Thanks for watching, I know I have likely pronounced "Sibelius" wrong in this video, apologies for that. Remember to also watch my video about the amplifiers I have used with the Sibelius link here ua-cam.com/video/SMmO45upjI8/v-deo.html
Hi Terry, a fantastic review as usual, thank you. I've been interested in the Sibelius speakers as so many people are raving about them, and your review has definitely helped in influencing my decision. I am now more keen than ever to audition the Mission 770's!
I have had a pair of Pearl Acoustics Sibelius speakers for about 6 weeks. Certainly a remarkable speaker with the best detailed soundstage I have ever heard. A very transparent and neutral speaker. The details they reveal are amazing. I'm very glad I took the chance to order a pair. They are now my main speaker... replacing several sets of speakers, most that cost much more. Now I'm off to sell down my speaker collection and rediscover my music collection. Bravo Harley!
I have not heard this speaker so my comments are about single drivers in general. It is possible to get a single driver to cover the full audible range in a pair of headphones. But when it comes to loudspeakers the problem becomes far more complicated. One big problem stems from the fact that the requirements for producing low frequencies is mutually exclusive to the requirements for reproducing high frequencies. To reproduce low frequencies you need to move a lot of air. This of necessity means that either the driver must have a large surface area or you need many of them with a smaller surface area. The driver is a piston and there is a limit to how far the vibrating membrane can make an excursion. Typically hi frequency drivers can only make a tiny excursion. To get acceptable dispersion they need to be small. That's just the reality of the physics. The larger driver will have higher inertial mass.which makes it impractical for high frequencies which require low inertial mass. Even the one inch dome tweeters commonly in use today have awful dispersion. At 15 khz they are often 15 db down 30 to 45 degrees off axis compared to their on axis response. Ironically the inventor of the dome tweeter and midrange Edgar Villchur of Acoustic Research wanted a tweeter that had the widest possible dispersion. Introduced in 1960 AR3 had a 1" dome tweeter that was a full hemisphere and was not recessed in the least. Later in an improved version Roy Allison reduced it to 3/4" in AR3a, used four of them including two on each side firing at 45 degree angles in LST. A few years later Acoustic Research innovated using ferrofluid cooling to increase power handling. By comparison the bass was handled by a 12" acoustic suspension driver that became the industry reference standard. Their best effort was the Teledyne Acoustic Research AR9 which used two side firing woofers, one on each side crossed over at 200 hz by an 18 db per octave low pass filter in a 4 way configuration. It's a room shaker I can tell you from personal experience with it for 38 years. Why a 4 way design? Loudspeaker drivers are resonant devices with a usable range of no more than 2 to 2.5 octaves. 3 is usually stretching it. When you add a subwoofer to a shoe box speaker you have a 3 way system. To cover 10 audible octaves three drivers doesn't really cut it. The four way AR9 and AR90 was in effect throwing in the towel on the 3 way design realizing that there are inevitably problems with it. For most 3 way loudspeakers it's the deep bass. In the case of AR3 and its derivatives it was always the region between the upper range of the bass and the lower limit of the midrange. So I remain skeptical about single full range driver speakers however this one has gotten some very flattering reviews. OTOH my experience with audiophiles is that all of the ones I've met or whose reviews I've read really don't strike me as skilled critical listeners. The problem of getting a hi fi loudspeaker to sound like real music from acoustic instruments is a very tough one. As an engineer I see lots of enthusiasm but I'm not impressed by knowledge and engineering competence.
I just stumbled appon these reviews of Sibelius all happening around 1 year ago. Funny enough I was considering exactly this Markaudio unit used in Pearl Acoustics speaker, for my DIY, but decidet that full range speaker just doesent cut it. At the end I went with 2way design with waveguide, because you can get away with relatively symple crossover. But still it had it's limitations covering frequency responce from 20Hz to 20kHz. This goal afcourse I didn't achived. My 12" mid range/woofer, costing once and a half as much as Markaudio speker used in Sibelius, plays from 40Hz F3 upwards (in a room) and it is placed in 74 liter ported box. What is strange is that on Zero Fidelitys channel, I comented on reviewers opinion, that Sibelius might sound harsh with some music specialy listening at louder volumes. Reading frequency responce (provided by manufacturer) of this Markaudio Alpair Gold Full-range speaker used in Sibelius, I gave my oppinion why this really might be so, and stating if someone likes B&W speakers, probably shouldent be bothered with it....and my comment got deleted.
My very first speakers which i bought in 1965 were a pair of Goodmans Axiom 201 which was a single driver with a frequency range from 30hz to 16,000 hz 15w rms at 16ohms. This was for the drivers only. I had to build my own enclosures. The amplifier i bought was a 12 wpc tube integrated But the sound was unbelievable. I wish i could find that "sound" today.
After talking to Harvey Lovejoy 5 years ago, and hearing his speakers at the Munich audio show 5 or so years ago, I bought them sight unseen. They were not broken in! After a year I finally after a year I had a true audiophile friend listen to them! He pronounced them outstanding. So I moved them to my living room and broke them in for another year. Today a few minutes ago I hooked them up to my Streamer, Giselli lab DAC, and Rogue audio pure tube amp: what a revelation. Using Spotify high end ! To my audiophile friends, I am begging you to get the Cannonball Adderley quintet "74 miles away album from the 1967" and Hang-on Ramsey from the Lighthouse in Hermosa beach from1965. I was there for the recording's both night s this is perfection! Like Harvey says it is like being there.
As a proud owner of the Sibelius speakers, I found your review to be very consistent with my experience. To me the speakers are very smooth, detailed, and transparent. The instrument separation is really impressive and the overall bass is far more impressive than one might expect based on the size of the drivers (given the right size room). However, the vocal presentation in timbre, coherence, and spatial presence was the reason these speakers stayed with me rather than the QAcoustic Concept 500's that I was comparing them to. I originally had them with a sub (REL S/510) but sent the sub back as I found it unnecessary. I drove them with both an older 200wpc Sunfire SS amp and with a 4.5 wpc 45 tube amp both with success. The tube amp broadened the soundstage to the point where sound was coming out from beyond the side walls but that amp was ultimately mated with a system in a different room. I truly love these speakers.
Great and fair review. I bought a pair running them with a PassLabs XA25 power and a Primaluna EVO 300 pre. In you final verdict description, you got me spot on: not loud, into instrument placement, don't care for bass. I tried them with a REL T9 but prefer it without as cohesiveness is lost at expense of bass extension. I think the Sibelius is capable of plenty of detail if given the right equipment, e.g. a HoloAudio May L2 DAC, or TT with SoundSmith Zephyr cartridge. I had B&W CM6 S2 before, and the Siblius is leagues above them. In your videos you show the moving cone of the Sibelius. I NEVER listen that loud, a bit scary to think how loud the music was playing. Not for everybody, but there are folks like me out there. I like the "less is more" approach in design. I have no worries about warranty or repairs, as those speakers are built to last. Customer service is best in the industry. Cudos to Harley.
Thank you Terry for this. I hoped you'd be one of the people reviewing this. I think I might in the target audience. I listen to lot of jazz and chamber music. A lot.
I have two sets of single driver driver speakers. Tannoy Gold Reference Stirling's and Omega's paired with a matching subwoofer. I picked up both sets at incredible prices before Covid hit and blew prices out of the water on electronics. Both sets are throughly enjoyable. I am considering adding tweeters to the Tannoy's when my budget allows.
Tannoys are not single driver speakers. They all use dual concentric drivers, a HF driver mounted to the center of a LF driver. No comparison whatsoever. Also, not needing an add-on tweeter.
Great review, Terry. I watched Harley’s story about the development of his speakers and loved it. There is room for such niche design and manufacturing and I’m glad it exists, however, I couldn’t consider a pair of speakers at this price point without an audition. Hopefully, enough folks will be happy to invest in Harley’s vision to keep it going.
Really all speakers should be auditioned for obvious reasons, you can audition these in London and Belgium. I suppose if your in the States its quite a journey but from Europe worth a weekend away for it
Great review Terry, as we have accustomed to 👍🏼 Very good round up/conclusion also coming to the realisation that a speaker at the tested price point can’t be made to be good at everything. Well done Peter
I understand your desire to handle this review with care, Harley seems like a gem of a person. Audio speaker manufacturing technology has made some two and three-way speakers as cohesive as single-driver speakers, but with a deeper base that gives the mid-range a richer sound.
Of all the single driver speakers I've heard, my favourites have been ones with the 12" and 15" Fane full range drivers. Because they've had good quantity and quality bass to go with the great midrange that this genre of speakers tend to have. These Fane drivers are somewhat of a hi-fi bargain. All you then need is to build your own cabinets or get a cabinet maker to make them for you - which would be a morning's work for a skilled craftsman. Such a Fane based project at £250 to £800 makes the Pearl Sibelius seem rather expensive at 4500 Euros.
I used to build PA speakers with Fane drivers back in my DJ days, pretty sure they are based in Leeds, or were. I know they made Coax drivers but I didnt know they made single drivers Lindsey?
10:37 I can understand what your are saying about bass! 😅 I build single driver and woofer combo speakers. And I really love the Schiit you are on about, cos that's what I'm into when it comes to bass. Extension isn't everything, without enough boom the bass sounds uneventful even if it goes down to 30 hz. That "poompy" sound combined with extension is the ultimate bass (I reckon). A hard act to follow though, you need to balace the two (without getting used to a wrong sound). Listener's fatigue, and you need a break, go for a ride and then come back and you can judge again. Just getting that balace between "thump" and "boom" is the beauty of bass, making it dig down and also make the tom-tom drums have impact! Not enough "boom" makes the tommies sound Schiit! 😅
Great review. I didn't know these speakers, but they look very nice (seems perfect for your room 😉). I really like your way of reviewing (with honesty and respect). Especially the explanation about sound quality and for whom you think these speakers could be interesting. The only downside for me would be the stability of the speakers and the special (not very stable?) Sibelius stands. Ronald
Great review! You mentioned it: A single driver design is per se not a bad choice. Take a look to headphones, which are able to drive from below 20Hz to more as 20kHz without any noticable nonlinearity with a single driver. On the other side, nobody would probably drive the air for a big concert in an arena with single driver seakers for the full frequency range. That means, all is about the needed speaker level and radiation behavior (off axis frequency response). At a common home, the single driver design, like kown by other manufacturers like Braun or Eclipse, is a very good choice and the biggest question is whether it sounds correct and not whether the frequency graph is flat. If you really listen to the music and not to the driver, than you can fall into the sound stage even using a radio clock speaker if the general sound is good. Another thought: Nobody disallows to place a subwoofer next to the Sibelius and to cut low frequencies out, e.g. < 80Hz. This will add further reduction, beside the design, of the driver movement and will increase the overall output level and sound stage.
