Alumine Five of Stenheim
Stenheim is a relatively late entrant to the high-end speaker field. It was founded in 2010 by a collective of mainly ex-Goldmund engineers, and its products have inherited an unmistakable aesthetic and, to a lesser extent, sonic DNA, although it was a significantly evolved character that was to emerge in the shape of the debut model, the compact, two-way Alumine Two. It’s a developmental divergence that has continued and, if anything, accelerated with the emergence of each subsequent product. The latest Stenheim speakers, developed under the auspices of new owner Jean-Pascal Panchard, definitely have their own, unambiguous identity, both visually and musically.
I’ve been seriously looking forward to the arrival of the Alumine Five. Previous experience with the brand has included impressive exposure to the various versions of the enormous and enormously impressive Ultime Reference models, as well as a brief but highly rewarding flirtation with the stand-mounted Alumine Two in my own system. The possibility of combining the sense of musical articulation, enthusiasm and communication I experienced from the Alumine Two, with more than a hint of the clarity, scale and authority so effortlessly delivered by the Reference models, all in a package that, if not exactly affordable, at least isn’t completely out of the question, makes the Alumine Five a distinctly interesting proposition.
Yet, confronted with the Alumine Five in the flesh, there’s little to hint at the extraordinary promise lurking within. Resolutely rectangular in true Stenheim style, the Five’s aluminum cabinet, with its plate-to-plate construction, stands just 48" tall, 15" deep and presents a broad 11" face to the world, dimensions based on golden-ratio numbers. The front baffle is split by a physical break between the upper midrange-treble enclosure and the lower bass cabinet, independently ported by the laminated full-width slots above and below, a physical separation that is mirrored by the contrasting inlaid strips that help visually break up the one-piece side panels. The regular lines, smooth surfaces, flawless matte finish and lack of visible fixings could easily result in a bland, almost featureless appearance. But those trim strips and the offset midrange and treble drivers do just enough to give the Five a subtle hint of individual style without resorting to the sort of gauche and ostentatious flourishes that so often pass as design.
The result is a refreshingly clean, classical appearance that will blend seamlessly with a range of different decors. Despite the lack of grilles (although they are available as an option, does anybody really spend this kind of money on a speaker and then compromise the performance by fitting covers?), the beautifully profiled baffle and absence of visible fixings makes for a genuinely neat, finished appearance that matches the superb surface finish on the cabinet. The end result just looks right, in a way that makes you wonder why you’d want grilles anyway.
The first hint of its potent sonic capabilities comes when you try to pick it up. Each comparatively compact cabinet tips the scales at 220 pounds. That’s a grunt-inducing, two-man lift. Now, take a look at the figures for bandwidth and sensitivity, and an in-room response that digs down as far as 28Hz combined with 94dB efficiency should raise your eyebrows, especially given the compact cabinet dimensions. Which brings us to the first experiential disconnect: boxes this size shouldn’t produce this much bass or do it so easily. Nor should they weigh so much -- although therein lies the clue to this particular conundrum. When it comes to bass extension, it’s not the external dimensions of the box that matter, but its internal volume. Just like the Crystal Cable Minissimo, a thin-wall cabinet makes for a much larger internal volume than the external dimensions might suggest -- especially if we apply the expectations of more conventional wood-based construction. Throw in the sheer weight of the aluminum panels and the combination of mass and physical dimensions would subconsciously suggest massively thick walls -- and a correspondingly limited internal volume. Instead, what we have here is a deceptively large volume, which, combined with the inertia of the heavy cabinet and the mechanical stability provided by the material, makes for an effective mechanical reference for driver movement, meaning that more of the energy your amplifier sticks into the speaker comes out as sound and (at least in theory) it will be more precisely rendered.
So far, not very much that’s new. It’s not like Stenheim (or Magico, or YG Acoustics) has exclusivity when it comes to aluminum cabinets. But what does make Stenheim different is the unique material they use in damping their cabinet panels. Of course, the separate enclosures and the internal baffles they demand make for an inherently heavily braced structure, but look inside a dismantled Alumine Five and you’ll find strategically placed pads stuck to the cabinet walls. These three-layer, self-adhesive pads combine a heavy damping layer (adjacent to the cabinet wall itself) with added foam and impervious layers, allowing the low-volume pads to influence both the mechanical behavior of the cabinet itself and the enclosed volume. It’s an interesting solution because it manages to overcome the weakness so often audible in simple, braced aluminum cabinets (the all-too-recognizable resonant signature of the material itself) while maximizing the benefits (large volume and rigidity) by obviating the need to stuff the internal space full of wadding or long-haired wool. In fact, if the Stenheims were stood behind a sonically transparent curtain, you’d be hard-pressed to recognize the music as emanating from an aluminum cabinet at all. The absence of the bleached, grainy or lean colorations, the lack of sterile, mechanistic reproduction, is one big half of the Stenheim story, living, breathing proof that it’s not what you use but how you use it that counts.
The other half is down to the drive units, and after the cabinets, those come as quite a surprise, both the lineup and the chosen materials. In stark contrast to the use of the latest, precision CNC techniques, complex damping pads and finishing options, the Alumine Five's drivers are as traditional as they come, with a coated silk-dome tweeter and pulp or laminated paper midrange and bass drivers. The cone drivers use textile double-roll surrounds and massive magnets more normally found in pro-audio applications, and while Stenheim doesn’t build its own drivers, the company works closely with its chosen supplier (PHL, definitely not one of the usual suspects) to specify the electrical parameters, mechanical characteristics and precise details of the surface coating.
