# Arx A1b/A2b Speaker Review Discussion Thread



## theJman

*Arx A1b/A2b Speaker Review Discussion Thread​*

​
*For the Full Review Click Here​*​
*Conclusion*
Don't tell anyone at The Audio Insider that I held on to the Arx speakers a lot longer than I needed in order to do this review. There were some extenuating circumstances -- thank you "super" storm Sandy -- but in reality there's a very simple reason for why I had them so long; I fell in love with their sound and was loath to give them up. I pine for speakers that have detail, clarity and a wide soundstage. Dynamics must be spot on, there can't be any harshness or audible compression until the volume gets painfully loud, and every nuance has to be clear and precise. Oh yea, they also must be dirt cheap. That, in a nutshell, describes the Arx speakers. Another way to describe them would be Value, with a capital V. I'm not sure how (or more accurately, why) TAI is selling them this cheap, but if you're in the market for a home theater or stereo system comprised of speakers with exceptional qualities make sure you don't plunk your money down on anything until you give the Arx a try. If you are the type of person who loves to hear others say in total disbelief "you only paid how much for those?!" then Arx needs to be on your short list. Their appearance might not win any prizes, but the extraordinary sound they create certainly could.

*Please feel free to discuss below.*


----------



## sempersyko

I have the A3'a and the A2 center. I absolutlely love them. This review is spot on for how great the Arx line sounds. Thanks for taking the time to do a review, this line of speakers truely deserve it. :T


----------



## JQueen

I've really been enjoying my Arx A5 and A1b speakers they are fantastic!!!


----------



## tesseract

I've been waiting a long time for a review of the Arx speakers. Thanks for this, Jim.

Been very interested in Arx for a long time, your review has me searching for an excuse to fit a pair of A5's in here somewhere...

The planar combined with the XBL2 driver and the low pricing is what makes the Arx line so special.


----------



## ALMFamily

Thanks Jim for the review - stellar as usual! :T


----------



## BufordTJustice

tesseract said:


> I've been waiting a long time for a review of the Arx speakers. Thanks for this, Jim.
> 
> Been very interested in Arx for a long time, your review has me searching for an excuse to fit a pair of A5's in here somewhere...
> 
> The planar combined with the XBL2 driver and the low pricing is what makes the Arx line so special.



I'm new here, but I'm "the guy" who helped Jon Lane develop the A5's.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that the _simply outstanding_ midrange is probably the best part of the A5's...and I take nothing away from the planar tweeter or the XBL2/SplitGap midwoofers. The midrange is simply superb. It drips of refinement and really does help create that wrap-around stereo effect with good recordings.


Jim, as always, a superbly written review. You should start your own online magazine.


----------



## tesseract

Glad you could join us, BufordTJustice!

I watched with interest as the A5 developed, and was glad to see it hit the market. Dunno if I can justify another speaker around here, but I sure would like a pair of Arx for 2 channel listening, the A1 at least!


----------



## BufordTJustice

Happy to be here! Long time lurker!

I think we are all looking for an excuse to buy "just one more ____". 

I would really like to have Jim put ears on the A5's for more than a few minutes. They will be at the next AVS GTG, hopefully he will be get a chance t really sit down and give some impressions of the A5's then. *fingers crossed*


----------



## TheLaw612

Great review Jim! :T I'm looking for a new set of speakers and I'm definitely interested in Arx. They're added to my list of speakers to test! I just hope John can get the A2b produced soon so I wouldn't be without a center channel.


----------



## gtpsuper24

Great review Jim. Too bad you had to give them up. For the price and performance I think the Arx line deserves to be on many peoples short list.


----------



## theJman

BufordTJustice said:


> I would really like to have Jim put ears on the A5's for more than a few minutes. They will be at the next AVS GTG, hopefully he will be get a chance t really sit down and give some impressions of the A5's then. *fingers crossed*


We're setting up a gauntlet of sorts for all the speakers to navigate through which will consist of both musical passages and various movie scenes. Unfortunately one-on-one time is what's really needed to properly evaluate something, and since I'm co-hosting the event I probably won't have the ability to focus on the speakers in the manner I would like. However, I'll be down their the night before the GTG helping setup and get everything squared away so perhaps some time will be available then. Jon has agreed to send the speakers out a few weeks prior to ensure sufficient time for break-in, which should mean they're ready to go.


----------



## ryansboston

Excellent review Jim. :clap: After being very impressed with my A5s, A1bs, and A2 for some time now, I am glad to see it getting some well-deserved credit.


----------



## Jon Lane

Thank you very much, Jim. This is a rare and appreciated treat (and not just a little humbling). The pursuit of the real core of the music is for us a valid pursuit and we've found that it's not always related to cost or price. 

It's a lot of fun recreating convincing illusions at the entry level but it's even more fun when good friends identify that with us. It's validating and I'm moved.

Jim, thanks again and thanks too to the Arx community. Your involvement does us all a service.


----------



## Jon Lane

theJman said:


> We're setting up a gauntlet of sorts for all the speakers to navigate through which will consist of both musical passages and various movie scenes. Unfortunately one-on-one time is what's really needed to properly evaluate something, and since I'm co-hosting the event I probably won't have the ability to focus on the speakers in the manner I would like. However, I'll be down their the night before the GTG helping setup and get everything squared away so perhaps some time will be available then. Jon has agreed to send the speakers out a few weeks prior to ensure sufficient time for break-in, which should mean they're ready to go.


A few moments ago I confirmed to the group by email that we'll be happy to lend a set of A5s. How such a modest little tower does among all the heavy hitters I understand are planned for this GTG is up to the audio gods, but I'm sure they'll be in good hands.

As always, if TAI can do something to support and further the event we shall. Eat all you want; we'll make more, as the old tag line goes...


----------



## ALMFamily

Now I am REALLY bummed I did not see the thread for that GTG sooner! :bigsmile:


----------



## AudiocRaver

Thanks for another terrific review, Jim.:T


----------



## Sonnie

I can only echo everyone else in their appreciation of a great review Jim... very well done!

Oh... and make sure you wear that HTS shirt when you are at that GTG. Maybe I should send you a sweatshirt and some giveaway T-Shirts too. :whistling:


----------



## theJman

Thank you all for the kind words. I'm glad the review has been so well received.




Sonnie said:


> Oh... and make sure you wear that HTS shirt when you are at that GTG. Maybe I should send you a sweatshirt and some giveaway T-Shirts too. :whistling:


Send them my way, swag is always good! Last time I gave away a PSA XS15, so while not quite in that league most people subscribe to the axiom "if it's free it's for me".


----------



## needspeed52

tesseract said:


> I've been waiting a long time for a review of the Arx speakers. Thanks for this, Jim.
> 
> Been very interested in Arx for a long time, your review has me searching for an excuse to fit a pair of A5's in here somewhere...
> 
> The planar combined with the XBL2 driver and the low pricing is what makes the Arx line so special.


Hey Tess, I'm sure if you looked long and hard you could find some space for a pair of A5's someplace:T I looked hard, well not very and found a spot for a third A5, just appeared, you want a solid LCR front presentation with enveloping sound, look no further. Even with two channel listening I had to often check to see if my receiver was set to all channel sound. The sound is all around the speakers and behind them, never too forward and precise imaging, nothing more to say.
Cheers Jeff :sn:


----------



## ro7939

I'm eager to hear the A2b as soon as it arrives later this year (God willing). 