Lovely looking speakers and a great review. My only thought is that 87db is quite inefficient for a single driver speaker and precludes the use of low-power single-ended-triode amps that one often associates with such a design.
Just one technical erratum. "Crossover" distortion is nothing to do with a loudspeakers or loudspeaker "crossover" filters. It is a type of distortion inherent in push-pull amplifiers and refers to a distortion that happens at the zero volt crossover point on the waveform. This is usually caused by a mis-match between components in the output stage.
Hi Terry, I think this one of the best videos you have made so far. Certainly Pearl Acoustics has been treated with respect. I also think it is great that a company has its own design philosophy and carries it all the way trough to a well finished product. That's why it is very UN-cool and a lost opportunity for them, to turn around and tell us their design philosophy (concept) is actually a secret. That type of behavior is more suitable to Apple (writing this on a Mac, BTW). And no, a rough sketch is not going to enable copy cat products. Specially if you claim that you have been fine tuning it for years.
Firstly thanks for the kind words about the review I do appreciate that, I can also totally understand the need for protecting things because if I had worked hard to make something better I wouldn't want to share that with the community so others could copy it, maybe you wouldn't but others would
Nice (good) & detailed review of the Sibelius loudspeakers, but for the pronunciation of Sibelius, which is a bit off as the e should sound like an a, hence suh·bay·lee·uhs.
In my opinion pearlacoustics sibelius are wonderful loudspeakers but they are not coming out with anything new. They're using mark audio Apair full range drivers within a variation of the classical Voigt pipe design which follows the Transmission line basic concepts. That's all. It's all about a good craft work out of oak and some optimizations over the different Voigt designs. Of course they are pretty and gorgeous, but in my opinion the price is too high for what you get.
The Sibelius is actually 1/2 the price compared to other transmission line tower speakers with fullrange drivers which typically cost 10,000€ and up. Just lookup the manufacturers who use EMS fullrange drivers (which are highly regarded by fullrange enthusiasts). Closer Acoustics is one. And then you have Cube Audio and Davis Acoustics which use their own proprietary drivers. A budget alternative for 2k€ is the Audax AM21LB assembled speakers. You can also buy them in kit. I auditioned a pair in Paris and I was floored. It's an absolute bargain considering that the cabinet and drivers are handcrafted in France.
Sorry to say that not much in speaker design has been new for decades, unless making speakers cheaper counts as innovation. Solid hardwood speakers with custom made drivers at this price (they are custom coils) I think is more than fair.
Thanks so much for your very well balanced review of the pearl Sibelius. It was more honest about the shortcomings of the Pearls compared to some other reviewers who pussy-foot around these speakers in their reviews, apparently to avoid angry responses from the cult-like devotees of the 4" wide range driver. Thanks again.
I enjoyed the review Terry, And looking at your room, and equipment. If you say black, some people are going to say white, I appreciate you're Frankness... Regards Antony Warrington Cheshire.
Look at the cyburgs needle diy speaker, I have a diy pair of those, and they sound exaclty like described here. Also very tube amp friendly without the crossover.
I have owned MANY speakers over the decades, including Accoust 2 + 2s, Maggie 3.5Rs, plus lots of box speakers. My current pair is Emerald Physics 3.4s, open baffle, 12" driver with concentric 1" polyester tweeter. Really amazing, though bass is very good, not the last word in bass impact in my very large room. They also made 2.8s, same concentric 12" with dual D' Appolito 15" carbon fiber woofers
Great Chanel! I’ve subscribed. I would like if you went through the specific placement of the speakers you review , and with that some measurements for example distance apart and from front wall . Otherwise 10/10
@@JC-lk3oy no can't say I have, not a transmission line single driver setup, I can't say that I liked the omegas alot, and owning zu audio omens those were very good too, more top end detail and punch, but the omegas are just a natural good all around daily speaker and I'd like to have my old set back.
8 weeks drying for wood is very short even in a special cabinet. (snookercues take much longer to dry ) Also 1 driver speaker doesnt necessary mean no crossover. most 1-driver speakers have a xo or some kind of filtering. That all said, the are wonderful speakers
How would you use a crossover on a single driver? Maybe a filter built into the driver that is different to a crossover. Either way neither are used here it says on the website
Nice review, and good to see a maverick making some waves. Can't help wonder if the design would work with baltic birch reducing the cost significantly(?) The French oak adds a beauty and individuality though suspect this (expensive) choice might be more about overall design concept .... An interesting compison would be Sibs vs the budget 'frugalhorn' diy design with the markaudio driver (though pearl have had this tweaked) plus a sub. - I think the frugalhorn might have been a starting point(ish) for the sibs. p.s. Yes; Sib- AY- lius (after the scandinavian composer)
I must have missed it, how is the output of sound orchestration? Do they have grills? how do they look with those on? Thank you for the brilliant review.
Well, Studio Monitors brands will tell you, that if you use cabinet resonance to "add" to the sound, it's not accurate to what you've recorded, given that to an HiFi enthusiast, you won't hear what the artist wanted to record, and mostly, it's not a good thing. ATC guys are putting a focus on that. And now Kerr Acoustic pushed that even more. I'd be curious to see a review of Kerr Acoustic speakers from you, especially the K100.
BBC's studio monitor designers beg to disagree. They built "lossy" cabinets with resonances controlled rather than completely damped. There's a good reason for a great many of these finding their way into home listening rooms, unlike modern, more sterile studio monitors.
@@gaborozorai3714 Which recording studios are using LS3/5a's ? None. There's a reason for that, I think. Watch PresentDayProduction channel, they're really good explaining audio acoustics in Recording/Mastering studios. Also, an italian channel posted a Masterclass of Ben Lilly (ATC Engineer) 3 years ago, filmed in a recording/mastering studio in Milano. 1h10min video of advanced audio acoustics in a room.
Cannot beat a LARGE BASS unit in my opinion. Love my big old Leak 2075's from the 70's and they do all that boooooooring audiophile pap (Diana Krall, sssslllllowww Jazz) but really get moving with powerful Rock and heavy, punchy Dance music. By the way the big 2075's have PROPER 15 inch bass units but have excellent treble and lovely midrange too. 4 INCH just will NOT do it ??? The Leaks can annoy the neighbours too which I love.
Terry, thanks for another in depth and interesting review. A couple of points I would like to mention. What happens if the speakers develop a fault, I wouldn’t like to pay for the postage if they needed returning. Secondly what is the warranty on the speakers? I currently own a Sugden ANV 50 they come with a five year warranty. I recently looked at the Rose amplifier similar price this comes with a two year warranty. PMC twenties come with a twenty year warranty. Warranties are very important in our hobby as products do sometimes fail and to be left with a £5000 product that doesn’t work after two years would be a worry. I wonder if you can mention product warranties in future videos. Thanks Will
If your UK based you dont have to worry about the warranty as there is UK representation for Pearl. Every speaker driver gets a huge amount of run time before it goes into the speaker, with these thats the only thing that could go wrong so you should be ok. pearlacoustics.com/return-refund-policy/. Warranty details here 5 years by the looks of it
Can the Sibelius speakers be in a home theater environment? So if I have an Anthem AVM70 processor with 1 3-channel amp for the front LCR behind an acoustically-transparent screen and a 4-channel amp for surrounds (surround speakers the same as the fronts), can the speakers be driven at reference levels? For ceiling speakers with another 4-channel amplifier, I will be using 4 KEF Ci200QR Round ceiling speakers. The 2 subwoofers will be Rythmik FV18 subwoofers hidden behind an AT screen. I'm talking about having the speakers at reference (75dB) level. Plus, UA-cam recommended me this video and I'm into both music and movies. If the Sibelius speakers are designed for near-field or near-field listening to music, then these speakers wouldn't be for home theater use if the sitting distance will be from 9' to 15' with two rows of seating. And, let's just say that the room dimensions are 18' wide by 24' deep by 12' high with room acoustics in place. And yeah, I do love listening to music (new age, smooth jazz, classical, Celtic, etc.), but I don't want to create a dedicated room just for music listening only; however, I am going to have a dedicated room for movie theater and music listening.
A small single driver in a big box is "meh" on the surface for me, but I would like to hear them just to see how far that tech has developed. I can see they may do somethings very well, don't see them as a choice for most.
Same here, after playing with many driver combinations in my own designs I am skeptical that a single driver can play highs and lower mids effectively without beaming. I will reserve final judgement though until I listen
I am skeptical too! I don't count on UA-cam influencer to tell me the real story. I need to listen. I did hear a bookshelf with this driver with a tweeter. Didn't sound anything like live music. I will give Sebelius the benefit of the doubt as I never heard them myself.
Thank you for this fine single driver speaker review. I've some experience with Mark Audio 6.5" drivers, but not the 4" ones. Sad that the manufacturer didn't provide a cross section of the internals to satisfy one's curiosity. I've a pair L-Cao FA6's in custom Bamboo Tuned Quarter Wave Pipe enclosures (I must say the French Oak cabinetry in your review samples l👀ks better than the Bamboo I used). My speakers use low mass passive radiators positioned inside the vent of the TQWP enclosures. This method damps the internal air volume below the driver's in-enclosure resonance - reducing bass distortion by ~ 60%. Contour networks and baffle step shelf filters were used to flatten frequency response anomalies in the upper midrange and to extend the -3dB bass point to 57 Hz. Using a pair of Wavelength Mercury AVVT20 12.5 watt tube amps to drive them. Curious to know the -3dB bass roll-off of your review samples. Your 'side by side' with the Mission speakers gives a good idea of their capability, albeit a somewhat apples to oranges comparison. Thanks again for your in-depth appraisal. Glad to see that single driver speakers are still being made.
There is literally no way to build this speaker in a stand mount unfortunately. Everything about the tuning of this speaker relies on the physical volume and length of the transmission line.
Definitely a no go, they are too deficiant in too many areas. Plus I hate ported passive two way or single driver loudspeakers, as they always suffer with port noise with additional distortions, while also lacking the proper control of of the cone, for a tight defined bottom end of the frequencies. My next set of speakers will be some active ATC SCM ASL 3 WAY.
