Had a chance today to listen to the entire Sonus Faber Venere line, in two different rooms. One large room , one on the small to moderate side. Using 4 of my favorite demo CDs for music. Also to compare them to multiple other speakers, including a LSA-1 Signature, B&W CM6 S2, B&W CM8 S2, and a Sonus Faber Chameleon T. Front end was an Oppo 103 with Rotel RA1570 integrated amp in one room, NAD CD player with a TOTL Marantz integrated in the other room.
To keep things short, the Venere line impressed me. In terms of presenting an open soundstage, with nicely defined and separated instruments and voices, I preferred all four Veneres over the other 4 speakers. Voices were more accurate and natural. I've listened to some of these tracks on $20,000 To $50,000 speakers and feel I have a pretty good perception of how the vocals are supposed to sound. Vocals were a bit deeper and chestier on the B&Ws, in a way that did not sound correct to me.
Bass notes were more well defined through the Veneres than the LSA or SF Chameleon. Singers were centered and flanked by musicians, with instrument notes remaining clear during more complex passages. I was more drawn into the music by all of the Veneres than I was from any of the other four speakers. The CM8 S2 had several good qualities, well defined highs, good imaging, decent bass extension without too much mid bass overemphasis, but to me they just didn't get the vocals quite right and I didn't enjoy listening to them. Although I would rank the CM8 over the SF Chameleon T, which didn't sound like a Sonus Faber at all to me. Sounded more like a speaker voiced for rock & hip hop with more of thudding, less defined mid-bass.
Within the Venere line, I found the overall sound quality improved as one went up the line. Yes, this is to be expected, but it isn't always true. The 1.5 was quite good for its price with good detail without being aggressive, natural sounding vocals, good imaging. Really nice for a small, moderately priced monitor. There was a noticeable mid-bass hump which imparted a rounded, warm overall balance, with a pretty steep deep bass falloff after that. The deepest notes on my demo tracks simply weren't there. Tracks with a lot of mid-bass energy were a bit over the top for my tastes. I can understand them making this tradeoff in order for the speaker to not sound too lean with the bottom octaves missing.
The 2.0 sounded much the same, but with a bit more dynamic impact, a bit less mid-bass emphasis, and a bit more deeper bass extension and definition. Stringed bass notes were much improved over the 1.5. Lower piano notes had more weight and definition.
The 2.5 small tower was another step up. Very clean presentation, very wide & natural soundstage, even less mid-bass emphasis and a deeper, cleaner lower bass. This speaker was a joy to listen too. I've heard several speakers selling for $5000+ which didn't play my demos as well. The 1.5 is very good for its price and the 2.5 sells for twice as much. In my opinion paying the extra amount is worth it. A true taste of high end audio. I could run these without a subwoofer and be quite satisfied with the bass.
The 3.0 was even better, perhaps not as great of a step up from the 2.5 as the 2.5 was from the 2.0. More of the Venere clean, open sound with well defined deep bass. Great soundstage and placement. Could play pretty loud without breaking up. More efficient than the 1.5 by about 3dB. I think these would sound very good with a moderate powered triode tube amp.
Color me impressed by the Venere line.