Sorry if I missed it, but I found no mid bass cone material specified in the review or TAI website. My only bias in mid bass cones is negative for woven carbon fiber, which seems to be overly self-damped, thus minimizing transient and macro dynamics. The split gap mid bass are obviously not WCF, so I'm just curious. The cones appear to be composite polymer, which I generally prefer. 

To increase output capability in a larger room, I consider three vertical stand-mounted A2b across the front LCR. For purely functional reasons in a unique application (not space, not esthetics) LCR must be stand mounts, not floor standers. 

What vertical point on the A2 do readers estimate is the ideal ear height? System is dual-use HT/music, with retractable perforated screen, in large dedicated room. Stereo converts to 3.1 via pure analog Trinaural Processor by the late James Bongiorno. There is no screen nor furniture interference, with wide placement options. The first priority is ideal performance then second priority (more for esthetics, less for stability) is low speaker height relative to my ear height of 39.5". 

Regarding ear height relative to symmetrical vertical array: A nearby friend/professional speaker designer listened with his ears horizontal with the center of the top mid bass center of his very large MTM headed for a studio (12"/large waveguide/12"). He noticed the image rose above the speaker. Upon further research of AES papers he found experiments showed that listeners in blind tests perceived sound sources above their actual height. 

I'm hoping A2 sound ideal with ear height equal to the center of the top mid bass rather than the tweeter.


----------



## BufordTJustice

ro7939 said:


> I'm eager to hear the A2b as soon as it arrives later this year (God willing).
> 
> Sorry if I missed it, but I found no mid bass cone material specified in the review or TAI website. My only bias in mid bass cones is negative for woven carbon fiber, which seems to be overly self-damped, thus minimizing transient and macro dynamics. The split gap mid bass are obviously not WCF, so I'm just curious. The cones appear to be composite polymer, which I generally prefer.
> 
> To increase output capability in a larger room, I consider three vertical stand-mounted A2b across the front LCR. For purely functional reasons in a unique application (not space, not esthetics) LCR must be stand mounts, not floor standers.
> 
> What vertical point on the A2 do readers estimate is the ideal ear height? System is dual-use HT/music, with retractable perforated screen, in large dedicated room. Stereo converts to 3.1 via pure analog Trinaural Processor by the late James Bongiorno. There is no screen nor furniture interference, with wide placement options. The first priority is ideal performance then second priority (more for esthetics, less for stability) is low speaker height relative to my ear height of 39.5".
> 
> Regarding ear height relative to symmetrical vertical array: A nearby friend/professional speaker designer listened with his ears horizontal with the center of the top mid bass center of his very large MTM headed for a studio (12"/large waveguide/12"). He noticed the image rose above the speaker. Upon further research of AES papers he found experiments showed that listeners in blind tests perceived sound sources above their actual height.
> 
> I'm hoping A2 sound ideal with ear height equal to the center of the top mid bass rather than the tweeter.


They are coated and treated/doped paper cones...both for the Arx midwoofer and also the A5's midrange. The cones are low-mass, curvilinear designs. The A5's midrange has a true, stationary pole piece in its center which also acts as a heat sink for the motor structure. All baskets are cast/forged (nothing stamped here). Lemme know if there is anything else you would like to know.


----------



## ro7939

BufordTJustice said:


> They are coated and treated/doped paper cones...both for the Arx midwoofer and also the A5's midrange. The cones are low-mass, curvilinear designs. The A5's midrange has a true, stationary pole piece in its center which also acts as a heat sink for the motor structure. All baskets are cast/forged (nothing stamped here). Lemme know if there is anything else you would like to know.


Generally, doped paper is among my most preferred cone materials, if not my favorite. I estimate similar opinions among many if not most pros and hobbyists. This is definitely something to advertise. Bravo! 

Beyond the matter of personal tonal balance preference, this latest Arx line seems untouchable anywhere near its price class.

Buford, what's your opinion of the ideal point on a vertical A2 relative to ear height? 

Also, IIRC Jon mentioned all A2 drivers are in positive acoustic polarity, which is also my general preference, and "3rd order" crossover slopes. Did Jon refer to acoustic slopes or electrical? 

Thanks!


----------



## needspeed52

Please inform as to why three identical (LCR) (AR5's) floor standing loudspeakers would not be practical or provide the optimum front stage in a HT setup, and also why three identical vertical (LCR) MTM stand mounted loudspeakers would, just curious or are you specifically referring to your room and situation, I'm a bit confused and that happens a lot:coocoo:
Cheers Jeff


----------



## ro7939

needspeed52 said:


> Please inform as to why three identical (LCR) (AR5's) floor standing loudspeakers would not be practical or provide the optimum front stage in a HT setup, and also why three identical vertical (LCR) MTM stand mounted loudspeakers would, just curious or are you specifically referring to your room and situation, I'm a bit confused and that happens a lot:coocoo:
> Cheers Jeff


Me too! (easily confused) 

I invented the array described HERE, called LCS for Late Ceiling Splash. LCS requires two matched stand mount speakers per channel. 

Ignore the text in the diagrams, which I will shortly delete; the end of the post has diagram legend. For unknown reason diagrams are unclear expanded once, but clear minimized and twice enlarged.

Jimbo


----------



## Jon Lane

ro7939 said:


> Regarding ear height relative to symmetrical vertical array: A nearby friend/professional speaker designer listened with his ears horizontal with the center of the top mid bass center of his very large MTM headed for a studio (12"/large waveguide/12"). He noticed the image rose above the speaker. Upon further research of AES papers he found experiments showed that listeners in blind tests perceived sound sources above their actual height.


Taking this excerpt out of the context of the complete post, and speaking in general and not just to MTM arrays, I've found that a well-tuned design will push a focused center image - say a vocalist - up and over the centerline between the speakers and slightly aft of their plane.

I take this to be indication of a well-tuned design; it's a reliable yardstick because it clearly denotes focus and definition. A good design usually detaches elements in the recording and sets them in space, many times well above the centerline. 

Sometimes you can even get closely spaced associated sources, like a trio of overdubbed vocalists arranged a degree apart or so in an arc over the two speakers. Good fullrange drivers can do this more easily, although a good multiway should too. It seems to be a function of low transient distortion plus good time behavior. I wish I knew to be more technical than that but I can't. I've always heard it from very good systems (and very rarely in the commercial product market). I think it also requires very transparent sources, and I'm one of the few speaker guys I know who will push a high ratio of front end investment over both speaker prices and room treatment costs. Get the source right and a listener who appreciates focus, dimension, and general musical insight over level/amplitude-based output will appreciate it. 

Adequate transparency always gives this lifted, dimensional effect, although to be honest, I expect and get it more with asymmetrical arrays than the symmetrical arrays, and likewise more in designs with very low motor distortion and very "fast" response than in the average consumer design. (Dana's drivers are by SB Acoustics, which in my experience are well beyond any alternative I know of for low magnetic distortion, while Arx have ultra-low motor distortion perhaps more as a function of higher dynamic output as regards excursion - where big SplitGap cone motions come in.)