No port noise here at all, bass is totally controlled more controlled than many other speakers you will listen to and you can see that in how they measure in the room
I've been wondering about real wood vs mdf or hdf for speaker enclosures -- should a person infer that the efficacy of this choice is skewed in the direction of unconventional speaker designs like this?
if your bass is playing high frequency's you get a pitch shifting effect , just like train coming towards you sounds higher in pitch , and when it goes from you it sound lower pitched . Same happens to a bass driver that caries on it higher frequencies . a Doppler effect And you pay big bucks to get that doppler effect . Of course they wont tell you this when you buy them .
@@PursuitPerfectSystem it just seems to me that a a single 4 inch driver does not warrant that price. The solid oak cabinet MUST be the only reason for the price being this high.....in which case I wonder if an mdf cabinet would sound the same for much cheaper price
I can totally understand that, to be fair I have reviewed speakers that cost £10000 that only have a 6 inch and a tweeter and £20000 that only have a 10 inch and an AMT see what I mean by the value proposition is hard to judge from things like this alone. You need to have an emotional connection to anything premium for it to be worth the premium to the person, Its what I was getting at
This is the kind of speaker that when reviwed expose the reviewer himself. Will give out my vote on the reviwer instead of the speaker then.. 6 out of 10 that is
Could you please develop a bit and explain to us how the Sibelius, more than other loudspeakers, will expose the person reviewing them? Can't wait to hear that one...
I have several issues with the 'audiophile' community, not the least of which is their seeming inability to quote prices and virtually always neglecting to say if that price is per speaker or for a pair. I won't list the others here.
More bass than the Eclipse I reviewed a while back, less flat freq response so a bit more character to the music, almost as good with imaging not quite as 3D sounding. More lively sounding treble but that is from an old audio memory so please take with a pinch of salt
Terry, there’s a huge flaw in the way you analyse Hi-Fi, which your Sibelius review highlights right here: 19:58. It seems that the way you think of hifi components (speakers, amp, source, power, cables, etc) is in the character they bring to the overall system, but what you miss understand about Harley’s goal (stated here: 20:08) is his intention for the speakers is to recreate natural acoustic sound as one would hear it live without mics and amplification at a live venue. In other words, the goal of Sibelius is exactly to NOT to impart a character on the music - and that’s in the definition: a real acoustic sound is by definition reality itself, it’s not coloured by character. Here’s why this matters: So the way to judge Sibelius speakers is NOT by pairing them with equipment to produce the type of sound that you or other audiophiles prefer, but rather to pair them with equipment for their intended purpose which is to recreate natural acoustic sound. And comparing them to your Mission 770’s also makes no sense because their design goal was never to recreate accurate acoustic sound. To take the ‘normal’ approach of pairing with equipment that suits the tastes and biases of the listener is to miss the point of these speakers, because your list of intended audiophiles who should look at this speaker is wrong. The Sibelius’s true market is for audiophiles with a preference for acoustic music and who want to recreate as accurate a reproduction of it at home and your review doesn’t even touch on this topic. This flaw in your methodology/analysis is so serious that I think it’s worth you revisiting these speakers and not comparing them to the Missions but comparing them DIRECTLY to a real live acoustic musician. Audio Note does exactly this at some shows: they get a professional cellist to play live to the audience and they can compare it to a CD of the same cellist. In my audiophile journey, I listen to as much live acoustic music as possible - many times a month (if I can) in order to tune my ears to what real music sounds like in various venues to allow me to compare reality with the systems I hear at shows/dealers.
I spoke to Harley for about 2 hours about the Sibelius and never once did he mention that they were intended for acoustic music and if that is the case they should never have been given to me to review as I dont listen to acoustic music. I would also never only listen to one style of music as part of a review because its unrealistic to 99.9% of people. I visit audiophiles homes all the time and never has any of them mentioned acoustic music to me as their preferred genre so its not a common theme. I think its important to remember that unless your rooms acoustic is the same as the recorded it will never sound the same at home, Audio Note put the player in the same room as the hifi for the this very reason. I have seen this demo countless times and shot video of it too multiple times. If you like acoustic music and think the Sibelius is an ideal speaker for you that is great for you and maybe some others feel the same, but many wont. The Mission 770 is a brilliant speaker to compare others to because its an excellent all rounder for the money and take some beating in all areas but can easily be bettered at the same time. I think my method of reviewing is sound but I appreciate your comments.
@@PursuitPerfectSystem Terry, there’s a huge opportunity for you to both reach a wider audience and grow in your audiophile journey, but I need to re-frame to better help you understand what a tiny (but important) subset of audiophiles are trying to achieve. Here are a few of these audiophiles: Steve Gutenberg (Audiophiliac), Rob Watts (Chord), John DeVore (DeVore Fidelity), David Chesky (Chesky Records), Peter Qvortrup (Audio Note), Herb Reichert (Stereophile), Paul Klipsch (founder of Klipsch), Frans De Rond (Sound Liaison), Daniel Reina & Raul Audiver (Admire Audio) and Harley Lovegrove (Pearl Acoustics). What they have in common is a desire for authenticity and realism in music playback. Most also want to replicate a truly live music *presence* in a listening room as though the performers were actually in the room. By ‘truly’ live, listen to Steve Guttenberg’s definition of ‘live’ here: [1] because it’s very close to his definition of an audiophile recording.[2] John DeVore explains it like this: imagine a cello or singer - they have a large physical size and dimension that emanates sound instantaneously creating a presence in a room that’s unmistakably ‘there’/live. This is why he uses paper cones which allow fast dynamics in his attempt to recreate that kind of live presence. He also creates high sensitivity speakers as tubes seem best at replicating true live presence.[3] Harley talks about realism in a different way. When designing his Sibelius speakers, he noted how most speakers don’t replicate orchestral instruments properly, which left a niche for him. He wanted a truly accurate sound replication of instruments.[4] In other videos, Harley talks about how he is interested in replicating more accurately the imaging in a system’s soundstage for orchestra such that they’re holographic and in the room with you.[5] The CEO of Klipsch explains that their founder Paul Klipsch’s goal in speaker design: “Paul would describe going to hear live symphony on Sunday afternoons with friends and then spending the week trying to build a speaker that replicated that live music experience.”[6] Rob Watts goal when designing his DACs is also to create as real a sound as possible. In this interview [7], he explains that some people like music warm and others like it clear but these are all artificial colourations. He aims for what he calls ‘true’ transparency.[7] These audiophiles differ from the 99% because they’re not led by their preferences or biases they are lead by realism…the question driving them is how real or believable is the system? This is a completely different type of discourse to that of the 99% and one which can give you a completely different lens through which to appreciate music and HiFi. Realism can apply both to acoustic or amplified instruments, because it’s perfectly possible to make a single-mic audiophile recording of an electric guitar in a church e.g. Macy Gray’s album “Stripped”, but the issue is the guitar’s amplification will itself bring colouration to the sound. There is no such issue of potential colouration from acoustic instruments, which is why they are the gold standard for audiophile recordings and they’re the most successful genres of music in history for example, jazz, classical, and even vocals (unamplified). I’ve wound the videos below to start from the right place, so just click to play: [1] Steve Guttenberg: “live music” ua-cam.com/video/whzp-ryMjjM/v-deo.html [2] Steve Guttenberg: “audiophile recordings” ua-cam.com/video/Txboy72v7y0/v-deo.html [3] John DeVore: ua-cam.com/video/GjKjL2QWyDc/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared&t=1030 [4] Harley Lovegrove: ua-cam.com/video/yMU0Nazt--Q/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared&t=974 [5] Harley Lovegrove “great recording” ua-cam.com/video/O53K5X7aX04/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared&t=58 [6] Paul Klipsch blog.son-video.com/en/2015/12/interview-with-klipsch-ceo-paul-jacobs/ [7] Rob Watts “true transparency”: ua-cam.com/video/DtsmQTQAG84/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared&t=153
@@PursuitPerfectSystem P.s. Terry, here are a couple of further references from Rob Watts, where he explains his DAC design goal and the difference between live acoustic performance vs amplified performances. “What do I want from audio? What I want to achieve is the musicality…[getting emotional, etc]…and these things happen naturally when you listen to live unamplified sound…that’s what my passion is all about.”[1] “Live amplified music sounds pretty awful in a lot of ways: completely flat, there’s no soundstage…it’s completely blurred from left to right [through PA speakers], what it does have is immediacy with a sense of power…you can really perceive the cutting edge.”[2] With so many people like Rob and the aforementioned audiophile speaker designers and reviewers seeking lifelike acoustic sound, any reviewer that doesn’t add this to their repertoire of review parameters is missing a trick. [1] At 1:27 secs here: ua-cam.com/video/DtsmQTQAG84/v-deo.htmlsi=WVKqIMj5Mp_PqKpT&t=87 [2] 23:30 secs here: ua-cam.com/video/cgoOz6OP4_I/v-deo.htmlsi=yMG0oVBoKSE7MlSJ&t=1410
@@GodfreyMann This is all wonderful on paper and I appreciate there needs to be some standard or goal to strive towards for product design - but achieving live sound from HiFi at home is fundamentally flawed for two key reasons. Firstly we are listening to recorded sound not live sound - anyone who has recorded anything knows its totally different so if the music starts totally different it will only end totally different. That will never change. Second is the acoustic space - it will never sound like live because the listening rooms acoustics are totally different to the live acoustics so it can never sound like the live event - never. So this whole going for live is fine for some people if they want to purse that, to me its bullshit. I also dont listen to that type of music. I base my reviews on music I like to listen to and how I like it to sound, how I have heard the music played on other systems big and small. Never thinking about something that is bullshit to start with for that very reason, I dont believe in bullshitting anyone.
