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
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.
Shadorne,

You know the cymbal hits on the Clapton unplugged album first song? What do you think would cause them to be unresolved completely on a Beryllium tweeter? Could it mean more break-in time is needed, or us that part if the nature of this particular implementation? Or, perhaps it is being muted more than I remember...
Ugh... Sorry for the typos. My iPhone likes to correct my good typing with mistakes...

Jkalman,
I do not think you will have as much room problem with a proper acoustic suspension linear design like the Mini or even better the V3.