I think image loft and focus may be more a characteristic of the very good TM than the MTM but with that said, the good MTM should in general set up a huge soundstage at some loss of individual image focus. MTM's can also come in a number of crossover types but only the kind we use in the A2/b/c or the true impulse perfect D'Appolito and/or Dunlavy types have a relatively linear off-axis response along the long axis.

In short, a good design of good components should entirely detach individual elements in the recording from the speaker locations, and those that do, IME, generally have low distortion driver types and good design tuning and execution.


----------



## Jon Lane

ro7939 said:


> Generally, doped paper is among my most preferred cone materials, if not my favorite.


Agreed. Homogeneous materials like plastic and metal offer few or no options to tune a complex materials matrix. On the other hand cellulose + a doping agent have an infinite number of permutations, and in the Arx A5's midrange, for one example, can lead to a very gentle but extended response. This in turn lends itself to simple electrical crossovers, and all that sums into what we hope is a clever system design. 

Other designs may use driver types with very high Q breakup modes that while the driver may have admirably low inherent distortion, the speaker design is entirely dominated by literally one choice of transfer function, one usually executed by buckets of parts so as to get some nice flat line on the CAD. This in turn gives you the sonic personality of a overly complicated machine and not the supposed personality of those high end drivers themselves. In my view if you can't derive some semblance of flat amplitude and respectable phase and time behavior from two or three crossover components per driver you've maybe lost the design's goal, assuming it had one other than that line on a display... 



ro7939 said:


> Also, IIRC Jon mentioned all A2 drivers are in positive acoustic polarity, which is also my general preference, and "3rd order" crossover slopes. Did Jon refer to acoustic slopes or electrical?


Only a small handful of crossover transfer functions grant an acceptably linear output from a stack of two or three drivers. We shoot for what we hope is a reasonably successful ratio of flat axial response, good power response, and that fairly fast time behavior. In most designs (ours included) there is some inherent conflict between those goals, but then audio is a game of tradeoffs and compromises, as we all know. As an aside, I think some folks would be interested to find that the nearest "flat" design, when executed to textbook linearity, by the numbers isn't actually supposed to _be_ entirely flat. In the popular convention of the day, only one generally is...


----------



## needspeed52

moowee Jon, why didn't you give me time to say that, you took the words right out of my head, thanks my friend.
Cheers Jeffrey :huh:


----------



## BufordTJustice

ro7939 said:


> Generally, doped paper is among my most preferred cone materials, if not my favorite. I estimate similar opinions among many if not most pros and hobbyists. This is definitely something to advertise. Bravo!
> 
> Beyond the matter of personal tonal balance preference, this latest Arx line seems untouchable anywhere near its price class.
> 
> Buford, what's your opinion of the ideal point on a vertical A2 relative to ear height?
> 
> Also, IIRC Jon mentioned all A2 drivers are in positive acoustic polarity, which is also my general preference, and "3rd order" crossover slopes. Did Jon refer to acoustic slopes or electrical?
> 
> Thanks!


My personal preference is for the tweeter to be at or slightly above ear height. By "slightly above", I mean only a few inches (less than 6) from seated ear height.

My A2 serves as my center channel and it is horizontal. I have it positioned on a center stage bracket on top of my Vizio 55" LED LCD at maybe a 10-15 degree downward angle. The center of the tweeter is roughly 17"-18" above ear height, though the tweeter is aimed directly at my seated ear position (hence the downward angle).

With my experience with MTM arrays, I usually find that the tweeter right around ear height is best. But I've found that having it aimed at the seated ear position is more important and can compensate greatly for a position that is either too high or too low in ref to ear height. THAT, of course, is going to also depend on the room.

As far as doped paper, I agree and it is my (and Jon's) preference.

See this thread for lots of pretty pictures and tons of info on Arx materials, drivers, etc. You have to create a profile at TAI to see the pix, but it's worth the work.

http://www.theaudioinsider.com/forum/showthread.php?1757-About-Arx-Technology

I'm so scatter-brained right now (just got off-duty)...so please remind me if I left anything out.


----------



## Jon Lane

needspeed52 said:


> moowee Jon, why didn't you give me time to say that, you took the words right out of my head, thanks my friend.
> Cheers Jeffrey :huh:


I'm sorry, Jeff; didn't mean to step on the thread. Which part do you identify with?

PS: I read somewhere that a designer is using over a dozen elements in a 2-way crossover to derive a 4th LR crossover function. I can't understand this, since more than a small handful of parts always tear the life out of the sound. These designs may look a touch better on paper but they miss the music. 

The A1b has a 4th LR using less than half that number of parts and apparently it's a success. With really top drawer drivers and smart driver choices some designs can be made with three or four parts and sound very, very good indeed.


----------



## ro7939

Jon,
Awards are often only a marketing tool. I am familiar with the speaker designs of someone who won a coveted award. His designs are generally superb, two or three are among my favorites. 

IIRC the above designer's rule is as follows: generally, speakers thermally compresses 1 dB when input power = Wrms (watts, root mean square, "continuous" power) divided by 10. I understand this to mean that speaker tone quality and dynamic range stay constant with increasing level up to a maximum of Wrms/10. Conversely, tone quality and dynamic range exponentially decrease with increasing level greater than Wrms/10.

A recent phenomena seems to prove the theory correct. I have two sets of amplifiers, three channels of each, I'll label each set A and B. Music system is 3.1 channels based on the late James Bongiorno's pure analog Trinaural Processor. Stereo, regardless of cost/complexity, can not approach Trinaural's realism, especially with well recorded live music program. This is largely because of stereo's "phantom" center image, not cured with a simple L+R summed mono channel. "Stereo" does not exist in nature. Meridian's long-gone Tri-field and Ambisonic DSP mimic Trinaural in the digital domain.

Back to the amps. All specs are with amps driving the exact same speakers, and speaker cable gauges well beyond minimum required. Amps "A" reach 1/3rd duty cycle @ 500W while Amps "B" makes 1/10 the power, only 50W. My speakers are reliably rated 200Wrms, and have reliably taken abuse from Amps A above. The difference between 50W and 200W is 6 dB. 3 dB is easily discerned by non-audiophiles. I could discern 6 dB wearing ear plugs. Theoretically Amp A plays 6 dB louder than Amp B. But there is virtually no audible difference in their maximum clean levels.

The speaker power rating is accurate and verified. There are tens of thousands in the field, it is a highly known and measured quantity, and certainly the voice coils would have fried years ago from abuse with the 500W amps. Amp A power is many times independently proven to be under rated with 2500+ user pages on the net, almost positively the most highly investigated amp of all time even though it first appeared only January 2012. Amp B is not under rated in power because it is mass-produced Japanese AVR rated 105Wrms @ 1k Hz only and rated only to 8 Ohms. In this case it drives a nominal 16 Ohm load to maintain a minimum load above 8 Ohms, hence nominal 52.5Wrms or 75W @ the minimum impedance of 10.6 Ohms. 

The most likely explanation seems the above 1 dB compression theory. At 20Wrms, the speakers thermally compress 1 dB. Beyond 20Wrms input, the speakers increase in level but in a non-linear fashion of decreasing tone quality and decreasing dynamic range. IOW, when input power = Wrms/10, the speaker thermally compresses only about 1 dB, almost certainly undetectable by any human ear. When input power = Wrms/10 + 6 dB the speaker thermally compresses peaks about 5 dB, with concomitant decrease in tonal quality, similar to increasing the noise floor in the room by 5 dB, likely moderately to easily detectable by human ear.

