Art K.
The Voodoo You Do!
I like them a lot...not perfect but what speaker is.
Sonus Faber Venere 1.5
- Thread starter Art K.
- Start date
I like them a lot...not perfect but what speaker is.
avanti1960
Well-Known Member
I disagree that it was uncalled for. I apologize for the "thread crap" like post and that was not my intent. It's just that when I read that mustvid was selling his LS50s I expressed what came to mind. Namely that displacing one of the most universally regarded speakers in decades for the SF V 1.5s literally makes me flabbergasted. To my ears. I felt it necessary to express that because it points out how incredibly diverse our hobby is. That a handful of individuals who share an interest in music and high fidelity audio reproduction can perceive products so differently.
Basically I'm trying to celebrate the differences. No harm or foul implied.
I think it's just how you said it. The point of an amp making a difference was a legitimate point. But it got lost in what some might label 'Bombast'. I have a pair of Focal 807Ws that are unlistenable to me through my VTL/McCormack combo, but sound great with my Sonic Frontiers SF40. I've been following this thread as the Venere 1.5s have piqued my interest. Is there a reason most went with the 1.5 and not the 2.0?
prighello
not all who wander are lost
Dude, I read your post like you hated the Veneres. You wouldn't listen to them if they were free? Really, they are that offensive?? I'm listening to mine right now in my office and it's not like my ears are bleeding. The 1.5s may not perfect but they sure as hell don't sound like #$%@ either. Actually they sound pretty good. I also struggled with the dilemma of the LS50 or the 1.5s. I listened to both in different rooms and went with the 1.5s; I found the Kefs a bit piercing. Different strokes for different folks.
Funky54
Super Member
It's personnel taste, objective. The veneers are beautiful to look at. The craftsmanship was really top notch. I didn't care for them sound wise. Truthfully in a group of four of us not one of us liked the way they sounded. We tried bryston b4, Classe, audio Research. We tried vinyl, tidal and CD. We liked others more. But again that's choice, preference and room. These were brand new and not broken in. I am open minded and will try a set in future.
I too don't mean to sound negative. My point is it's subjective and there are lots of variables.
I'm glad so many here like them. It means there are probably situations where they will shine. Again they are ellagant and fantastic to look at. The white storm trooper looking towers were the best looking of what we tried.
Again I'm not dissing them because so many here love the way they sound. I'm sure I would like them in the right situation.
I too don't mean to sound negative. My point is it's subjective and there are lots of variables.
I'm glad so many here like them. It means there are probably situations where they will shine. Again they are ellagant and fantastic to look at. The white storm trooper looking towers were the best looking of what we tried.
Again I'm not dissing them because so many here love the way they sound. I'm sure I would like them in the right situation.
avanti1960
Well-Known Member
Probably a little strong on the "free" comment. could very well have been the placement (against the wall on a shelf) as well as the amplification but they sounded too warm, recessed and the tweeter sounded edgy and "hifi". it's probably me, i don't like most Harbeth either.
The "open window" clarity of the LS50s (similar to the $7700.00 Joseph Audio Pulsars) have defined my preference for speakers and I can't listen to anything less. I just sh*t canned my PSB towers because they evolved into excess warmth.
Last edited:
Art K.
The Voodoo You Do!
Tonality is the most important element of sound for me and the area where every speaker I owned outperformed the LS50. Once I did a side by side comparison with a half a dozen other speakers and it was clear that the every speaker was better at tone than the KEF's, their days here were numbered. Interestingly, the LS50's were better in a number of ways than all of the other speakers but I just couldn't get past how bad they were with tone. Clean and clear they were. I loved them for what they did well and would have them again. It's not either/or for me. I like all well designed speakers for what they do well and realize that no speaker anywhere near a price I can afford can possibly check all of my boxes and be perfect. Enjoy them all is what I say.
wim1983
Active Member
Good to see lots of debates going here, it's fun to read, searching for a perfect sound is like getting trap into infinite self imagination, no? I'll buy a pair of Veneer 1.5 if there is a used set for sale at affordable price, otherwise I'm still looking for Wharfedale classic series like Diamond 9.2/9.3 and Emerald 93, dirt cheap to enjoy relaxed sound...
Funky54
Super Member
On that day we tried Magnapans .7's, Wilson Sasha's, Sabrina's, Monitor Audio Silvers, 3 different sets of Monitor Audio Towers and a set of Silver Bookshelfs, B&W towers- don't remember the model, a few Sonos Faber higher up the chain towers, Paradigm Towers.... Some used towers I don't remember. Our inventory where I work changes frequently. The 1.5,s compared to all others were the most boxy and dead sounding. They were so poor we tried a second pair with the same results.
They really were brand new just unboxed. They probably didn't have but a half hour of play. In fairness everything else had at least Ann hour of play except the Magnapans that we unboxed and set up that day. Aside from the Wilson's the Magnapans were my favorite for two channel.
