is made with that material?

Beryllium was used in the Yamaha NS1000 - so proof that these designs can sound extremely good. The success of the Wilsons and JMLabs are also proof that they work extremely well (and B&W's diamond tweeter to add to the list) - I think they made the Yamaha's for 20 years or more. However, there is still a trade off - rigid piston (but downside is resonance) versus damped but flexible (downside is early breakup early beaming - limited bandwidth). At the high end BOTH can sound great. At the low end - a silk dome usually wins hand down. Some people can hear the difference on strings - some people can't - it is not always a fair comparison because even the frequency response behavior is different. It is a very complex subject because even ultra thin and light beryllium can have flexural problems depending on the voice coil to cone ratio - making it less than an ideal rigid piston....so shape is a big factor too.

Do WP, JMLabs with metal tweeters sound great - YOU BET THEY DO!

Can you hear imperfections in any speaker - yes - more or less there are no perfect ones....just trade offs.