Increased output capacity is why I wait for the A2 rather than the A1 (I mentioned earlier why this application requires stand mounts rather than floor standers). 

Very curious to hear your feedback.

Footnote: main speakers employed above are active high-pass crossed 2nd order @ 80 Hz. Speakers have ports air-tight sealed with plumber's plug to increase power handling, and their F3 acoustic 2nd order high-pass pole is approximately 55 Hz. 

One difference between the amps I did not mention above is mid bass output, where, as you might predict, the 500W amps have audibly more output vs. the 50W amps. Amps A require less sub output (I did not alter the sub pole). This appeared in the sub amp peak limit lamp lighting occasionally with the 50W amp and never or almost never with the 500W amps.


----------



## Spoonman

Jim,

Great review. I asked in another forum about bookshelf speakers for a 25 foot diameter octagon room and you mentioned Ascend Acoustics and Klipsch bookshelves. What do you think of the Arx A1b's for that application with an SVS sub?


----------



## ro7939

Spoonman said:


> Jim,
> 
> Great review. I asked in another forum about bookshelf speakers for a 25 foot diameter octagon room and you mentioned Ascend Acoustics and Klipsch bookshelves. What do you think of the Arx A1b's for that application with an SVS sub?


Wow! I'd love to see images of that room! Ceiling height? My math indicates a huge peak at 44 Hz, but peaks are much easier to handle than are troughs.

Excuse me for butting in, but I just auditioned Klipsch RB 81 II in my room. Klipsch's "sensitivity" spec is wildly optimistic, well above even normal industry exaggeration, whether in-room or anechoic (they don't state). Klipsch rates it 98 dB one page, 97 dB on another page. My speaker is 86 dB anechoic and the Klipsch requires 6 dB less gain for equal level, for 92 dB anechoic. Make no mistake, 92 dB anechoic blows away any other known high-end speaker and requires only 1/4 the amp power for same level as my current speakers. It's a sensitivity champ.

The days of looking past Klipsch because of a too bright sounding horn with too much horn mouth effect appear to be long gone. 

As usual for my mains, Klipsch was active high-pass crossed 2nd order @ 80 Hz. 

I loved the Klipsch except for only one issue, a bump in the upper bass/lower mid, such as the lower range of James Taylor's voice, adding some "chestiness" that I could not get past. Other than that they are a winner. Loved the cherry-veneer vinyl, but nothing wrong with the black ash vinyl. 

In-store I heard the RB 61 II Center, vertical, and liked it more than the 81. Don't listen straight on the center of a horn unless you desire maximum horn mouth effect. Besides, the 61 Center is apparently engineered to listen well off center and sounds much too bright on the horn center. I'm also interested in the smaller RB 51 II Center.

The days of looking past Klipsch because of a too bright sounding horn or too much horn mouth effect are long gone. I would dearly love to hear the Palladium book shelf models.


----------



## theJman

Spoonman eh? STP fan perhaps?



Spoonman said:


> Great review. I asked in another forum about bookshelf speakers for a 25 foot diameter octagon room and you mentioned Ascend Acoustics and Klipsch bookshelves. What do you think of the Arx A1b's for that application with an SVS sub?


How does one calculate the cubic footage of a room configured in that manner? I don't imagine it's diameter x 2 x ceiling height, is it? The overall size will be critical to making the determination regarding the Arx.

Which SVS sub were you considering?


----------



## ro7939

theJman said:


> Spoonman eh? STP fan perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> How does one calculate the cubic footage of a room configured in that manner? I don't imagine it's diameter x 2 x ceiling height, is it? The overall size will be critical to making the determination regarding the Arx.
> 
> Which SVS sub were you considering?


google "area of octagon" results:
http://www.math-prof.com/AreaVolume/Octagon.aspx


----------



## Spoonman

Well, since I measured the diameter at 25 feet, and the height goes from 8 feet at the edge to 12 feet in the center, I will assume an average height of 10 feet and calculate it as a circle. Therefore, 3.14x12.5x12.5x10, which would be approximately 4,900 cubic feet. I was thinking the PC12-nsd, SB12-nsd, or the PB12-nsd. I guess one of the 12-nsd's. I am certainly open to recommendations though


----------



## theJman

Assuming your calculation of 4900 cubic feet is correct then I don't see the A1b's working out too well. The A5's could handle it, but not the A1b's. Frankly, I don't imagine there's a bookshelf speaker made that would be capable of filling a room that size. Same goes for a sub; none of the units you're looking at will be able to put a dent in that much space. You should probably be considering duals, unless you want to go with a single beast like the Captivator S2.


----------



## Jon Lane

ro7939 said:


> [One] designer's rule is as follows: generally, speakers thermally compresses 1 dB when input power = Wrms (watts, root mean square, "continuous" power) divided by 10. I understand this to mean that speaker tone quality and dynamic range stay constant with increasing level up to a maximum of Wrms/10. Conversely, tone quality and dynamic range exponentially decrease with increasing level greater than Wrms/10.


I read that as a speaker remaining linear up to a tenth either of its thermal power rating or of the amplifier's instantaneous output. The first is not linearly related to compression and the latter is without a speaker context so I'm guessing I'm missing something.



ro7939 said:


> [snip]
> 
> At 20Wrms, the speakers thermally compress 1 dB. Beyond 20Wrms input, the speakers increase in level but in a non-linear fashion of decreasing tone quality and decreasing dynamic range. IOW, when input power = Wrms/10, the speaker thermally compresses only about 1 dB, almost certainly undetectable by any human ear. When input power = Wrms/10 + 6 dB the speaker thermally compresses peaks about 5 dB, with concomitant decrease in tonal quality, similar to increasing the noise floor in the room by 5 dB, likely moderately to easily detectable by human ear.


(As an aside, we routinely voice to under a half dB, or in a particular crossover circuit the difference between two adjacent parts values on the 5% scale...) 

Back to the amplifiers, which appear to relate to the theory above. Instinct says that what you're hearing may be simpler. It's common theory among fans of very small amplifiers that have very low energy storage. Amplifiers are significantly more audible in how they amplify than in how much they amplify. 

Large amplifiers as a class shudder longer under signal as feedback loops and complex reactances release energy for the amplifier to seek its quiescent state, wheres smaller, simpler amplifiers relax sooner. The audible effect is that the smaller, faster, less reactive amplifier sounds louder than its rating may indicate, and at the same time the big amplifier compresses itself under the complexity of the average musical signal.

On the other hand if you're measuring five Decibels then something has gone wildly out of linear response, I just don't see it related to the speaker driver if the amplifier is the variable that produces it.



ro7939 said:


> Increased output capacity is why I wait for the A2 rather than the A1 (I mentioned earlier why this application requires stand mounts rather than floor standers).


Understood. The A2 has double the thermal capacity, which in these drivers is already high and remains linear well beyond the average.


----------



## needspeed52

Jon Lane said:


> I'm sorry, Jeff; didn't mean to step on the thread. Which part do you identify with?
> 
> PS: I read somewhere that a designer is using over a dozen elements in a 2-way crossover to derive a 4th LR crossover function. I can't understand this, since more than a small handful of parts always tear the life out of the sound. These designs may look a touch better on paper but they miss the music.
> 
> The A1b has a 4th LR using less than half that number of parts and apparently it's a success. With really top drawer drivers and smart driver choices some designs can be made with three or four parts and sound very, very good indeed.