Funky54
Super Member
One of my buddies was in love with those white Veneers. He had previously and visually seen them. He came cash in hand wanting them. They matched his White and black Music Hall Ikura table... He was completely disappointed. He is still on the fence with doing the Magnapans from his personnel Monitor Audio towers.
avanti1960
Well-Known Member
Bravo! Well said.
Art, I love this thread. You were one of the first people to comment on a thread when I first purchased the Venere 1.5's in November of 2012. I'm glad you're loving them, figured they'd be up your alley. They're an easy to live with bookshelf. Probably the least fatiguing bookshelf speaker I've heard. Which leads me to, I purchased a pair of Aerial Acoustics 7b and a Vincent 236MK today. Not new, but new to me. I'll make sure to share once all setup.
CKDC
Super Member
I don't mean to derail this thread but I believe I noticed a major difference in quality when I placed my Epos speakers on Epos speaker stands in place of crappy wooden stands.
mustvid
Marty
Ultimately I preferred the 1.5s tweeter. and the front ported feature. I'm in the process of discovering what I like and want from a speaker. I'm a relative novice to this hobby and I've only owned a few really good speakers. However, early on i got caught up in the hype of new products and purchased them either blindly or on the advice of people more experienced than I. I replaced a pair of Excite X12's with the KEFs, but I didn't do a real comparison. The hype and fact that the LS50s are a great speaker weighed heavy in my decision. The LS50's were the first non silk dome tweeter speaker I've heard or owned. I was blown away by the clarity and it's ability to reproduce Jazz music. I've owned them better than a year now and was content with them. As I was with the X12s actually. But, I want to experience different equipment and decided to try a pair of the well reviewed 1.5's. I've done more comparison of the two than I did the LS50's and X12s.
There is much to like about the LS50's and I could live with them and be happy. It's just that theI 1.5's reproduce Jazz equally well and classical better than the LS50s. I prefer the tonality of the 1.5's (sound more organic) in my system and agree that the LS50 can be a little sharp to my ears at times. I really became of aware of this once the 1.5's were in my system. Prior to the comparison I was aware of the sharpness but I had a habit of turning the music down with certain songs. This was really apparent while listening to Adele's new CD and in particular the song Hello. I'm listening to jazz music right now and the sax sounds wonderfully organic and pleasing to me ears.
The 1.5 boxes disappear with the music. The sound staging is spot on, and the timbre is pleasing. Listening to the music is a more enveloping and involving experience. I found myself missing them when they were out of my system and didn't feel this way about the LS50s, so that made a difficult decision easier. Speaker preference is a subjective process. I'm sure I will continue to experiment with different equipment, so nothing is here to stay. But right now I believe I have an overall system that I can enjoy and is born out of a true process of finding the sound I like.
A poster asked why everyone was buying the 1.5s and not the 2.0s. I would've liked to hear the 2.0s but ultimately didn't want to spend the additional dollars.
There is much to like about the LS50's and I could live with them and be happy. It's just that theI 1.5's reproduce Jazz equally well and classical better than the LS50s. I prefer the tonality of the 1.5's (sound more organic) in my system and agree that the LS50 can be a little sharp to my ears at times. I really became of aware of this once the 1.5's were in my system. Prior to the comparison I was aware of the sharpness but I had a habit of turning the music down with certain songs. This was really apparent while listening to Adele's new CD and in particular the song Hello. I'm listening to jazz music right now and the sax sounds wonderfully organic and pleasing to me ears.
The 1.5 boxes disappear with the music. The sound staging is spot on, and the timbre is pleasing. Listening to the music is a more enveloping and involving experience. I found myself missing them when they were out of my system and didn't feel this way about the LS50s, so that made a difficult decision easier. Speaker preference is a subjective process. I'm sure I will continue to experiment with different equipment, so nothing is here to stay. But right now I believe I have an overall system that I can enjoy and is born out of a true process of finding the sound I like.
A poster asked why everyone was buying the 1.5s and not the 2.0s. I would've liked to hear the 2.0s but ultimately didn't want to spend the additional dollars.
I got to hear the Venere line at the dealer, the 1.5 (I have owned a pair since 2013), the 2.0, the 2.5 and 3.0; all next to each other through a TOTL McIntosh integrated (can't recall the model). To me, the order would be, 3.0 (that extra mid-range driver does some wonderful things, true coherent full range--if it was cheaper...), followed by the 1.5 (does so much right! You all said it), the 2.0 (very good - but after listening to the 1.5, the mid-band seems heavy compared to the highs, but such lovely bass--organ sounds so good). 2.5, I could buy all the others except this one. To me, it's missing the magic the others have. It sounds like a big hole in the midrange. To me, the 1.5 is 80% of the 3.0's dynamics. Granted, I've never lived with 3.0's.
wim1983
Active Member
lol, you really mean it, don't you? haha, so the 1.5 is very balanced monitor as conclusion then?
Funky54
Super Member
Well from a previous post by another member, I get the impression the 2.5 are the weak link in their product line. I know the 3.0 and S sound really nice. The 2.5's did not. I haven't tried the 1.5 so I don't know.
I really do love audio. I enjoy comparing and tweaking as much as listening.