@@PursuitPerfectSystem I’m not saying that how you review equipment or listen to music is in any way bad, and I’m not criticising the music you like to listen to. What I’m saying is there’s another way of evaluating hifi systems which a lot of influential/important people in the industry follow that is worth you looking into, because it WILL expand your audiophile journey…much in the way you took the step to try vinyl. But when you describe their efforts as BS, it shows you don’t quite get what they’re trying to do so let me address your two points. Both your points correctly point out the problems of with recreating an identical perfect copy of the actual live performance in our listening rooms. You have nailed it, except we’re NOT trying to achieve perfection. No one believes they can actually recreate the EXACT same live performance perfectly - that’s not the goal, because that’s impossible. What we’re trying to do is achieve the best approximation given the limitations of budget, listening room and recording quality. Think of it this way: all components WILL colour the sound of the playback to some degree but some WILL be more transparent than others, so our goal is about identifying those components/systems that colour it less and chasing the best recordings. Secondly, there’s a big difference between the colouration of sound and depth perception, layering, imaging, soundstage size, instrument separation, timbre and pitch. These other parameters are what makes playback more lifelike or less-lifelike. You already know this, but what seems missing from your arsenal of knowledge (I’m guessing because you never talk about it) is the quality of the recording, because if the engineer never captured the live performance properly then playback will ALWAYS be lacking - it’ll never even approximate to real. But it doesn’t stop there: if the recording itself wasn’t actually played LIVE by the musicians - if it was recorded in a sound damped studio with each musician playing in a box without the rest of the band and then mixed into a recording…well that recording by definition can NEVER sound like a live performance, because (a) it was never played live, (b) a sound damped room won’t sound live, (c) close mic-ing the instruments (which is the studio norm) won’t sound live. Regarding mic placement: when we listen to unamplified live music, in the audience we hear the instruments from a distance. But close-mic placement upon playback would have our ears right up against the instrument which is by definition unnatural. This is why Steve Guttenberg and David Chesky, Todd Garfinkel (MA Recordings) and many others value simple mic setups with just one or two mics in rooms that reverberate in away that is what our brains expect to hear when someone plays an instrument in a room (not a booth). So Dark Side of the Moon…fantastic album, love listening to it, but it’s a studio recording so it wouldn’t make sense to use it to judge a component where the designer’s goal is to recreate natural acoustic sound. You keep saying that you don’t listen to acoustic music, but surely there are some artists you like that have made ‘unplugged’ acoustic recordings? E.g. MTV did a series of unplugged shows where famous bands sat with live with audience playing on acoustic instruments, so surely there are recordings like that you can listen to and enjoy?
Small or better to say all wide-range units need a bass helper, if such a small cone performs bass, upper region get smeared, so for me a FAST (Full range Assisted Subwoofer Technology) is a must. This one I would XO at about 200 Hz.
Hi, are you planning on doing one of your excellent sound test/recordings with the Pearl Acoustics Sibelius? The reason I ask is because I am really interested in them and Pearl Acoustics has a nice you tube channel but most the videos are Harley talking sitting next to the Sibelius speakers don't get me wrong some really excellent content but I want to hear them playing :) There is nothing else really of any note online with a proper recordings of the speakers that I can find anyway....
Sorry no sound demo Nick, I got burnt on the last one several days work for YT to block the video several days after posting. Sorry about that, I think if your interested in these make contact with Pearl and see if you can get a listen to them in London or Belgium
Wow your in Dubai, I would never had guessed that location, thats really cool. Still worth making contact with them and asking about it. and apologies again
What was that old British speaker that was a full range driver that everyone used to rave about and it also ended up in alot of peculiar enclosures? Is that buried and forgotten?
@@ProfessorJohnSmith MDF is relatively cheap, some people associate cheapness with poor quality. Why not HDF? Or marine plywood? I'm sure the cabinets could have been made at a much lower cost and still produce the same sound. The use of this timber just makes the price higher and gives the product that exclusivity factor.
Are the Sibelius speakers made with 100mm (4 inch) drivers? As far as I know they are made from a variation of the Mark Audio Alpair 10M series, which are 6.5 inch (actual is about 5+ inch) drivers
Measuring them the driver cone is 100mm give or take, I suppose if you include the rubber surround they are a little bigger, maybe 5 inch then. I couldn't find the exact info but in another review it was stated they are 97mm so 100mm made sense to me. 4 inch or 5 inch it doesn't really matter
@@PursuitPerfectSystem Ah yes thanks for clarifying that. The cone itself is 4 inches (around 100mm) diameter, but if including the rubber surrounds + outer bezel, they market that driver as a 6-incher
I'm using a much more affordable, much smaller fullrange transmission line speaker: Closer Acoustics Ogy. Reviews are non-existent because "experts" are very dismissive of fullrange drivers.
@@shemsureshot I'm no audio expert. I previously had Klispch RP600M which I never liked, because they sounded veiled in the midrange and not particularly revealing or flattering. The OGY are slightly bright not overly so. The OGY excel in the midrange and treble. When watching movies you can hear everything, dialog is crystal clear (I was struggling to hear dialog on the Kilpsch). The OGY can do deep bass if you have a tube amp. Since my tube amp is under repair, I'm using a 40€ Wondom class T amp with a REL T5x subwoofer. And I can't stop listening to music. I'm a bit burned out from listening to music 5 hours per day for weeks. So yeah, the OGY are super clear and super transparent. Oh yeah, the build quality is superb. You get a handcrafted plywood maze for the cabinet with a silky smooth corian outer shell. They look expensive.
Just a bit of simple logic. Say you are playing some classical piece from some Orchestral entity. Thats alot of different notes from several different instruments. One speaker having to physically vibrate all of that music doesnt seem efficient at all to me. If the music was divided into sections of tonal frequency between say three drivers, logic seems to push that tonal quality will increase, having the total music load divided among more drivers.
Yes that seems like logic and is the reason I discussed the microphone example because microphones can record all those sounds simultaneously even with the same limitations you mention. More drivers comes with the complexity of having to get them to all sound the same from the same point in space so its not a free lunch
Without seeing bona fide measurements, the chances of me paying this much for a 4 inch-driven speaker without accurate measurements closely approximates zero. This speaker is an outlier in design, which is fine, but show me the numbers. I especially want to see the measurements of THD, compression, and IMD versus SPL. How does a 4" driver fill an average to large room with 92 dB SPL at 4 meters over a wide frequency range and with low distortion and compression? Or, don't you hear those issues? What is its dispersion vs. frequency over the range of all music? Must I sit dead center of it? How will my room's side walls, ceiling, and floor effect the first reflections? I have this conviction: that a good speaker design is mostly amplifier independent, except for voltage and current. A poor design sounds very different with various amplifiers. Don't expect me to buy these, then a new power amp to suppress their vagaries. Yeah, it's not too ugly. Looks like an wood organ pipe with a speaker in it. Should be efficient for one note and several harmonics, french oak notwithstanding. And we are treated to the french oak aspect but with no disclosure as to internals, bracing, or resonance. Without such, resonance could be a serious issue. I have not yet met the subjective-only reviewer I implicitly believe. Tell me what you heard, but back it up with evidence. I definitely haven't met the speaker manufacturer I trust. And I don't buy speakers like furniture, by novelty, oddity, or by rarity. -Just one man's view
Interesting set of comments and demands - I don't blame you for being demanding and knowing what you want but I havent seen many companies publish what you request and how can they predict how reflections will work in your room without measuring in it. Its not up to the ,manufacturer to make a product work in your room, thats on you to make that work. Maybe you missed the measurement section of the review - never-mind thanks for watching
@@PursuitPerfectSystem Let's be clear: I make no demands of you. I just don't buy without knowing some important answers. You can review as you wish. I have requirements, not demands.
Reference is misleading. It implies the chosen speaker outperforms all else trialed. Do you think the Mission’s outperform the Marten’s or TAD or Kef Reference? I don’t think so… Maybe if you called the Mission’s your “choice” or “featured in my rig,” etc
Mission 770 for around this price, Wharfedale EVO 4.2 for around that price, Elac Debut 5.2 for that price and often others as well, but they change a lot
Thanks for watching, I know I have likely pronounced "Sibelius" wrong in this video, apologies for that. Remember to also watch my video about the amplifiers I have used with the Sibelius link here ua-cam.com/video/SMmO45upjI8/v-deo.html
I wonder how this stacks against Lii Audio's single driver..
You pronounced it nicely! I butchered it. :-) good video sir.
@@hificave Sib - AY - lee-us (after the scandinavian composer). He was closer though ;-)
Please listen to some Sibelius. ;)
If it is the Finnish name Sibelius, then it went pretty good.
Hi Terry, a fantastic review as usual, thank you. I've been interested in the Sibelius speakers as so many people are raving about them, and your review has definitely helped in influencing my decision. I am now more keen than ever to audition the Mission 770's!
I have had a pair of Pearl Acoustics Sibelius speakers for about 6 weeks. Certainly a remarkable speaker with the best detailed soundstage I have ever heard. A very transparent and neutral speaker. The details they reveal are amazing. I'm very glad I took the chance to order a pair. They are now my main speaker... replacing several sets of speakers, most that cost much more. Now I'm off to sell down my speaker collection and rediscover my music collection. Bravo Harley!
Hi, what equipment are you using the Sibelius with?
The dreaded question. How is their bass ?
I have not heard this speaker so my comments are about single drivers in general. It is possible to get a single driver to cover the full audible range in a pair of headphones. But when it comes to loudspeakers the problem becomes far more complicated. One big problem stems from the fact that the requirements for producing low frequencies is mutually exclusive to the requirements for reproducing high frequencies. To reproduce low frequencies you need to move a lot of air. This of necessity means that either the driver must have a large surface area or you need many of them with a smaller surface area. The driver is a piston and there is a limit to how far the vibrating membrane can make an excursion. Typically hi frequency drivers can only make a tiny excursion. To get acceptable dispersion they need to be small. That's just the reality of the physics. The larger driver will have higher inertial mass.which makes it impractical for high frequencies which require low inertial mass.
Even the one inch dome tweeters commonly in use today have awful dispersion. At 15 khz they are often 15 db down 30 to 45 degrees off axis compared to their on axis response. Ironically the inventor of the dome tweeter and midrange Edgar Villchur of Acoustic Research wanted a tweeter that had the widest possible dispersion. Introduced in 1960 AR3 had a 1" dome tweeter that was a full hemisphere and was not recessed in the least. Later in an improved version Roy Allison reduced it to 3/4" in AR3a, used four of them including two on each side firing at 45 degree angles in LST. A few years later Acoustic Research innovated using ferrofluid cooling to increase power handling. By comparison the bass was handled by a 12" acoustic suspension driver that became the industry reference standard. Their best effort was the Teledyne Acoustic Research AR9 which used two side firing woofers, one on each side crossed over at 200 hz by an 18 db per octave low pass filter in a 4 way configuration. It's a room shaker I can tell you from personal experience with it for 38 years.
Why a 4 way design? Loudspeaker drivers are resonant devices with a usable range of no more than 2 to 2.5 octaves. 3 is usually stretching it. When you add a subwoofer to a shoe box speaker you have a 3 way system. To cover 10 audible octaves three drivers doesn't really cut it. The four way AR9 and AR90 was in effect throwing in the towel on the 3 way design realizing that there are inevitably problems with it. For most 3 way loudspeakers it's the deep bass. In the case of AR3 and its derivatives it was always the region between the upper range of the bass and the lower limit of the midrange.