Jon my friend, no stepping on the thread, just funnin wit chu, what part do I identify with......EVERYTHING:T


----------



## ro7939

theJman said:


> Assuming your calculation of 4900 cubic feet is correct then I don't see the A1b's working out too well. The A5's could handle it, but not the A1b's. Frankly, I don't imagine there's a bookshelf speaker made that would be capable of filling a room that size. Same goes for a sub; none of the units you're looking at will be able to put a dent in that much space. You should probably be considering duals, unless you want to go with a single beast like the Captivator S2.


I estimate the following stand mounts would fill that space:

More than one AudioKinesis model sold direct only by Duke LeJeune, employs horn loaded compression driver for waveguide/constant directivity, he just delivered one model with 15" mid bass and with higher sensitivity (and good power handling) than a 99 dB rated horn, lower cost than below, less finish quality, likely higher output.

Klipsch Palladium, a 3-way with direct-radiator mid bass, horn mid + horn tweeter, forgot the model but only one stand mount in this premier series, absolutely spectacular finish quality.

Any space, even more so a large one like that, should have a Distributed Sub Array (four subs), which provides the absolutely flattest possible FR and best time accuracy with no treatment and no EQ. Duke has at least two models. I suppose you'd want to at least double up on the drivers and enclosures for that large a listening room. The best amp I know of for such application is Hypex' DIY kit (boards all preassembled) with 2500W @ 4 Ohms @ 1/3rd duty cycle. That's the only ticket in town for my money. (amp is under $1k with precut chassis). Add Behringer DCX2496 $250 street price and your done with subs, plus you have high-pass for the stand mounts if needed, which is more likely in that huge room. My room, without EQ and without treatment is +/- 3 dB 100 Hz down to 20 Hz with this type sub system, -1.5 dB @ 20 Hz. Cat's meow as they say! The best thing is almost identical FR everywhere in the room! Try that with EQ! 

Room images please! What is ceiling height? 

Jimbo


----------



## Hyrlyfrm

Thanks for the review Jman. I have been looking for some speakers with non-conventional tweeters for a while. I think you just cost me $1000. 

I'm dying to find out how these stack up against my NHT Classic 3's. I still love my 3's, but I need to find out if the sizzle I swear I here sometimes is purely delusion, caused from reading too many reviews of speakers with metal domes, or if it's really happening. 

If all goes as planned, I'll be ordering 5 A1b's by the end of the week. If I give into impulse, I may have to switch a pair of those for A5's. I could rationalize that as preventing upgraditis.


----------



## theJman

Ironically, do you know what my own speakers are? NHT Absolute Zero's and Center. Like you, I'm not a big fan of metal tweeters, so how (why?) I ended up buying these is a bit of a mystery to me quite honestly. They aren't bad speakers though; they have a good overall sound, are only a touch shrill, have beautiful cabinets and feel rock solid.

For clarity and definition I think you'll end up tending towards the Arx speakers, but the NHT's might have the edge in the midrange. What type of subwoofer are you using? That might tip the balance.


----------



## alphaiii

Hyrlyfrm said:


> Thanks for the review Jman. I have been looking for some speakers with non-conventional tweeters for a while. I think you just cost me $1000.
> 
> I'm dying to find out how these stack up against my NHT Classic 3's. I still love my 3's, but I need to find out if the sizzle I swear I here sometimes is purely delusion, caused from reading too many reviews of speakers with metal domes, or if it's really happening.
> 
> If all goes as planned, I'll be ordering 5 A1b's by the end of the week. If I give into impulse, I may have to switch a pair of those for A5's. I could rationalize that as preventing upgraditis.


Now this is a comparison I'd be interested in... since I own the Three's as well. Hard to imagine the Arx A1b can really stack up, since the Three is a very good speaker... but who knows.


----------



## alphaiii

theJman said:


> Ironically, do you know what my own speakers are? NHT Absolute Zero's and Center. Like you, I'm not a big fan of metal tweeters, so how (why?) I ended up buying these is a bit of a mystery to me quite honestly. They aren't bad speakers though; they have a good overall sound, are only a touch shrill, have beautiful cabinets and feel rock solid.
> 
> For clarity and definition I think you'll end up tending towards the Arx speakers, but the NHT's might have the edge in the midrange. What type of subwoofer are you using? That might tip the balance.


Having owned the Absolute Zero and now owning the Three...I think there is a big difference between the 2 models. The doubling of price does bring alot of performance with it, and I feel the Three does not have the same edginess I noticed at times with the Zero (assuming due to the different tweeter used). 

I liked the Absolute Zero alot, but do feel the Three is a big step up, and much tougher competition for the A1b. That said, I'm certainly interested to read Hyrlyfrm's opinion on how they compare...


----------



## Hyrlyfrm

I have an SB13-Ultra which blends perfectly with my 3's when crossed over at 80Hz. I live in a studio apartment, so the only placement option for speakers is in the corners. I would be running the A1b's with the ports plugged.

"Having owned the Absolute Zero and now owning the Three...I think there is a big difference between the 2 models. The doubling of price does bring alot of performance with it, and I feel the Three does not have the same edginess I noticed at times with the Zero (assuming due to the different tweeter used). "

I'm not really sure if the tweeters actually sound metallic, or if that's all in my head. I read too many reviews and so many reviewers comment on how they don't like metal tweeters because of the metallic sound.


----------



## JQueen

I've been loving the Arx A5s and A1b.. They sound great to me


----------



## theJman

Hyrlyfrm said:


> I have an SB13-Ultra which blends perfectly with my 3's when crossed over at 80Hz. I live in a studio apartment, so the only placement option for speakers is in the corners. I would be running the A1b's with the ports plugged.


That's an awful nice subwoofer. I don't imagine you'll have any issues blending the SB13 with the Arx speakers.


----------



## Hyrlyfrm

Now I'm curious Jman. What are the differences in the mids you noticed between the Arx's and your NHT's?


----------



## theJman

Hyrlyfrm said:


> Now I'm curious Jman. What are the differences in the mids you noticed between the Arx's and your NHT's?


I was thinking more the differences you're likely to encounter. The A1b uses a 5.25" driver while the Three has a 6.5" woofer and 2" dome midrange. It seems the latter may have more presence in the upper bass/midrange area then the A1b is able to achieve.


----------



## JQueen

JMan If I was looking to complete my 7.2 could I use the a1bs for both rear and surround

Or would u recommend another speaker around same price


----------



## theJman

JQueen said:


> JMan If I was looking to complete my 7.2 could I use the a1bs for both rear and surround
> 
> Or would u recommend another speaker around same price


Based upon your current system it seems you might be the ideal candidate for the A1b. You already have an investment in the Arx line of speakers, so if you're happy with them now it makes good sense to balance the rest of your setup with more. You own some of the better values in HT today -- Arx and PSA -- which leads me to believe you've been rather diligent in your selections, so I see no reason why you shouldn't continue to be.


