2. speakers
  3. 1128563436

6moons review of FAB Audio Model 1 speaker

Fellow Audiogoners,
Have you ever read a review of a component you own and end up shaking your head in disbelief at what you've just read? This is the situation I find myself in after reading a Steve Marsh review on 6moons of the FAB Audio Model 1 high efficiency speaker (http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/fabaudio/model1.html).

It's probably natural to feel defensive about a product you own which got a mixed or bad review but in this case there are some serious doubts about the reviewer's attitude, equipment and room challenges. Here are my beefs thus far:

* It seems to me that the author didn't get along very well with Jim Fabian, FAB's owner, and as such had a proponderence to be critical rather than neutral in his review. His negativity is illustrated by the fact that he felt compelled to tell the readers about Jim's reluctance to answer some questions that would reveal proprietary info (would he have asked the same questions to DALI or Focal-JM Labs company owners?) and then mentioned that Jim did answer the question but so quietly as if to keep the reviewer from hearing Jim's answer, he mentioned Jim's desire to quickly leave, and that Jim made a 'parting shot' about suggesting he upgrade his NAD CDP which made him feel embarassed.
* If the reviewer is a credible audiophile, then why did he seem to rely heavily upon his audiophile friends for their opinions?
* He spend a disproportionate amount of text space writing
about the negative attributes of the speaker rather than
equal time with its positive traits. He also spend a
disproportionate amount of time listening to the 'upstairs'
system of no-name components rather than equal time with
the 'downstairs' higher-end system.
* If the speakers are room placement sensitive and as
revealing as we owners of them know them to be, then the fact that there were some sound issues is more a statement about Steve's room and system shortcomings; The speakers are a window into his room and upstream components, which isn't a speaker shortcoming. He obviously didn't see it that way prefering the sound of his vintage JBL speakers that mask the shortcomings.
* What is a serious reviewer doing using Radio Shack speaker cables and a NAD CD player for reviewing top quality gear? I even found out that one of the speaker connections on his amp was corroded! These facts should speak volumes about the lack of credible equipment used by the reviewer and his testing approach.

The speakers natural sound, when connected to proper gear, and set up properly in a decent room, astonishes and sucks the listener into the soundstage. I'm afraid Steve Marsh missed the boat on this review. Hind sight what it is, I'd guess that Jim might have pulled his speakers from the review process once he got to Steve's home and saw the home brew of assorted old components and home made speaker cables etc.

Thanks for your efforts Steve Marsh but I don't share your negative review of the FAB Audio Model 1 speaker. To each his own . . .
kevinzoe

Showing 1 response by gliderguider

gliderguider's avatar
gliderguider
294 posts
 
Anyone who has read a few of my posts knows my opinion about the Fab Model 1. I think Marsh came up short in the "serious reviewer" sweepstakes with this one. Unlike others in this thread I sm convinced that upstream components make a big difference to the final outcome, especially when placed behind ultra-transparent speakers like these. Here's a portion of a letter I sent to 6moons on the subject:
On my previous speakers (also 97dB sensitive dynamic speakers from another manufacturer) my favourite speaker cables were TG Audio HSR. These sounded warm and full, with quite good transparency. In contrast, a pair of Argent Audio Pursang S which I also own were very transparent and detailed, but a touch lean and tipped-up sounding. Two silver cables but with somewhat different sounds.

On the Fab Audio Model 1 - in the same room, with the same Audion PX25 amp and Audio Note Level 4 digital front end - the pleasing warmth and body of the HSR morphed into an excessively warm, bloomy thickness, with a distinctly noticeable lack of transparency in the bass. In contrast, the Pursang S was revealed as quite forward sounding, with absolutely incredible detail, speed and imaging but a noticeable thinness and more than a bit of bite. While its bass was very transparent, it was obviously light.

So what have we here? Two speaker cables that both performed quite well on a lower resolution speaker, whose divergent personalities were revealed with unmistakable clarity by the Model 1. It was as though each cable had finally been allowed to express its inherent qualities to the maximum. This says to me that any fault in the Model 1 lies in its ability to make utterly explicit the effects of upstream components.

When I read Mr. Marsh's review in light of my own experience, my attention was immediately drawn to the descriptions of his speaker cables and vintage electronics. I don't know if these were the source of any of his dissatisfaction as I'm not familiar with any of them, but there is always the possibility that they were suboptimal partners to the Model 1. A follow-up review using a different room and system might be appropriate.

By the way, I subsequently purchased a pair of Kimber KS-3038 speaker cables, and the sound from the Model 1's driven through those is nothing short of stupendous. While the Model 1 require some care and feeding, like any top thoroughbred if they are fed properly they just might win the Derby.
Poor equipment synergy and room interactions are the only things I can point to to explain whey the sound that Steve Marsh heard diverged so radically from what I get in my (dedicated, symmetrical, well-treated) room. It's a shame, because this review has already discouraged at least one person I'm aware of from actually listening to Fab speakers for themselves (a decision I shall let pass without further comment).

I'll add one more thing about this tempest in a teaspoon - most of the responsibility for any insalubrious outcome rests on the manufacturer's shoulders. He was called in by the reviewer to help sort out the problems, and if the situation wasn't to his satisfaction it was his prerogative to withdraw from the review. He didn't, so presumably he felt things were good enough to proceed. Perhaps there's a lesson in there...

As others have said, if I'm happy with my speakers why should I complain? I'm not complaining that hard (especially nor for myself), but I firmly believe that reviewers have a responsibility to get at some amount of objective truth. Based on what I read and what I've heard, I'm not convinced that this review got close enough.
More to discover