So I remain skeptical about single full range driver speakers however this one has gotten some very flattering reviews. OTOH my experience with audiophiles is that all of the ones I've met or whose reviews I've read really don't strike me as skilled critical listeners. The problem of getting a hi fi loudspeaker to sound like real music from acoustic instruments is a very tough one. As an engineer I see lots of enthusiasm but I'm not impressed by knowledge and engineering competence.
Thanks. This is the only useful comment here
I just stumbled appon these reviews of Sibelius all happening around 1 year ago.
Funny enough I was considering exactly this Markaudio unit used in Pearl Acoustics speaker, for my DIY, but decidet that full range speaker just doesent cut it. At the end I went with 2way design with waveguide, because you can get away with relatively symple crossover. But still it had it's limitations covering frequency responce from 20Hz to 20kHz. This goal afcourse I didn't achived. My 12" mid range/woofer, costing once and a half as much as Markaudio speker used in Sibelius, plays from 40Hz F3 upwards (in a room) and it is placed in 74 liter ported box.
What is strange is that on Zero Fidelitys channel, I comented on reviewers opinion, that Sibelius might sound harsh with some music specialy listening at louder volumes. Reading frequency responce (provided by manufacturer) of this Markaudio Alpair Gold Full-range speaker used in Sibelius, I gave my oppinion why this really might be so, and stating if someone likes B&W speakers, probably shouldent be bothered with it....and my comment got deleted.
My very first speakers which i bought in 1965 were a pair of Goodmans Axiom 201 which was a single driver with a frequency range from 30hz to 16,000 hz 15w rms at 16ohms. This was for the drivers only. I had to build my own enclosures. The amplifier i bought was a 12 wpc tube integrated But the sound was unbelievable. I wish i could find that "sound" today.
After talking to Harvey Lovejoy 5 years ago, and hearing his speakers at the Munich audio show 5 or so years ago, I bought them sight unseen. They were not broken in!
After a year I finally after a year I had a true audiophile friend listen to them! He pronounced them outstanding. So I moved them to my living room and broke them in for another year. Today a few minutes ago I hooked them up to my Streamer, Giselli lab DAC, and Rogue audio pure tube amp: what a revelation. Using Spotify high end !
To my audiophile friends, I am begging you to get the Cannonball Adderley quintet "74 miles away album from the 1967" and Hang-on Ramsey from the Lighthouse in Hermosa beach from1965. I was there for the recording's both night s this is perfection! Like Harvey says it is like being there.
As a proud owner of the Sibelius speakers, I found your review to be very consistent with my experience. To me the speakers are very smooth, detailed, and transparent. The instrument separation is really impressive and the overall bass is far more impressive than one might expect based on the size of the drivers (given the right size room). However, the vocal presentation in timbre, coherence, and spatial presence was the reason these speakers stayed with me rather than the QAcoustic Concept 500's that I was comparing them to. I originally had them with a sub (REL S/510) but sent the sub back as I found it unnecessary. I drove them with both an older 200wpc Sunfire SS amp and with a 4.5 wpc 45 tube amp both with success. The tube amp broadened the soundstage to the point where sound was coming out from beyond the side walls but that amp was ultimately mated with a system in a different room. I truly love these speakers.
Thanks Glen
Great and fair review. I bought a pair running them with a PassLabs XA25 power and a Primaluna EVO 300 pre. In you final verdict description, you got me spot on: not loud, into instrument placement, don't care for bass. I tried them with a REL T9 but prefer it without as cohesiveness is lost at expense of bass extension. I think the Sibelius is capable of plenty of detail if given the right equipment, e.g. a HoloAudio May L2 DAC, or TT with SoundSmith Zephyr cartridge. I had B&W CM6 S2 before, and the Siblius is leagues above them. In your videos you show the moving cone of the Sibelius. I NEVER listen that loud, a bit scary to think how loud the music was playing. Not for everybody, but there are folks like me out there. I like the "less is more" approach in design. I have no worries about warranty or repairs, as those speakers are built to last. Customer service is best in the industry. Cudos to Harley.
Thank you Terry for this. I hoped you'd be one of the people reviewing this. I think I might in the target audience. I listen to lot of jazz and chamber music. A lot.
I thoroughly enjoyed this honest assessment. They’re certainly gorgeous designs. And I am truly intrigued by them.
I have two sets of single driver driver speakers. Tannoy Gold Reference Stirling's and Omega's paired with a matching subwoofer. I picked up both sets at incredible prices before Covid hit and blew prices out of the water on electronics. Both sets are throughly enjoyable. I am considering adding tweeters to the Tannoy's when my budget allows.
The Tannoy Gold Reference Stirling is a dual concentric speaker with two drive units in one unit. The Omega looks interesting.
Tannoys are not single driver speakers. They all use dual concentric drivers, a HF driver mounted to the center of a LF driver. No comparison whatsoever. Also, not needing an add-on tweeter.
Matched with a sub is no longer a single driver. Lol
Great review, Terry. I watched Harley’s story about the development of his speakers and loved it. There is room for such niche design and manufacturing and I’m glad it exists, however, I couldn’t consider a pair of speakers at this price point without an audition. Hopefully, enough folks will be happy to invest in Harley’s vision to keep it going.
Really all speakers should be auditioned for obvious reasons, you can audition these in London and Belgium. I suppose if your in the States its quite a journey but from Europe worth a weekend away for it
As always terry you have done a great job. This is one of his finest reviews.
This is a great review that further increases the channel credibility.
Thanks very much, appreciate it
Great review Terry, as we have accustomed to 👍🏼 Very good round up/conclusion also coming to the realisation that a speaker at the tested price point can’t be made to be good at everything. Well done Peter
I understand your desire to handle this review with care, Harley seems like a gem of a person. Audio speaker manufacturing technology has made some two and three-way speakers as cohesive as single-driver speakers, but with a deeper base that gives the mid-range a richer sound.
Fantastic well balanced review.
Concise and rich in detail. Your summary is fantastic.
Of all the single driver speakers I've heard, my favourites have been ones with the 12" and 15" Fane full range drivers. Because they've had good quantity and quality bass to go with the great midrange that this genre of speakers tend to have.
These Fane drivers are somewhat of a hi-fi bargain. All you then need is to build your own cabinets or get a cabinet maker to make them for you - which would be a morning's work for a skilled craftsman.
Such a Fane based project at £250 to £800 makes the Pearl Sibelius seem rather expensive at 4500 Euros.
I used to build PA speakers with Fane drivers back in my DJ days, pretty sure they are based in Leeds, or were. I know they made Coax drivers but I didnt know they made single drivers Lindsey?
@@PursuitPerfectSystem Yeah, its designed for houses of worship. fane 12-250tc.
10:37 I can understand what your are saying about bass! 😅 I build single driver and woofer combo speakers. And I really love the Schiit you are on about, cos that's what I'm into when it comes to bass. Extension isn't everything, without enough boom the bass sounds uneventful even if it goes down to 30 hz. That "poompy" sound combined with extension is the ultimate bass (I reckon). A hard act to follow though, you need to balace the two (without getting used to a wrong sound). Listener's fatigue, and you need a break, go for a ride and then come back and you can judge again. Just getting that balace between "thump" and "boom" is the beauty of bass, making it dig down and also make the tom-tom drums have impact! Not enough "boom" makes the tommies sound Schiit! 😅
Great review. I didn't know these speakers, but they look very nice (seems perfect for your room 😉). I really like your way of reviewing (with honesty and respect). Especially the explanation about sound quality and for whom you think these speakers could be interesting. The only downside for me would be the stability of the speakers and the special (not very stable?) Sibelius stands. Ronald
Superb review Terry. That's my first review of that speaker.
👍THANKS FOR SHARING THIS WITH US TERRY…WE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS SPEAKER …AND IT REALLY DOES BREAK THE MOLD…IN THE BEST WAY 🤗💚💚💚
Sib-a-lius.
A very well considered, thoughtful and balanced review. I enjoy watching your videos.
Thank you for the review. Dang … this is so tempting.
No single driver speakers But I'm been thinking about getting some of those all new Fischer & Fischer Speakers made out of SLATE though 😇🤔😉
Great review!
You mentioned it: A single driver design is per se not a bad choice. Take a look to headphones, which are able to drive from below 20Hz to more as 20kHz without any noticable nonlinearity with a single driver. On the other side, nobody would probably drive the air for a big concert in an arena with single driver seakers for the full frequency range. That means, all is about the needed speaker level and radiation behavior (off axis frequency response). At a common home, the single driver design, like kown by other manufacturers like Braun or Eclipse, is a very good choice and the biggest question is whether it sounds correct and not whether the frequency graph is flat. If you really listen to the music and not to the driver, than you can fall into the sound stage even using a radio clock speaker if the general sound is good.
Another thought: Nobody disallows to place a subwoofer next to the Sibelius and to cut low frequencies out, e.g. < 80Hz. This will add further reduction, beside the design, of the driver movement and will increase the overall output level and sound stage.
It's based on a folded Voigt pipe. But the mouth is so small, i think it's a hybrid between Voigt and tunned port enclosure.
Lovely looking speakers and a great review. My only thought is that 87db is quite inefficient for a single driver speaker and precludes the use of low-power single-ended-triode amps that one often associates with such a design.
Thanks for the review. Interesting speaker concept
You don't know what the speaker concept is, because it is a trade secret as mentioned in this video.
Looking at this it just strikes me that It's amazing how much personal taste effects what we perceive as good sound.
Just one technical erratum. "Crossover" distortion is nothing to do with a loudspeakers or loudspeaker "crossover" filters. It is a type of distortion inherent in push-pull amplifiers and refers to a distortion that happens at the zero volt crossover point on the waveform. This is usually caused by a mis-match between components in the output stage.
Hi Terry, I think this one of the best videos you have made so far. Certainly Pearl Acoustics has been treated with respect. I also think it is great that a company has its own design philosophy and carries it all the way trough to a well finished product. That's why it is very UN-cool and a lost opportunity for them, to turn around and tell us their design philosophy (concept) is actually a secret. That type of behavior is more suitable to Apple (writing this on a Mac, BTW). And no, a rough sketch is not going to enable copy cat products. Specially if you claim that you have been fine tuning it for years.
Firstly thanks for the kind words about the review I do appreciate that, I can also totally understand the need for protecting things because if I had worked hard to make something better I wouldn't want to share that with the community so others could copy it, maybe you wouldn't but others would
That was a great review, thanks!