----------



## Hyrlyfrm

Ok, I was able to control myself and only ordered 5 A1b's. Hopefully they will be arriving on Monday. Now I get to experience the anticipation of a kid on Xmas eve for the next 4 days. Oh wait, I hate that part.:hissyfit:


----------



## JQueen

Congrats on the purchase and enjoy


----------



## needspeed52

Likewise on the ARX purchase, you're going to be one happy person. Jqueen, I absolutely recommend A1bs sides and rears, I have 3 A5s upfront A1bs sides and rears partnered with PSA dual XS30s and nothing more to be said. You have almost the exact setup so you know where I'm coming from, don't hesitate on the A1bs rears.
Cheers Jeff


----------



## needspeed52

JQueen said:


> Congrats on the purchase and enjoy


My man, how you liking the Marantz 7005, I need to get into a dedicated pre-pro. Sorry, just remembered I'm in the wrong thread to be asking this.
Cheers Jeff :dumbcrazy:


----------



## JQueen

I love the 7005 it's been great, it's got everything I need plus more, I'm trying to buy a house in June so I can start my build thread on my theater room and I'm looking to add 2 more A1bs and the Mits HC4000

Do u think that Onkyo M-282 Premium 2 channel Amplifier 2 X 125 Watts would be good for the other 2 A1bs


----------



## needspeed52

JQueen said:


> I love the 7005 it's been great, it's got everything I need plus more, I'm trying to buy a house in June so I can start my build thread on my theater room and I'm looking to add 2 more A1bs and the Mits HC4000
> 
> Do u think that Onkyo M-282 Premium 2 channel Amplifier 2 X 125 Watts would be good for the other 2 A1bs


Absolutely, the M-282 is probably one of the better unknown little amps that I have owned, not rated into 4 ohm loads but I have driven speakers that dip into that range with it, with the A1bs you will be getting about 140 watts into the 6 ohm load of the A1bs, more than adequate to drive them. You can find open box M-282s for $150, I really like mine enen though some would disagree. Really quiet and runs cool. I drive a pair of A1bs with the ATI AT602 @ 60 watts per channel and to my ears I can't tell the difference using the M-282. Good luck with the new house and the build, sounds very exciting. I think I will be looking at the 7005 very seriously, I found some real good deals on it with the 7007 coming out soon. Thanks my friend. 
Cheers Jeff


----------



## Hyrlyfrm

Well, the first pair of A1b's showed up about 30 minutes ago, while the other 3 should be here tomorrow. They are almost a dead match for sensitivity compared to my Classic 3's. I did a quick Audyssey run to even things out for the full listening comparison.

I'm only 3 songs into Tool - Undertow, but so far I'm very impressed. The A1b's already have an edge on soundstage and imaging. I really didn't expect much of a difference there, but localization is better on the Arx's. These little suckers really do disappear too. With my 3's, no matter how I positioned them in my room, the image was always too centered. The A1b's give that wall of sound effect in my room that the 3's never could, but that could just be room interactions.

I have a lot more listening to do and luckily I have the next 4 days off. I was worried that I would regret buying the A1b's without hearing them, but those fears for me were unfounded. It is ridiculous that I can buy 5 of these things for the price of a pair of Classic 3's. It's way too early for me to say outright that I think they are a better overall speaker, but they are putting a big smile on my face so far.

Edit: Here is a really smoothed first run at a measurement at my listening position. I have a dip around 180Hz that I have to figure out this week, but otherwise I'm really happy with how my SB13-Ultra responds and how it blends with the A1b's. I'll have to up the volume a bit when my neighbors aren't home tomorrow. Oh ya, the bass is anchored by my SB13-Ultra crossed over at 80Hz. This is after one quick audyssey run on my 4311 with dynamic Eq on.


----------



## needspeed52

They do have a nice wide sound stage and very good imaging, the sound emanates from all around the A1bs, from behind, top and bottom and never forward or in your face, I'm not a believer of speaker break in, but if you like them fresh out of the box, you are surely in for a treat when the drivers relax a bit. I'm not missing the A5 LCR front stage at this time with the A1b LCR as they offer the same quality of sound, just in a smaller package. Don't get me wrong, an all A5 front stage is awesome. I could easily reco 5 A1bs and guarantee satisfaction, they also blend just fine with my dual XS30s, well I think they would with any sub(s) but the ARX and PSA are good mate.
Cheers Jeff


----------



## Hyrlyfrm

The other 3 are on the fedex truck for delivery, so I'm getting excited again. I'm looking forward to a nice coherent front stage with 3 matching speakers. Right now I have a pioneer sp-c21, which surprisingly didn't sound totally out of place with the Classic 3's up front. With the A1b's it sounds really tinny comparatively.

What really depresses me is that I have no other option for mounting my rears besides ceiling mounts. I am not looking forward to putting holes in a pair of these.


----------



## needspeed52

Hyrlyfrm said:


> The other 3 are on the fedex truck for delivery, so I'm getting excited again. I'm looking forward to a nice coherent front stage with 3 matching speakers. Right now I have a pioneer sp-c21, which surprisingly didn't sound totally out of place with the Classic 3's up front. With the A1b's it sounds really tinny comparatively.
> 
> What really depresses me is that I have no other option for mounting my rears besides ceiling mounts. I am not looking forward to putting holes in a pair of these.


There has to be other options without drilling into the baffle. I saw a guy who had his rears hanging from the ceiling in two of those hanging plant things, I think woven rope or something like that. Can't you mount shelves from the ceiling and angle them downward? maybe someone can provide the link for the hanging plant hanger.


----------



## ALMFamily

needspeed52 said:


> There has to be other options without drilling into the baffle. I saw a guy who had his rears hanging from the ceiling in two of those hanging plant things, I think woven rope or something like that. Can't you mount shelves from the ceiling and angle them downward? maybe someone can provide the link for the hanging plant hanger.


I am working on a DIY version for my own room now - I have no desire whatsoever to drill holes in my speakers. Who knows - if it works, I should mass market it.


----------



## Hyrlyfrm

I don't want to put holes in mine either. Living in a studio apartment really limits my placement options all around. I was going to try to put a shelf on the one wall and put the other speaker on top of the fridge. I already have some pioneers ceiling mounted, so the fun part of getting the mounts in place is already done. I'm going to try something a little strange.

I'm going to take a pair of these. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000X9O8SI/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

And attach them to a pair of these. http://www.amazon.com/OmniMount-Sta...8&qid=1363116375&sr=1-1&keywords=omnimount+20

I should be able to put a piece of 2x4 between them to make it work, or maybe I'll get lucky and be able to bolt the clamp mount directly to the ceiling mount. I don't know why I didn't think of that earlier. I guess I needed some extra opinions to really scare me out of putting holes in my new speakers. Thanks guys.

As for the A1b's, 3 of them do make an excellent front stage.


----------



## needspeed52

ALMFamily said:


> I am working on a DIY version for my own room now - I have no desire whatsoever to drill holes in my speakers. Who knows - if it works, I should mass market it.