The use of such lightweight cone materials and large motors aids the system efficiency, while a hybrid second-order/Linkwitz-Riley crossover, the result of extended listening and evolution, ensures phase coherence and excellent out-of-band attenuation and makes for easy non-reactive load characteristics, despite the three-way topology. The other aspect of the driver lineup that might be considered slightly unusual is the use of a large-diameter (6 1/2") midrange unit -- although less so since Vandersteen’s patent on the approach lapsed some years ago, resulting in a rash of companies suddenly exploring the possibilities of the topology.
Perhaps more important, in the case of the Alumine Five, it means that you are getting the tweeter and midrange drivers from the Ultime Reference series speakers, teamed here with a pair of 10" woofers but without the benefit of a super tweeter. Even so, Stenheim quotes bandwidth out to 35kHz, which should suffice for most purposes. The review speakers arrived with the optional second set of terminals installed, allowing for biwiring or, more significantly, biamping, an upgrade opportunity that makes this an option you should take. If, in the meantime, you are single-wiring the speakers, make sure you factor in a set of jumpers that match your speaker cables: the Alumine Five's overall sense of musical coherence makes the benefits especially obvious. Likewise, good wiring practice is essential, both in terms of cable dressing and diagonal connection (red to midrange/treble, black to bass, with jumpers arranged accordingly).
Aside from the speaker's substantial weight, the parallel sides and flat surfaces of the four-square cabinet make setting up the Fives an absolute joy. Precise, repeatable, angular adjustments are easily achieved, while changes in attitude are just as straightforward, helped by the beautifully profiled stainless-steel spiked feet and deeply cupped footers. Both the cones and their locking rings have nice, large ports to take the supplied pry bars, but it’s worth greasing the threads before installation. One other thing to watch out for: the spikes are seriously (refreshingly) sharp -- sharp enough to penetrate a thick rug and score the floor below, so be careful where you stand the speakers once the feet are installed. Final positioning disposed the speakers on a broad front with minimal toe-in. When it came to dialing in their considerable musical energy, the most critical factor proved to be height off the ground, with tiny adjustments of the spikes making profound differences to the weight and pace of the presentation. Likewise, equal weighting of the four spikes was crucial to a proper sense of grounded weight and dynamic authority.
........................................................
Price: $60,000 per pair.
Warranty: Five years parts and labor.
(Source: The Audio Beat)
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
electrical energy unit 在 元毓 Facebook 的最佳貼文
真是笑死人的公關新聞,竟然還有人信?!
所有renewable energy(除了水力發電)都沒辦法當做基載能源,沒太陽或沒風時就是沒電,你說Google Data Center就不運作了嗎?可笑。
人類工程技術上目前根本不存在有效率、低成本的大規模儲電設備(水力儲電有嚴格地理環境限制,且成本也不低),要100%依賴綠能根本是天方夜譚。
再進一步給個資訊,Google在美國的幾個Data Center在Iowa州都是靠近火力發電廠蓋的(5英哩內),不就是為了方便取電嗎?
100%綠能?笑話!
先前華爾街日報上才有專家投書說:「這些宣稱100%綠能的不是對電力系統無知就是根本蓄意欺騙!」
http://www.yuanyu.idv.tw/?p=1934
同樣的科學原理,套用在Google Data Center也是一樣。Google又不是外星人,可以套用跟地球人不一樣的物理定律...
更甭提這位杜某引用的這篇文章根本是典型行銷伎倆 -- 挑個最大的數字出來嚇人(哇!減少40%用電?!)
其實是:「...15 percent reduction in overall PUE overhead after accounting for electrical losses and other non-cooling inefficiencies. 」
PUE = ratio of the total building energy usage to the IT energy usage
【總建築能源使用 / IT能源使用】 這個數值減少15%?很tricky啊。
而且Google的文件中也沒有說明on/off的時間點與loading的關係 -- 如果故意挑loading少的時間、或是挑氣溫比較低散熱效果比較好的時段打開AI管理電源,當然會得到比較好的PUE reduction啊。
再說Google搞綠能從美國政府手上(特別是Obama時期)拿到多少補助!如果沒這些補助,Google想來也不會如此認真吧。
更進一步,以台灣彰化的Google Data Center為例,嘴巴說台灣沒有足夠綠能可買,其實根本是在搞公關、吃豆腐。
真那麼綠,那Google大可每個Data Center旁建立超大太陽能發電場,同時花大錢建立儲電設備(鋰電池或水力均可),然後完全不連接外界電源。真做到如此,再來說100%綠能。
為什麼不這樣做?錢不答應嘛~money不答應嘛~
綠能發電貴死人,最好是6塊多賣給台電無恥地拿補助,自己用2塊多一度的煤炭或核能電嘛。
結論:
這文章很明白就是要賣Google的AI技術啊,倒數第二段直接寫:「...Possible applications of this technology include improving power plant conversion efficiency (getting more energy from the same unit of input), reducing semiconductor manufacturing energy and water usage, or helping manufacturing facilities increase throughput.」
宣稱套用Google技術可以幫助半導體生產的用電用水節約,或是其他製造業。
我是相信在私有產權制度下,財產所有者會用追求最有效率的使用方式;我也樂見Google在節能這塊發展與技術販售。
不過我實在很感冒一堆把Google這種明明要做生意卻包裝成聖人的嘴臉。
如同我上次分享的20年投資心得,綠能界真的學習黑心行銷學的典範。
AI減少Google數據中心40%冷卻用電
還有人不知道Google數據中心需求是100%綠電嗎?
在美國對房子綠能的building code,insulation,輔助太陽能板安裝很習以為常,回到台灣看到滿滿鐵皮屋,單層玻璃,玻璃帷幕大樓的能源殺手城市,嫌電不夠用?是不是該科學點研究我們能源的使用。
https://thenextweb.com/…/2017/03/16/google-sun-map-solar-…/…
https://www.theguardian.com/…/google-powered-100-renewable-…