Nice (good) & detailed review of the Sibelius loudspeakers, but for the pronunciation of Sibelius, which is a bit off as the e should sound like an a, hence suh·bay·lee·uhs.
I have the missions.....Love them! I'm good!
Thank you for this review!
Absolutely brilliant review!
Thank you
At that price, I would go with an electrostatic speaker!
In my opinion pearlacoustics sibelius are wonderful loudspeakers but they are not coming out with anything new. They're using mark audio Apair full range drivers within a variation of the classical Voigt pipe design which follows the Transmission line basic concepts. That's all. It's all about a good craft work out of oak and some optimizations over the different Voigt designs. Of course they are pretty and gorgeous, but in my opinion the price is too high for what you get.
The Sibelius is actually 1/2 the price compared to other transmission line tower speakers with fullrange drivers which typically cost 10,000€ and up. Just lookup the manufacturers who use EMS fullrange drivers (which are highly regarded by fullrange enthusiasts). Closer Acoustics is one. And then you have Cube Audio and Davis Acoustics which use their own proprietary drivers. A budget alternative for 2k€ is the Audax AM21LB assembled speakers. You can also buy them in kit. I auditioned a pair in Paris and I was floored. It's an absolute bargain considering that the cabinet and drivers are handcrafted in France.
the speakers are great if you don't want to rock
Where are your loudspeakers made?
Sorry to say that not much in speaker design has been new for decades, unless making speakers cheaper counts as innovation. Solid hardwood speakers with custom made drivers at this price (they are custom coils) I think is more than fair.
@@gdwlaw5549 Belgium?
superb review! Thank You
Niche market I’d say 🤷🏻♂️ Nicely handled 👍🏻
I think the size of the Sibelius drive unit has to limit quality of the bass.
Thanks so much for your very well balanced review of the pearl Sibelius. It was more honest about the shortcomings of the Pearls compared to some other reviewers who pussy-foot around these speakers in their reviews, apparently to avoid angry responses from the cult-like devotees of the 4" wide range driver. Thanks again.
I enjoyed the review Terry,
And looking at your room, and equipment. If you say black, some people are going to say white, I appreciate you're Frankness... Regards Antony Warrington Cheshire.
Hi Anthony, thanks for your comments. Can I please ask you what you mean by the black and white comment, thanks
Look at the cyburgs needle diy speaker, I have a diy pair of those, and they sound exaclty like described here. Also very tube amp friendly without the crossover.
I have owned MANY speakers over the decades, including Accoust 2 + 2s, Maggie 3.5Rs, plus lots of box speakers. My current pair is Emerald Physics 3.4s, open baffle, 12" driver with concentric 1" polyester tweeter. Really amazing, though bass is very good, not the last word in bass impact in my very large room. They also made 2.8s, same concentric 12" with dual D' Appolito 15" carbon fiber woofers
Great Chanel! I’ve subscribed.
I would like if you went through the specific placement of the speakers you review , and with that some measurements for example distance apart and from front wall .
Otherwise 10/10
the Bose 901 also uses midrange speakers. 9 pieces.
Pearl speakers are awalys unique in design ... although I do not like single drivers but still they are impressive
Give some omega hemptone speakers a try...that may change your mind, incredible.
Have you listened to single driver speakers in a transmission line design like this? It's quite a bit different than most single driver designs.
@@JC-lk3oy no can't say I have, not a transmission line single driver setup, I can't say that I liked the omegas alot, and owning zu audio omens those were very good too, more top end detail and punch, but the omegas are just a natural good all around daily speaker and I'd like to have my old set back.
8 weeks drying for wood is very short even in a special cabinet. (snookercues take much longer to dry ) Also 1 driver speaker doesnt necessary mean no crossover. most 1-driver speakers have a xo or some kind of filtering. That all said, the are wonderful speakers
How would you use a crossover on a single driver? Maybe a filter built into the driver that is different to a crossover. Either way neither are used here it says on the website
£4500 is so over the top that my mind boggles just thinking about it.
Nice review, and good to see a maverick making some waves. Can't help wonder if the design would work with baltic birch reducing the cost significantly(?) The French oak adds a beauty and individuality though suspect this (expensive) choice might be more about overall design concept .... An interesting compison would be Sibs vs the budget 'frugalhorn' diy design with the markaudio driver (though pearl have had this tweaked) plus a sub. - I think the frugalhorn might have been a starting point(ish) for the sibs. p.s. Yes; Sib- AY- lius (after the scandinavian composer)
I must have missed it, how is the output of sound orchestration? Do they have grills? how do they look with those on? Thank you for the brilliant review.
Well, Studio Monitors brands will tell you, that if you use cabinet resonance to "add" to the sound, it's not accurate to what you've recorded, given that to an HiFi enthusiast, you won't hear what the artist wanted to record, and mostly, it's not a good thing.
ATC guys are putting a focus on that. And now Kerr Acoustic pushed that even more. I'd be curious to see a review of Kerr Acoustic speakers from you, especially the K100.
BBC's studio monitor designers beg to disagree. They built "lossy" cabinets with resonances controlled rather than completely damped. There's a good reason for a great many of these finding their way into home listening rooms, unlike modern, more sterile studio monitors.
@@gaborozorai3714 Which recording studios are using LS3/5a's ? None. There's a reason for that, I think.
Watch PresentDayProduction channel, they're really good explaining audio acoustics in Recording/Mastering studios. Also, an italian channel posted a Masterclass of Ben Lilly (ATC Engineer) 3 years ago, filmed in a recording/mastering studio in Milano. 1h10min video of advanced audio acoustics in a room.
Cannot beat a LARGE BASS unit in my opinion. Love my big old Leak 2075's from the 70's and they do all that boooooooring audiophile pap (Diana Krall, sssslllllowww Jazz) but really get moving with powerful Rock and heavy, punchy Dance music. By the way the big 2075's have PROPER 15 inch bass units but have excellent treble and lovely midrange too. 4 INCH just will NOT do it ??? The Leaks can annoy the neighbours too which I love.
Terry, thanks for another in depth and interesting review. A couple of points I would like to mention. What happens if the speakers develop a fault, I wouldn’t like to pay for the postage if they needed returning. Secondly what is the warranty on the speakers? I currently own a Sugden ANV 50 they come with a five year warranty. I recently looked at the Rose amplifier similar price this comes with a two year warranty. PMC twenties come with a twenty year warranty. Warranties are very important in our hobby as products do sometimes fail and to be left with a £5000 product that doesn’t work after two years would be a worry. I wonder if you can mention product warranties in future videos. Thanks Will
If your UK based you dont have to worry about the warranty as there is UK representation for Pearl. Every speaker driver gets a huge amount of run time before it goes into the speaker, with these thats the only thing that could go wrong so you should be ok.
pearlacoustics.com/return-refund-policy/. Warranty details here 5 years by the looks of it
Those Mission's look a lot like 90s era Paradigms.
This is a speaker with a label on it. The label says beware. This is a very heavy speaker that lends itself well to hand to hand combat.
Nice review!
Looks like a folded Voigt pipe to me.
Well it should.
Can the Sibelius speakers be in a home theater environment? So if I have an Anthem AVM70 processor with 1 3-channel amp for the front LCR behind an acoustically-transparent screen and a 4-channel amp for surrounds (surround speakers the same as the fronts), can the speakers be driven at reference levels? For ceiling speakers with another 4-channel amplifier, I will be using 4 KEF Ci200QR Round ceiling speakers. The 2 subwoofers will be Rythmik FV18 subwoofers hidden behind an AT screen. I'm talking about having the speakers at reference (75dB) level. Plus, UA-cam recommended me this video and I'm into both music and movies. If the Sibelius speakers are designed for near-field or near-field listening to music, then these speakers wouldn't be for home theater use if the sitting distance will be from 9' to 15' with two rows of seating.
And, let's just say that the room dimensions are 18' wide by 24' deep by 12' high with room acoustics in place.
And yeah, I do love listening to music (new age, smooth jazz, classical, Celtic, etc.), but I don't want to create a dedicated room just for music listening only; however, I am going to have a dedicated room for movie theater and music listening.
They are not intended for home theatre use and I think you will find better suited speakers for this price point
@@PursuitPerfectSystem Thanks.
A small single driver in a big box is "meh" on the surface for me, but I would like to hear them just to see how far that tech has developed. I can see they may do somethings very well, don't see them as a choice for most.
Same here, after playing with many driver combinations in my own designs I am skeptical that a single driver can play highs and lower mids effectively without beaming. I will reserve final judgement though until I listen
I am skeptical too! I don't count on UA-cam influencer to tell me the real story. I need to listen. I did hear a bookshelf with this driver with a tweeter. Didn't sound anything like live music. I will give Sebelius the benefit of the doubt as I never heard them myself.
No speakers sound like live music, I never said they do in my review, I am skeptical of your skepticism aimed at me when your mis quoting me.
Thank you for this fine single driver speaker review. I've some experience with Mark Audio 6.5" drivers, but not the 4" ones. Sad that the manufacturer didn't provide a cross section of the internals to satisfy one's curiosity. I've a pair L-Cao FA6's in custom Bamboo Tuned Quarter Wave Pipe enclosures (I must say the French Oak cabinetry in your review samples l👀ks better than the Bamboo I used). My speakers use low mass passive radiators positioned inside the vent of the TQWP enclosures. This method damps the internal air volume below the driver's in-enclosure resonance - reducing bass distortion by ~ 60%. Contour networks and baffle step shelf filters were used to flatten frequency response anomalies in the upper midrange and to extend the -3dB bass point to 57 Hz. Using a pair of Wavelength Mercury AVVT20 12.5 watt tube amps to drive them. Curious to know the -3dB bass roll-off of your review samples. Your 'side by side' with the Mission speakers gives a good idea of their capability, albeit a somewhat apples to oranges comparison. Thanks again for your in-depth appraisal. Glad to see that single driver speakers are still being made.
I think a stand mount version with a super tweeter to help the driver out up top would be more pleasing.. 👍Terry great vid
There is literally no way to build this speaker in a stand mount unfortunately. Everything about the tuning of this speaker relies on the physical volume and length of the transmission line.
Thank you
yes, they will be. diy though...
What about using an endoscope video camera and inspect the intensify for yourself, and discuss....?
Omega in Connecticut.
Hi nice pair of speakers there! How do they compare to the cube audio? If someone already had the chance to hear them both.
Are those markaudio drivers?