Joe, I'm really curious as to your mount design, please be sure to post it soon, how about a preview now and maybe I can improve on it for you
Seriously, I'm going to be trying some new things myself, is there any value in your opinion to front heights or front wides, and where would the front wides be positioned in respect to the mains, thanks brother.
Cheers Jeff


----------



## needspeed52

Hyrlyfrm said:


> I don't want to put holes in mine either. Living in a studio apartment really limits my placement options all around. I was going to try to put a shelf on the one wall and put the other speaker on top of the fridge. I already have some pioneers ceiling mounted, so the fun part of getting the mounts in place is already done. I'm going to try something a little strange.
> 
> I'm going to take a pair of these. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000X9O8SI/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> And attach them to a pair of these. http://www.amazon.com/OmniMount-Sta...8&qid=1363116375&sr=1-1&keywords=omnimount+20
> 
> I should be able to put a piece of 2x4 between them to make it work, or maybe I'll get lucky and be able to bolt the clamp mount directly to the ceiling mount. I don't know why I didn't think of that earlier. I guess I needed some extra opinions to really scare me out of putting holes in my new speakers. Thanks guys.
> 
> As for the A1b's, 3 of them do make an excellent front stage.


Yes they do make an excellent front stage, I've used a single A1b in both horiz. and vert. alignment with my A5s with very good results. That seems like a lot of work for the rears, I would personally let the refrigerator idea go, not an ideal placement option. I refuse to drill into any speaker cab, that's just me though.
Cheers Jeff


----------



## ALMFamily

needspeed52 said:


> Joe, I'm really curious as to your mount design, please be sure to post it soon, how about a preview now and maybe I can improve on it for you
> Seriously, I'm going to be trying some new things myself, is there any value in your opinion to front heights or front wides, and where would the front wides be positioned in respect to the mains, thanks brother.
> Cheers Jeff


I have a sketch done up - on paper. I will try to get it scanned to electronic form and post it on my build thread so as not to derail this one.

Tough call on placement - it is a personal preference IMO. For me personally, I would probably go with front wides as I prefer a wide soundstage with little to no degradation off-axis. IIRC, there was a diagram running around in a different thread about placement and someone who had set them up actually snapped a photo. I just cannot remember where right now.... :R


----------



## Hyrlyfrm

Oh well, my double mount idea didn't work. It was too front heavy like I was worried about. To keep from putting holes in my speakers, I just made my apartment smaller by mounting my speakers to my sides. The rears could definitely be considered nearfield now. I'll be playing some movies later to see if I'll be keeping them there.


----------



## Hyrlyfrm

I ended up having to wall-mount my left rear and place my right rear speaker on top of my fridge...stupid studio apartment. I did get it as close to the front edge as possible, and although not even close to optimal it still sounds decent.

I've had 3 days to start forming a definite opinion of the A1b's. I think I will be selling my Classic 3's. There were many things I loved about my 3's, but I find my self strangely not missing them. The 3's had many qualities that most of us look for in a good set of bookshelf speakers: detail, imaging, and dynamics. Both the 3's and the A1b's measure and sound very neutral in my room.

Comparatively the A1b's are more detailed and have much better imaging to my ears. I wouldn't consider it fair to subjectively compare their dynamics. I can just say that I am impressed with the dynamics of the A1b's. I should mention that I never push mine anywhere near reference levels, so a volume junkie's experience might be different from mine. I have pretty sensitive hearing and also neighbors to think about. Anyway, back to the comparison. In my room, the 3's had a very centered image, with very little width and almost not depth. The A1b's are also very centered, but have width and depth, and I've also been noticing that they can present height.

What really surprises me is the amount of detail the A1b's present. There are times when I swear that Josh Freese or Danny Carey were playing on a set right in front of me. I know the impact isn't the same, but it is so easy to pick out each individual strike. I can make out the flex of the heads and the resonance of each piece of kit. I shouldn't even get started on the sound of cymbals. The detail levels for guitar, bass and vocals are equally impressive.

I'm not trying to say these are the best bookshelf speakers I've ever heard. If I had the money, I'd get some Paradigm S2's. Instead, I'm just a guy working his way through college. What I can say, without reservation at this point, is that the A1b's should in no way sound as good as they do. Especially considering the pittance that Jon charges for them. I like the A1b's and so does my bank account. Now I really want to hear the A5's.


----------



## theJman

Hyrlyfrm said:


> What I can say, without reservation at this point, is that the A1b's should in no way sound as good as they do. Especially considering the pittance that Jon charges for them.


Now I wonder where I've heard that before...


----------



## Hyrlyfrm

I should thank you again Jman. It was your review that ultimately convinced me to take a chance on the Arx line. Except for now wanting a pair of A5's, I should be set for speakers until I graduate and get a real job.


----------



## gtpsuper24

Hyrlyfrm said:


> but it is so easy to pick out each individual strike. I can make out the flex of the heads and the resonance of each piece of kit. I shouldn't even get started on the sound of cymbals. The detail levels for guitar, bass and vocals are equally impressive.


Thats the first thing I noticed when I first got the older A1 bookshelfs. Was the detail and separation between guitar/string plucks and they had a nice snap thunk to them. Where as some bookshelfs i've heard cost more just seem to ring or slur right through it with no "air" between them. 

Big, wide soundstage seems to be a recurring opinion amoung those who have heard them. Very tough to find the speaker.


----------



## Jon Lane

Hyrlyfrm said:


> In my room, the 3's had a very centered image, with very little width and almost not depth. The A1b's are also very centered, but have width and depth, and I've also been noticing that they can present height.
> 
> What really surprises me is the amount of detail the A1b's present. There are times when I swear that Josh Freese or Danny Carey were playing on a set right in front of me. I know the impact isn't the same, but it is so easy to pick out each individual strike. I can make out the flex of the heads and the resonance of each piece of kit. I shouldn't even get started on the sound of cymbals.





gtpsuper24 said:


> Thats the first thing I noticed when I first got the older A1 bookshelfs. Was the detail and separation between guitar/string plucks and they had a nice snap thunk to them. Where as some bookshelfs i've heard cost more just seem to ring or slur right through it with no "air" between them.
> 
> Big, wide soundstage seems to be a recurring opinion amoung those who have heard them. Very tough to find the speaker.


It's really gratifying to find comments like this, and I especially like gtp's "snap thunk" because while it's figurative and brief, it is actually one of the primary goals we seek. It also prefaces the disappearing speaker act and a nice black inter-note silence.

If you consider these attributes all together at the same time you realize you're referring to the same thing, which is to make the transducer turn on and turn off as fast as possible. This is not technical "speed" (although speed is a useful descriptor of well-defined output) because speed is a measure of high frequency extension. Rather, this is a combination of low device distortion and as close to critical damping as we can get at every point in the audible spectrum.

A good analogy, not surprisingly, lies in the transducer system at the other end of the chain: analog record playback. We want absolutely as much sheer information as we can extract, but to have it actually be audible we must damp out, critically, everything that might store energy _over_ it. We want not too little and not too much to very fine degrees. 

With low distortion speakers the individual devices - the SplitGap woofer and the relatively large planar tweeter - give us more signal and less additive coloration. But where things get interesting is when the components are established and joined in the design right at the point between too much loudness - say, big sensitivity numbers and in many cases, simple, one-axis amplitude flatness for its own sake and without regard for the complexities of types of distortion and the ear's reaction to them - and losing definition because the design is too damped. Over-damping can also occur in-driver, where heavy, lossy, typically plastic cones and conventional motors lose our fragile original signal to too much of a degree.

These days the specifications numbers and amplitude response chases allow for precious few over-damped systems. We do get a lot of brighter and more aggressive sound but what's interesting is that pushing that response up and out actually obscures the things we'd thing it's give us - all the descriptors in the user comments above. Too much has become not enough.

