[Dawkus]

Hi,I was stunned by the idiotic review of the Gradient Helsinki 1.5.This speaker system costs 6,500 and reviewer Art Dudley could not hear any appreciative bass even though the speaker houses a 12 inch Peerless woofer.Then in the manufacturers comments,Gradients rep Tim Ryan recommends to remedy the problem you should buy another companys sub-woofer,the PSI A225,I'll look up the price later.What Bull Crap!I don't think Stereophile will print my letter I wrote pointing this out,so thank God for the Audio Circle in our fragile economic times.....Dawkus(mark.korda@myfairpoint.net)

[TONEPUB]

We reviewed the Gradients about two years ago and it had plenty of bass, it's just a speaker that is set up a bit more "unconventionally" than most box speakers.  As many of you may recall, Gradient was the company that made an excellent subwoofer to mate with Quad's.

Good company, good speaker.  Just needs a little out of the box thinking to make it sing.

[Dawkus]

Hi Tonepub,thanks for your oppinion.The right thing here would be for me to hear the Gradient and for you to read the review I did,Stereophile Aug. 2010.I will probably never be able to afford a six thousand five hundred dollar speaker,but I still have been a hi-fi nut for years and like to look at the utmost and the mere meager stuff.I'm a house painter and am more Dyna and Heathkit while some people I work for are Krell and Wilson.But I never have read a review where the company rep recommended another companys product to correct a design flaw in their own, in selling a speaker system, the  PSI sub woofer which is no (Chump change).Tonepub,if you read that article,I know you yourself could come up with a 100 better deals,performance wise at way less than half the price even though they may be good guys and a good company......thanks for writing me back...Dawkus (mark.korda@myfairpoint.net)

[BrianP]

My first reaction to the description of that speaker was "what the eff were they thinking?" Look, a dipole woofer can work (with generous EQ at the low end), if it fires forward at the listener and has plenty of room behind it. A side firing woofer can work, if it's in an enclosure and operates in a range where wavelength exceeds 8 baffle widths (radiation into 4-pi space). But a side-firing dipole puts the listener right in the deepest cancellation null. OF COURSE there's no bass, except for that reflected off nearby room boundaries, and trying to get that right will be a nightmare and a half, as AD described.

Seems a shame, because the midrange and treble apparently sounded pretty good to him, and measured OK. But overall, this is one of the most misconceived speaker designs I've ever seen.

[lowtech]

But overall, this is one of the most misconceived speaker designs I've ever seen.

I'm a big dipole proponent, and while I think Mr. Salmi knows his stuff, this is apparently a speaker where form was not derived by function.  His past designs, like the Revolution, are quite good.

[jhm731]

I had a pair of Helsinki 1.5 for about six months.

From 1K Hz up they're were wonderful, but below that they lacked dynamics.

The build quality on pair I had was also very poor for a speaker that cost $7500.

Not surprising that they lowered the price to $6500.

IMO, never buy any speaker recommended by TAS reviewer REG.

[BrassEar]

The story I heard was that Art had a political argument with the Gradient folks and Art always backstabs his political foes. The only writers I trust at Stereophile are Sam Tellig (Gillet) and John Marks.

The Helsinki 1.5's are very good speakers, not perfect but much more impressive than the Art Dudley review would indicate.

It's sad that Stereophile can make or destroy a company at their whim.

[jhm731]

Now that I've read Art Dudley's review, IMO, he's right on about the 1.5s.

Looks like there must be others that have had arguments with the Gradient folks.

Gradient is now on their third US Distributor since they introduced the 1.5's.



 

[Horizons]

This would not be the first company that Art Dudley has screwed over.

I met Art many years ago and found him to be vindictive in the extreme. I think his writings reveal this in almost every issue.

Use your own ears! Reviewers can rarely be trusted!

[BrianP]

I read the article and it didn't seem like a "hatchet job" at all. It seemed like AD tried really hard to like the speakers (he did praise their midrange and treble quality), and even harder to make them work in his room. He reported honestly that he couldn't make them work in the bass, which is no surprise: anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the propagation of sound waves would take one look at them and tell you that such a design could not possibly work. That woofer mounting is utterly ridiculous.

[jhm731]

In the six months that I owned the 1.5s, here's a measurement of the best position that I found in my 12' x 18' x 8' room:

[Russtafarian]

I heard these speakers at the CA audio show this weekend and was impressed.  They were positioned right up against the side walls of the room (for bass reinforcement no doubt) and toe'd in at a 45 degree angle.  The bass was deep enough to fill out the music but wasn't room shaking by any means.  It looks and sounds like a quirky speaker that can give a certain presentation under the right circumstances.

I thought it did a better job of reproducing a boundary-free soundstage than the almost as expensive ClairAudience 2+2 bipole speaker.

Russ

[BrianP]

In the six months that I owned the 1.5s, here's a measurement of the best position that I found in my 12' x 18' x 8' room:

Looks a lot like a decent mini-monitor with a high-Q box tuning and an f3 around 50Hz. Not much like a 12" 3-way.