Definitely a no go, they are too deficiant in too many areas. Plus I hate ported passive two way or single driver loudspeakers, as they always suffer with port noise with additional distortions, while also lacking the proper control of of the cone, for a tight defined bottom end of the frequencies. My next set of speakers will be some active ATC SCM ASL 3 WAY.
No port noise here at all, bass is totally controlled more controlled than many other speakers you will listen to and you can see that in how they measure in the room
Have you heard them.
Tannoy is the oldest single driver speaker company, & they use bigger drivers.
I've been wondering about real wood vs mdf or hdf for speaker enclosures -- should a person infer that the efficacy of this choice is skewed in the direction of unconventional speaker designs like this?
The Mission speaker loses out simply for having that huge, egregious "Mission" 90s style logo tagged on the front.
I like to have at least 2 drivers in my speaker box
No tubes SET love for the fullrangers?
Yeah possibly i dont have access to any to try them
if your bass is playing high frequency's you get a pitch shifting effect , just like train coming towards you sounds higher in pitch , and when it goes from you it sound lower pitched . Same happens to a bass driver that caries on it higher frequencies . a Doppler effect
And you pay big bucks to get that doppler effect . Of course they wont tell you this when you buy them .
would love to hear these, but too pricey in my opinion.
Cant be too pricey until you see and hear them, that is the only determining factor of value 😀
@@PursuitPerfectSystem it just seems to me that a a single 4 inch driver does not warrant that price. The solid oak cabinet MUST be the only reason for the price being this high.....in which case I wonder if an mdf cabinet would sound the same for much cheaper price
I can totally understand that, to be fair I have reviewed speakers that cost £10000 that only have a 6 inch and a tweeter and £20000 that only have a 10 inch and an AMT see what I mean by the value proposition is hard to judge from things like this alone. You need to have an emotional connection to anything premium for it to be worth the premium to the person, Its what I was getting at
French Oak can be air-dried for 3 years for making wine barrels.
So less than a year isn't impressive for hand made wooden items.
I am guessing its a little bit different as the speaker wont be holding gallons of liquid and you wont drink out of it :)
This is the kind of speaker that when reviwed expose the reviewer himself. Will give out my vote on the reviwer instead of the speaker then.. 6 out of 10 that is
Little confused by this comment Chris and what more could you have wanted from the review for a 10/10?
Could you please develop a bit and explain to us how the Sibelius, more than other loudspeakers, will expose the person reviewing them? Can't wait to hear that one...
I have several issues with the 'audiophile' community, not the least of which is their seeming inability to quote prices and virtually always neglecting to say if that price is per speaker or for a pair. I won't list the others here.
The price is different all over the world and will fluctuate so best to look at the manufacturers website for prices and spec
Do they sound full at relatively low volumes? I’m looking for a speaker for jazz or classical at lower than rock and roll volumes.
What dB are you considering "quite loud"?
How do they compare to the Eclipse single driver speakers?
More bass than the Eclipse I reviewed a while back, less flat freq response so a bit more character to the music, almost as good with imaging not quite as 3D sounding. More lively sounding treble but that is from an old audio memory so please take with a pinch of salt
Terry, there’s a huge flaw in the way you analyse Hi-Fi, which your Sibelius review highlights right here: 19:58.
It seems that the way you think of hifi components (speakers, amp, source, power, cables, etc) is in the character they bring to the overall system, but what you miss understand about Harley’s goal (stated here: 20:08) is his intention for the speakers is to recreate natural acoustic sound as one would hear it live without mics and amplification at a live venue.
In other words, the goal of Sibelius is exactly to NOT to impart a character on the music - and that’s in the definition: a real acoustic sound is by definition reality itself, it’s not coloured by character.
Here’s why this matters:
So the way to judge Sibelius speakers is NOT by pairing them with equipment to produce the type of sound that you or other audiophiles prefer, but rather to pair them with equipment for their intended purpose which is to recreate natural acoustic sound.
And comparing them to your Mission 770’s also makes no sense because their design goal was never to recreate accurate acoustic sound.
To take the ‘normal’ approach of pairing with equipment that suits the tastes and biases of the listener is to miss the point of these speakers, because your list of intended audiophiles who should look at this speaker is wrong.
The Sibelius’s true market is for audiophiles with a preference for acoustic music and who want to recreate as accurate a reproduction of it at home and your review doesn’t even touch on this topic.
This flaw in your methodology/analysis is so serious that I think it’s worth you revisiting these speakers and not comparing them to the Missions but comparing them DIRECTLY to a real live acoustic musician.
Audio Note does exactly this at some shows: they get a professional cellist to play live to the audience and they can compare it to a CD of the same cellist.
In my audiophile journey, I listen to as much live acoustic music as possible - many times a month (if I can) in order to tune my ears to what real music sounds like in various venues to allow me to compare reality with the systems I hear at shows/dealers.
I spoke to Harley for about 2 hours about the Sibelius and never once did he mention that they were intended for acoustic music and if that is the case they should never have been given to me to review as I dont listen to acoustic music. I would also never only listen to one style of music as part of a review because its unrealistic to 99.9% of people. I visit audiophiles homes all the time and never has any of them mentioned acoustic music to me as their preferred genre so its not a common theme.
I think its important to remember that unless your rooms acoustic is the same as the recorded it will never sound the same at home, Audio Note put the player in the same room as the hifi for the this very reason. I have seen this demo countless times and shot video of it too multiple times.
If you like acoustic music and think the Sibelius is an ideal speaker for you that is great for you and maybe some others feel the same, but many wont. The Mission 770 is a brilliant speaker to compare others to because its an excellent all rounder for the money and take some beating in all areas but can easily be bettered at the same time. I think my method of reviewing is sound but I appreciate your comments.
@@PursuitPerfectSystem Terry, there’s a huge opportunity for you to both reach a wider audience and grow in your audiophile journey, but I need to re-frame to better help you understand what a tiny (but important) subset of audiophiles are trying to achieve.
Here are a few of these audiophiles:
Steve Gutenberg (Audiophiliac), Rob Watts (Chord), John DeVore (DeVore Fidelity), David Chesky (Chesky Records), Peter Qvortrup (Audio Note), Herb Reichert (Stereophile), Paul Klipsch (founder of Klipsch), Frans De Rond (Sound Liaison), Daniel Reina & Raul Audiver (Admire Audio) and Harley Lovegrove (Pearl Acoustics).
What they have in common is a desire for authenticity and realism in music playback.
Most also want to replicate a truly live music *presence* in a listening room as though the performers were actually in the room.
By ‘truly’ live, listen to Steve Guttenberg’s definition of ‘live’ here: [1]
because it’s very close to his definition of an audiophile recording.[2]
John DeVore explains it like this: imagine a cello or singer - they have a large physical size and dimension that emanates sound instantaneously creating a presence in a room that’s unmistakably ‘there’/live. This is why he uses paper cones which allow fast dynamics in his attempt to recreate that kind of live presence. He also creates high sensitivity speakers as tubes seem best at replicating true live presence.[3]
Harley talks about realism in a different way. When designing his Sibelius speakers, he noted how most speakers don’t replicate orchestral instruments properly, which left a niche for him. He wanted a truly accurate sound replication of instruments.[4]
In other videos, Harley talks about how he is interested in replicating more accurately the imaging in a system’s soundstage for orchestra such that they’re holographic and in the room with you.[5]
The CEO of Klipsch explains that their founder Paul Klipsch’s goal in speaker design: “Paul would describe going to hear live symphony on Sunday afternoons with friends and then spending the week trying to build a speaker that replicated that live music experience.”[6]
Rob Watts goal when designing his DACs is also to create as real a sound as possible. In this interview [7], he explains that some people like music warm and others like it clear but these are all artificial colourations. He aims for what he calls ‘true’ transparency.[7]
These audiophiles differ from the 99% because they’re not led by their preferences or biases they are lead by realism…the question driving them is how real or believable is the system?
This is a completely different type of discourse to that of the 99% and one which can give you a completely different lens through which to appreciate music and HiFi.
Realism can apply both to acoustic or amplified instruments, because it’s perfectly possible to make a single-mic audiophile recording of an electric guitar in a church e.g. Macy Gray’s album “Stripped”, but the issue is the guitar’s amplification will itself bring colouration to the sound.
There is no such issue of potential colouration from acoustic instruments, which is why they are the gold standard for audiophile recordings and they’re the most successful genres of music in history for example, jazz, classical, and even vocals (unamplified).
I’ve wound the videos below to start from the right place, so just click to play:
[1] Steve Guttenberg: “live music” ua-cam.com/video/whzp-ryMjjM/v-deo.html
[2] Steve Guttenberg: “audiophile recordings” ua-cam.com/video/Txboy72v7y0/v-deo.html
[3] John DeVore: ua-cam.com/video/GjKjL2QWyDc/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared&t=1030
[4] Harley Lovegrove: ua-cam.com/video/yMU0Nazt--Q/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared&t=974
[5] Harley Lovegrove “great recording” ua-cam.com/video/O53K5X7aX04/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared&t=58
[6] Paul Klipsch blog.son-video.com/en/2015/12/interview-with-klipsch-ceo-paul-jacobs/
[7] Rob Watts “true transparency”: ua-cam.com/video/DtsmQTQAG84/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared&t=153
@@PursuitPerfectSystem P.s. Terry, here are a couple of further references from Rob Watts, where he explains his DAC design goal and the difference between live acoustic performance vs amplified performances.
“What do I want from audio? What I want to achieve is the musicality…[getting emotional, etc]…and these things happen naturally when you listen to live unamplified sound…that’s what my passion is all about.”[1]
“Live amplified music sounds pretty awful in a lot of ways: completely flat, there’s no soundstage…it’s completely blurred from left to right [through PA speakers], what it does have is immediacy with a sense of power…you can really perceive the cutting edge.”[2]
With so many people like Rob and the aforementioned audiophile speaker designers and reviewers seeking lifelike acoustic sound, any reviewer that doesn’t add this to their repertoire of review parameters is missing a trick.
[1] At 1:27 secs here: ua-cam.com/video/DtsmQTQAG84/v-deo.htmlsi=WVKqIMj5Mp_PqKpT&t=87
[2] 23:30 secs here: ua-cam.com/video/cgoOz6OP4_I/v-deo.htmlsi=yMG0oVBoKSE7MlSJ&t=1410
@@GodfreyMann This is all wonderful on paper and I appreciate there needs to be some standard or goal to strive towards for product design - but achieving live sound from HiFi at home is fundamentally flawed for two key reasons. Firstly we are listening to recorded sound not live sound - anyone who has recorded anything knows its totally different so if the music starts totally different it will only end totally different. That will never change.
