**The Official Chane M&C 'Arx' owner's thread (A1, A1b, A2, A2b, A3, A5, etc.)** - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 16Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 667 Old 03-12-2013, 07:31 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyrlyfrm View Post

Here is one of the graphs with 1/48th smoothing. I'll have to wait until tomorrow to be able to make some more measurements with the changes you requested. Unless I can figure out how to change the range and scale on a completed measurement. Can that be done in REW?


Great graph. 1/8th smoothing is more typical. Thanks for taking the measurement.

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 667 Old 03-12-2013, 08:17 PM
Senior Member
 
ProfD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 18
My Denon AVR decided that my A1b's were "large" speakers when I ran audyssey setup just now. Last time it set them as "small" speakers. Should I set them as "small" or "large" speakers in my AVR? Thanks!
ProfD is offline  
post #183 of 667 Old 03-12-2013, 08:32 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfD View Post

My Denon AVR decided that my A1b's were "large" speakers when I ran audyssey setup just now. Last time it set them as "small" speakers. Should I set them as "small" or "large" speakers in my AVR? Thanks!

For music at low to moderate volumes, a setting of "large" is fine. For movies and music listening at higher volumes, a x-over of 60hz or higher or a setting of "small" is preferred.

I'll add that I'm a two-channel listener at heart (and so is Jon), so I listen to music in 2 channel or 2.1 unless it is BD music disc with lossless multichannel audio.

For some BD discs, I still find myself selecting the two-channel PCM track...but that depends on the disc.

As for the A1b's, you'll get the most out of them in a "pure direct" mode on the AVR running the A1b's full-range. They'll surprise you.

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #184 of 667 Old 03-13-2013, 10:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gtpsuper24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

I'll also add that the cat is out of the bag; The Arx tweeter is a modified version of the HiVi 1.3 and the Arx midwoofer is made by the same OEM as the DIY Audio Exodus Anarchy 6.5" midwoofer.....it's basically Anarchy's little brother that has been more optimized for the midrange.

There. It's out there.

Quality stuff.

Nice info. It would be nice too see a side by side comparion pic of the two drivers. I'd really like to see a larger Arx tower (A7) have a MTM top with triple 6.5", that would be one powerful high output tower for sure. I'd also like to see a larger MTM 6.5" center model too.
gtpsuper24 is offline  
post #185 of 667 Old 03-13-2013, 12:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ousooner2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 2,123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Nice info. It would be nice too see a side by side comparion pic of the two drivers. I'd really like to see a larger Arx tower (A7) have a MTM top with triple 6.5", that would be one powerful high output tower for sure. I'd also like to see a larger MTM 6.5" center model too.

An ARX tower that looks like the e55 would be pretty darn cool. My biggest complaint about the e55 is still the tweeter. The level is too far down and I personally think it requires EQ to make it right. Once you add that in, they're absolutely incredible. With the time I've spent reading up on the Anarchy mids (when I was deep into car audio), they are likely above the 6.5" mids used in the EMP's. BUT...having 3 or even 2 Anarchy's and a MTM design on top of them would make the speaker pretty pricey I'd assume. Awesome though! That'd be a VERY high output, clean/low dist. tower.

I definitely wouldn't mind giving my thoughts on the Arx line, especially in comparison with the EMP Impression line, if Jon would like. Good to see an owner/engineer/builder/whatever you want to call him that is always around and very knowledgeable. That "comparison" in another thread isn't exactly.....well...yeah....I'm sure you all know.

Panny 65st60 / Denon X1000 / EMP e55ti / EMP e56ci / EMP e5bi / (2) e1010i
ousooner2 is online now  
post #186 of 667 Old 03-13-2013, 02:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gtpsuper24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Yes a MTM WWW tower would be pure awesomeness lol. I would definitely do a preorder on a pair if Jon goes ahead with the project later. I would say after seeing the Arx XBL drivers that they are probably around $50-60 retail if they were sold at somewhere like Madisound or PE. I would guess a monster Arx tower with 6.5" would come in around $1200-1600 a pair.

I've been trying to figure out how to squeeze a few of those Anarchys in a car audio setup, but it has to be the most unfriendly driver for car audio use. $180+ is alot of money to buy them and test them out in the car. The Shivas are on order so i'll see if I even need monster midbasses.

That comparison in the other thread was kind of off IMO. I know he is a novice and its his opinion but theres just too many conflicting opinions in his post. First the Arx midrange was nice and detailed but yet, "Not enough" then it was too much and too forward. I really think he was just struggling to give negatives and positives of each.
gtpsuper24 is offline  
post #187 of 667 Old 03-13-2013, 02:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Billy p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Markham,Ont
Posts: 1,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Yes a MTM WWW tower would be pure awesomeness lol. I would definitely do a preorder on a pair if Jon goes ahead with the project later. I would say after seeing the Arx XBL drivers that they are probably around $50-60 retail if they were sold at somewhere like Madisound or PE. I would guess a monster Arx tower with 6.5" would come in around $1200-1600 a pair.

