I like your favorite piece of advice, excellent.
Hey, thanks for that tip. That looks pretty cool and I’ll definitely hang on to your recommendation for future reference, as some forks in my road have now appeared.
To all: don’t misunderstand - I’m not outraged … just disappointed. I mean, PSA can design and market anything they want, right? But since I saw and heard the prototype in person, from my POV they were not mere conjecture bouncing around this forum, but real. I could see, touch, and hear them.
I had super high hopes that the last “AN” incarnation that was playing at the last RMAF would see the light of day as that prototype seemed to offer the speed and transparency of electrostats without the “head-in-a vice” sweet spot plus excellent, well integrated and room-tunable bass. All in a smaller form factor than planar designs and without the complexity, expense, and extra real estate needed for bi-amping and subs. And, IMHO, at a “guesstimated” price point at which they would compete effectively with speakers that retailed for 2x - 4x more. What’s not to like? If they were offering a show special, I’d have bought them on the spot.
To good to be true, I guess. Paul’s comments above appear to indicate that the upper box of the latest “FR” incarnation remains more or less the same, but the lower cabinet is now simply “woofers in a box.” A clever box, I’ll grant you, but without the 700 W amp, room correction capabilities, and monster woofer that Chris designed. I’d guess that the realities of cost intervened.
1 Like
Perhaps, but better ideas are more likely.
1 Like
Time will tell. The proof will be in the listening and comparison to alternatives.
There is nothing wrong with changing designs and principles during R&D. You are correct that if you are not prepared to do so you may miss your goals.
PS Audio changed not only technology but also design goals. One being creating a speaker that can be adjusted (by a dial on the speaker) to the room or position in the room.
Does the company you are a technical executive of also broadcast the intermediate (and later abandoned) technology and design principles as the best solution during R&D phase?
Agreed. I think this whole episode shows some leadership traits that are (unfortunately) oh so rare.
See:
- the CEO had a vision to make a speaker basead on Arnie Nudell design principles (first: setting the bar)
- he even shows an early prototype in RMAF, with mixed reception (second: courage to come forth)
- then, he realizes he needs to get a senior designer (third: humbleness)
- he gives the designer free pass (fourth: delegate the task to the most accomplished)
- he is willing not only to take the advice, but also to change his mind during the process, even though it implies abandoning some principles of his first vision (fifth: always keep an open mind - and in this case, open ears)
Not to mention the transparency level.
this is a living lesson of modern management.
14 Likes
Very limited exposure to PRs but of that limited exposure I find them very difficult to integrate with subs as they are slow and have weird curves. I’m in the market for new speakers and this is one of the specific design goals of my next pair; to integrate well with subs.
It’d be nice to understand the cross-over point and frequency response of these PRs and where / if thought was put into where a pair (or more) of subs belong within the overall design. Thanks!
I searched for this and found it as the dbx VENU360. Thanks for sharing – I’ve looked at MiniDSP, DEQX, Wavelet and DSpeaker so far.
I see it rather as a possible development of a design process, which is just obvious for the public because Paul wants do do us a favor.
I have witnessed far too many “know it all”, stubborn CEOs, that would not let go of his fist vision for anything in the world. Specially after a first prototype being presented to the public. This is the main point I am trying to make.
3 Likes
side firing, but not passive
…well, those prototype “AN” speakers at RMAF last year.
I would like to offer a differing opinion on those speakers and I spent a good deal of time in the room listening to them, including Micheal Fremer’s vinyl session. I had one of the best seats in the house.
The speakers sounded decent as low to moderate volumes. They weren’t bad, but they simply did not provide the “magic” that at least a dozen other speakers I heard that weekend offered. I noticed that the AN’s were not being played at the typical volume one would expect at these audio shows. I’m not talking ear bleeding concert levels, but loud enough to create some dynamics and excitement - and allow us to hear what they can do. When I asked Darren to turn up the volume during that vinyl session, he was rather sheepish with the knob. Our group asked a couple more times to turn it up. That is when I realized, these were not ready for prime time. The bass turned into a soup sandwich, completely falling apart. It really sounded bad.
That said, I can understand why the AN is now the FR and why the current speaker design is so categorically different. For that, I commend Paul, Chris and the rest of the design team at PS Audio. This shows a high level of integrity as I’m certain it was incredibly expensive to scrap that AN design and go back to the drawing board with the FR design. But, it was the right thing to do if the AN’s were not hitting the mark, and based on what I heard, they were not. I feel pretty confident that these FR-80’s will sound really good.
2 Likes
Jvvita, I am honored by your kind words. Thanks. Much appreciated.
3 Likes
Sorry, I misunderstood your post as critical regarding the design process.
I won’t doubt what you heard, as I didn’t listed to them “cranked up.” But they were playing at a reasonable level when I heard them. I have no doubt that the final design Chris, et.al. comes up with will sound great.
Whether the new design feature set “works” in my acoustical setting remains to be seen - (ahhh, heard.)
It would seem that there are plenty of options for DSP further up the chain than the speakers and ones that address more than the bass. Just sayin’. I think Paul and Co. have earned our trust over time. Mine at least…
1 Like
Agreed. Looking forward to see the new design. Hopefully it’ll be efficient enough that I can drive with my First watt SIT2.
For DSP room correction, I’ve been using Legacy Wavelet for the last couple weeks and found it to work really well once I figured out how to measure the room correctly. It really tighten up the bass and no offensive DSP sound that I noticed.
Paul can you give an update on the Physical size and weight, Are the top and bottom units still shipped separately or is it one piece speaker now?
I too will miss the sausage making
magicknow
I would be curious to know what was it about the fr-30 that created this about face. I mean you don’t design one speaker - and then for kicks completely change it in your spare time or so it seems. I get you like the end result - what made you go there? There was obviously something either Chris / Paul /design team found problematic with the initial design I would think. I’d be interested to know what that might be.
JeffofArabica shed some light on the potential issues in post 971, above.
My opportunity to listen to them was during setup and at lower levels than JoA’s later in the show, so our impressions diverged.
Not to minimize the design challenge, but simpler is better from any number of viewpoints: cost, supply chain logistics, reliability, the list goes on.
My personal situation (which is not PS Audio’s problem) is that my room’s acoustic profile is not amenable to “straightforward” transducers w/o the benefit of some corrective wizardry. I was hopeful that by them taking on the complexity, my life would be simplified.