Second is the acoustic space - it will never sound like live because the listening rooms acoustics are totally different to the live acoustics so it can never sound like the live event - never.
So this whole going for live is fine for some people if they want to purse that, to me its bullshit. I also dont listen to that type of music. I base my reviews on music I like to listen to and how I like it to sound, how I have heard the music played on other systems big and small. Never thinking about something that is bullshit to start with for that very reason, I dont believe in bullshitting anyone.
@@PursuitPerfectSystem I’m not saying that how you review equipment or listen to music is in any way bad, and I’m not criticising the music you like to listen to.
What I’m saying is there’s another way of evaluating hifi systems which a lot of influential/important people in the industry follow that is worth you looking into, because it WILL expand your audiophile journey…much in the way you took the step to try vinyl.
But when you describe their efforts as BS, it shows you don’t quite get what they’re trying to do so let me address your two points.
Both your points correctly point out the problems of with recreating an identical perfect copy of the actual live performance in our listening rooms.
You have nailed it, except we’re NOT trying to achieve perfection.
No one believes they can actually recreate the EXACT same live performance perfectly - that’s not the goal, because that’s impossible. What we’re trying to do is achieve the best approximation given the limitations of budget, listening room and recording quality.
Think of it this way: all components WILL colour the sound of the playback to some degree but some WILL be more transparent than others, so our goal is about identifying those components/systems that colour it less and chasing the best recordings.
Secondly, there’s a big difference between the colouration of sound and depth perception, layering, imaging, soundstage size, instrument separation, timbre and pitch. These other parameters are what makes playback more lifelike or less-lifelike.
You already know this, but what seems missing from your arsenal of knowledge (I’m guessing because you never talk about it) is the quality of the recording, because if the engineer never captured the live performance properly then playback will ALWAYS be lacking - it’ll never even approximate to real.
But it doesn’t stop there: if the recording itself wasn’t actually played LIVE by the musicians - if it was recorded in a sound damped studio with each musician playing in a box without the rest of the band and then mixed into a recording…well that recording by definition can NEVER sound like a live performance, because (a) it was never played live, (b) a sound damped room won’t sound live, (c) close mic-ing the instruments (which is the studio norm) won’t sound live.
Regarding mic placement: when we listen to unamplified live music, in the audience we hear the instruments from a distance. But close-mic placement upon playback would have our ears right up against the instrument which is by definition unnatural.
This is why Steve Guttenberg and David Chesky, Todd Garfinkel (MA Recordings) and many others value simple mic setups with just one or two mics in rooms that reverberate in away that is what our brains expect to hear when someone plays an instrument in a room (not a booth).
So Dark Side of the Moon…fantastic album, love listening to it, but it’s a studio recording so it wouldn’t make sense to use it to judge a component where the designer’s goal is to recreate natural acoustic sound.
You keep saying that you don’t listen to acoustic music, but surely there are some artists you like that have made ‘unplugged’ acoustic recordings?
E.g. MTV did a series of unplugged shows where famous bands sat with live with audience playing on acoustic instruments, so surely there are recordings like that you can listen to and enjoy?
Small or better to say all wide-range units need a bass helper, if such a small cone performs bass, upper region get smeared, so for me a FAST (Full range Assisted Subwoofer Technology) is a must. This one I would XO at about 200 Hz.
IMO the upper region is incredibly detailed and transparent; not smeared at all. Had a REL S/510 in the mix for a month and sent it back.
When are u going to review an Eggleston speaker ?
Yeah great point :)
@@PursuitPerfectSystem i m sure you r going to do it in the near future 🙂
Why do speakers like Harbeth that sound great with all amps (per A Shaw, designer &engineer) exist?
thats the point of view of the company that sells the speakers and other people might think differently
Hi, are you planning on doing one of your excellent sound test/recordings with the Pearl Acoustics Sibelius? The reason I ask is because I am really interested in them and Pearl Acoustics has a nice you tube channel but most the videos are Harley talking sitting next to the Sibelius speakers don't get me wrong some really excellent content but I want to hear them playing :) There is nothing else really of any note online with a proper recordings of the speakers that I can find anyway....
Sorry no sound demo Nick, I got burnt on the last one several days work for YT to block the video several days after posting. Sorry about that, I think if your interested in these make contact with Pearl and see if you can get a listen to them in London or Belgium
@@PursuitPerfectSystem Ok understood. Lets hope I can find someone in Dubai who has a set to listen to :)
Wow your in Dubai, I would never had guessed that location, thats really cool. Still worth making contact with them and asking about it. and apologies again
@@PursuitPerfectSystem I am also looking at Klipsch Forte IV again something completely different
What was that old British speaker that was a full range driver that everyone used to rave about and it also ended up in alot of peculiar enclosures? Is that buried and forgotten?
lowther they are still available !
and what makes the oak cabinet better than a regular MDF then?
I seem to recall it's because the Sibelius does resonate, like an instrument, but I could be wrong.
MDF is junk, good for subwoofer only or eventually a sandwich construction with a smaller %
@@DYNABLASTERTUNERS why is it junk? what else is there?
@@ProfessorJohnSmith MDF is relatively cheap, some people associate cheapness with poor quality. Why not HDF? Or marine plywood? I'm sure the cabinets could have been made at a much lower cost and still produce the same sound. The use of this timber just makes the price higher and gives the product that exclusivity factor.
There’s a nice tonal quality with solid wood. Don’t think you have mdf in guitars…?
Are the Sibelius speakers made with 100mm (4 inch) drivers?
As far as I know they are made from a variation of the Mark Audio Alpair 10M series, which are 6.5 inch (actual is about 5+ inch) drivers
Measuring them the driver cone is 100mm give or take, I suppose if you include the rubber surround they are a little bigger, maybe 5 inch then. I couldn't find the exact info but in another review it was stated they are 97mm so 100mm made sense to me. 4 inch or 5 inch it doesn't really matter
@@PursuitPerfectSystem Ah yes thanks for clarifying that. The cone itself is 4 inches (around 100mm) diameter, but if including the rubber surrounds + outer bezel, they market that driver as a 6-incher
I suppose its a Man thing right to embellish the inches 😂
I'm using a much more affordable, much smaller fullrange transmission line speaker: Closer Acoustics Ogy. Reviews are non-existent because "experts" are very dismissive of fullrange drivers.
I’ve never heard of them but just took a look at them on their website. How do you find them?
@@shemsureshot I'm no audio expert. I previously had Klispch RP600M which I never liked, because they sounded veiled in the midrange and not particularly revealing or flattering. The OGY are slightly bright not overly so. The OGY excel in the midrange and treble. When watching movies you can hear everything, dialog is crystal clear (I was struggling to hear dialog on the Kilpsch). The OGY can do deep bass if you have a tube amp. Since my tube amp is under repair, I'm using a 40€ Wondom class T amp with a REL T5x subwoofer. And I can't stop listening to music. I'm a bit burned out from listening to music 5 hours per day for weeks. So yeah, the OGY are super clear and super transparent. Oh yeah, the build quality is superb. You get a handcrafted plywood maze for the cabinet with a silky smooth corian outer shell. They look expensive.
Just a bit of simple logic. Say you are playing some classical piece from some Orchestral entity. Thats alot of different notes from several different instruments. One speaker having to physically vibrate all of that music doesnt seem efficient at all to me. If the music was divided into sections of tonal frequency between say three drivers, logic seems to push that tonal quality will increase, having the total music load divided among more drivers.
Yes that seems like logic and is the reason I discussed the microphone example because microphones can record all those sounds simultaneously even with the same limitations you mention. More drivers comes with the complexity of having to get them to all sound the same from the same point in space so its not a free lunch
Where can I listen to the guitar player you recorded? Regards
ua-cam.com/video/yUhil7hyQ5k/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/PSoblCl_5Kg/v-deo.html. ua-cam.com/video/uNbw29XVaZE/v-deo.html
I’ve been using a single driver for years
In my case the room becomes very important
less is never more! hahaha
The Mission speakers are to me much better ! Compare the Mission speakers with many others and they hold their own !
Without seeing bona fide measurements, the chances of me paying this much for a 4 inch-driven speaker without accurate measurements closely approximates zero. This speaker is an outlier in design, which is fine, but show me the numbers. I especially want to see the measurements of THD, compression, and IMD versus SPL. How does a 4" driver fill an average to large room with 92 dB SPL at 4 meters over a wide frequency range and with low distortion and compression? Or, don't you hear those issues? What is its dispersion vs. frequency over the range of all music? Must I sit dead center of it? How will my room's side walls, ceiling, and floor effect the first reflections?
I have this conviction: that a good speaker design is mostly amplifier independent, except for voltage and current. A poor design sounds very different with various amplifiers. Don't expect me to buy these, then a new power amp to suppress their vagaries.
Yeah, it's not too ugly. Looks like an wood organ pipe with a speaker in it. Should be efficient for one note and several harmonics, french oak notwithstanding. And we are treated to the french oak aspect but with no disclosure as to internals, bracing, or resonance. Without such, resonance could be a serious issue.
I have not yet met the subjective-only reviewer I implicitly believe. Tell me what you heard, but back it up with evidence. I definitely haven't met the speaker manufacturer I trust. And I don't buy speakers like furniture, by novelty, oddity, or by rarity.
-Just one man's view
Interesting set of comments and demands - I don't blame you for being demanding and knowing what you want but I havent seen many companies publish what you request and how can they predict how reflections will work in your room without measuring in it.
Its not up to the ,manufacturer to make a product work in your room, thats on you to make that work.
Maybe you missed the measurement section of the review - never-mind thanks for watching
@@PursuitPerfectSystem Let's be clear: I make no demands of you. I just don't buy without knowing some important answers. You can review as you wish. I have requirements, not demands.
Why do you use the missions as your reference now when you used to have KEFS as reference?
They were too big really to keep moving around, they made way for a new camera a year or so ago
Reference is misleading. It implies the chosen speaker outperforms all else trialed. Do you think the Mission’s outperform the Marten’s or TAD or Kef Reference? I don’t think so…
Maybe if you called the Mission’s your “choice” or “featured in my rig,” etc
Reference could mean a lot of things I agree, to me it means the one I will be comparing others against around this kind of money, its the one I own
@@danielhifi3147 which speakers have you got then
Mission 770 for around this price, Wharfedale EVO 4.2 for around that price, Elac Debut 5.2 for that price and often others as well, but they change a lot