What's gratifying is that the more tempered approach (but not too tempered) actually reveals more and not less usable information. It's this information that separates notes, reveals tone colors, lifts images up and over the centerline, and expands stage size while enhancing focus. Here gtp's "snap thunk" is the combination of lots of inherent resolution and very little signal overhang and distortion. It also involves one more thing, which I think is critical but is something I hear from maybe two or three rooms at a trade show.

That thing is the mesh between the adjacent drivers as it relates to establishing their relative levels and their acoustical connection through the crossover. When we get this _acoustically_ right (which can actually happen from time to time :nerd: ) transients occur without separating themselves from their fundamentals, either harmonically or spatially. Harmonically they hang together and allow wood and brass and voiceboxes to retain their organic qualities. Spatially they naturally aid source localization around the room. It's a fun effect because once you've heard it it can become the last checkbox in the tuning, and when it happens it just clicks into place. Even the biggest noises in the mix will not leave the acoustical matrix appearing in space because they are not sent out in individual packets either informationally incomplete or obscured with stored energy.

The goal should be to suspend disbelief; to draw you naturally into the music. It's rewarding to be lucky enough to do it even at everyday prices and then to have it found out so consistently.


----------



## alphaiii

Hyrlyfrm said:


> I ended up having to wall-mount my left rear and place my right rear speaker on top of my fridge...stupid studio apartment. I did get it as close to the front edge as possible, and although not even close to optimal it still sounds decent.
> 
> I've had 3 days to start forming a definite opinion of the A1b's. I think I will be selling my Classic 3's. There were many things I loved about my 3's, but I find my self strangely not missing them. The 3's had many qualities that most of us look for in a good set of bookshelf speakers: detail, imaging, and dynamics. Both the 3's and the A1b's measure and sound very neutral in my room.
> 
> Comparatively the A1b's are more detailed and have much better imaging to my ears. I wouldn't consider it fair to subjectively compare their dynamics. I can just say that I am impressed with the dynamics of the A1b's. I should mention that I never push mine anywhere near reference levels, so a volume junkie's experience might be different from mine. I have pretty sensitive hearing and also neighbors to think about. Anyway, back to the comparison. In my room, the 3's had a very centered image, with very little width and almost not depth. The A1b's are also very centered, but have width and depth, and I've also been noticing that they can present height.
> 
> What really surprises me is the amount of detail the A1b's present. There are times when I swear that Josh Freese or Danny Carey were playing on a set right in front of me. I know the impact isn't the same, but it is so easy to pick out each individual strike. I can make out the flex of the heads and the resonance of each piece of kit. I shouldn't even get started on the sound of cymbals. The detail levels for guitar, bass and vocals are equally impressive.
> 
> I'm not trying to say these are the best bookshelf speakers I've ever heard. If I had the money, I'd get some Paradigm S2's. Instead, I'm just a guy working his way through college. What I can say, without reservation at this point, is that the A1b's should in no way sound as good as they do. Especially considering the pittance that Jon charges for them. I like the A1b's and so does my bank account. Now I really want to hear the A5's.


Nice write up, and interesting how you felt the Arx and NHT compare... I like the Classic 3 alot and have always felt the imaging and ability to disappear were some of the 3's strong points. I didn't find the soundstage to be as wide as the Boston Acoustics VS260 I had for awhile, and had compared to the 3 on several occasions... but I think the 3 has respectable soundstage depth. Overall though, I think the 3 has a very nice, netural tonal balance, with just a little warmth down low.

My main gripes with the 3/2C setup I have are that I think the 3's bass could be a little cleaner, and that sibilance is more noticeable than I'd like. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the 3/2C are sibilant speakers... just that they don't hide it either, and I'm very sensitive to it for some reason. How do you feel the A1b and 3 compare in these aspects (bass quality, sibiliance)?

I really do need to hear the A1b at some point... but the shipping both ways is a hefty "audition fee" if I didn't keep them, so I'm finding it hard to take the chance. I'm also not able to orient the A1b vertically for center, that's another hesitation, especially with the A2b not out yet. Besides, the cost of the A1b/A2b puts me almost in the same price range was what I paid for the NHT setup (got a great deal on the 3, and bought the 2C used)... so I continue to hesitate.


----------



## Hyrlyfrm

The lack of soundstage depth with the 3's could just be an issue with where I'm stuck placing my speakers. I would have loved to hear them with some more room to breathe, but I just don't have it right now. I too liked the very slight mid-bass hump, but it's not something I can't live without.

I noticed the same thing about the 3's with regards to sibilance as well. If it was present in a recording, the 3's let you know. The A1b's don't hide sibilance at all either. 

As for bass, I run an SB13-Ultra crossed over at 80Hz, so I can't really comment on the difference between the 3's and A1b's there. I did have the 3's running full range for about 6 months before I got the Sb13, so I can say that it really surprised me with how much bass it could produce. When I took measurements of the A1b's they could reach 40Hz in my room easily, but I haven't spent much time listening to them exclusively. I have listened to the A1b's by themselves a little with this http://www.ektoplazm.com/free-music/amygdala-modus-operandi and they were able to surprise me as well. It's really hard to listen to anything without the SB13 now, it's like audio crack.

I'd recommend giving the A1b's an audition if you can, but I can't say if they will work as well for you as they did for me.


----------



## ro7939

Are edits prohibited for older posts?


----------



## AudiocRaver

A poster can edit one's own posts at any time, not someone else's.


----------



## needspeed52

alphaiii said:


> Nice write up, and interesting how you felt the Arx and NHT compare... I like the Classic 3 alot and have always felt the imaging and ability to disappear were some of the 3's strong points. I didn't find the soundstage to be as wide as the Boston Acoustics VS260 I had for awhile, and had compared to the 3 on several occasions... but I think the 3 has respectable soundstage depth. Overall though, I think the 3 has a very nice, netural tonal balance, with just a little warmth down low.
> 
> My main gripes with the 3/2C setup I have are that I think the 3's bass could be a little cleaner, and that sibilance is more noticeable than I'd like. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the 3/2C are sibilant speakers... just that they don't hide it either, and I'm very sensitive to it for some reason. How do you feel the A1b and 3 compare in these aspects (bass quality, sibiliance)?
> 
> I really do need to hear the A1b at some point... but the shipping both ways is a hefty "audition fee" if I didn't keep them, so I'm finding it hard to take the chance. I'm also not able to orient the A1b vertically for center, that's another hesitation, especially with the A2b not out yet. Besides, the cost of the A1b/A2b puts me almost in the same price range was what I paid for the NHT setup (got a great deal on the 3, and bought the 2C used)... so I continue to hesitate.



I used the A1b as a center horizontally with the tweeter rotated a 1'4 turn with my A5 mains for a long time with excellent results. I couldn't wait any longer for the A2c so I bought a third A5, now I'm rocking. Jon would probably work with you on a pair of A1bs and A1b center on a loaner till the A2C is available, give him a shout.


----------



## BROADCAST_STORM

Can anyone comment on how these compare to the Martin Logan motion or Goldenear Aon offerings?


----------



## AllanMarcus

+1 on a request for comparisons. I have pairs od martinlogan the lx16 ad deftech SM350 and I'm curious how the chanes compare.


----------