I've been trying to figure out how to squeeze a few of those Anarchys in a car audio setup, but it has to be the most unfriendly driver for car audio use. $180+ is alot of money to buy them and test them out in the car. The Shivas are on order so i'll see if I even need monster midbasses.

That comparison in the other thread was kind of off IMO. I know he is a novice and its his opinion but theres just too many conflicting opinions in his post. First the Arx midrange was nice and detailed but yet, "Not enough" then it was too much and too forward. I really think he was just struggling to give negatives and positives of each.

Well he did say from the outset he liked the look of the HTD the most....you know that sighted bias always plays a huge role...there..I said it...biggrin.gif

Old Indian proverb: We don't inherit the earth from our ancestors, but we borrow it from our children!

Ascend Acoustics Towers, STC w RAAL, 200 SE in espresso
54" of Panasonic Bliss, Anthem MRX 300
Sony BDP-S380, TechnicsCD player, Apple TV
PSA XS30 SE in Cordovan Cherry & Svs SB13U in sig
Billy p is offline  
post #188 of 667 Old 03-13-2013, 03:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ousooner2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 2,123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Yes a MTM WWW tower would be pure awesomeness lol. I would definitely do a preorder on a pair if Jon goes ahead with the project later. I would say after seeing the Arx XBL drivers that they are probably around $50-60 retail if they were sold at somewhere like Madisound or PE. I would guess a monster Arx tower with 6.5" would come in around $1200-1600 a pair.

I've been trying to figure out how to squeeze a few of those Anarchys in a car audio setup, but it has to be the most unfriendly driver for car audio use. $180+ is alot of money to buy them and test them out in the car. The Shivas are on order so i'll see if I even need monster midbasses.

That comparison in the other thread was kind of off IMO. I know he is a novice and its his opinion but theres just too many conflicting opinions in his post. First the Arx midrange was nice and detailed but yet, "Not enough" then it was too much and too forward. I really think he was just struggling to give negatives and positives of each.

If you can, do a 3-way setup in your car. My buddy runs some Dynaudio 8's in the doors and says they were a huge upgrade from his (actually higher model Esotar 6.5's) as he didn't need the added midrange capabilities when running 3-way (obviously). I'll wait until I get into a new FX4 here in the near future to do any more car audio stuff. That dynaudio driver is great because it's under 3.5" I believe. Easy to fit for most car applications.

But yeah, a MTM-WWW would be insane when using 3 Anarchy's. That would be some serious extension on the low end. I think 2 would likely be plenty for most, especially since most run them with subs. I wonder what kind of space those 6.5's need though. That could end up being a HUGE tower....which isn't a bad thing biggrin.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy p View Post

Well he did say from the outset he liked the look of the HTD the most....you know that sighted bias always plays a huge role...there..I said it...biggrin.gif

One of my thoughts also. Aesthetics play a huge role to a lot of people and when you've already counted it as something you wouldn't want in your home, you'll find ways to justify another speaker

Panny 65st60 / Denon X1000 / EMP e55ti / EMP e56ci / EMP e5bi / (2) e1010i
ousooner2 is online now  
post #189 of 667 Old 03-13-2013, 05:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gtpsuper24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

If you can, do a 3-way setup in your car. My buddy runs some Dynaudio 8's in the doors and says they were a huge upgrade from his (actually higher model Esotar 6.5's) as he didn't need the added midrange capabilities when running 3-way (obviously). I'll wait until I get into a new FX4 here in the near future to do any more car audio stuff. That dynaudio driver is great because it's under 3.5" I believe. Easy to fit for most car applications.

But yeah, a MTM-WWW would be insane when using 3 Anarchy's. That would be some serious extension on the low end. I think 2 would likely be plenty for most, especially since most run them with subs. I wonder what kind of space those 6.5's need though. That could end up being a HUGE tower....which isn't a bad thing biggrin.gif
One of my thoughts also. Aesthetics play a huge role to a lot of people and when you've already counted it as something you wouldn't want in your home, you'll find ways to justify another speaker

Well I'd love to have a set of Dyns but they are way above my budget. Even from those unauthorized online dealers they are well over $1k for a 3way setup. I've been tossing around using the CSS XBL2 tweeter and the small 4" XBL midrange with the Anarchy cover the midbass under 150-200. Just have no idea about how to an active Xover for car audio. I've grown tired of the ED 13av.2 subwoofer as it has hardly any output above 55-65hrz but I got great extension down into the teens in my car cool.gif no subsonic filter and it just keeps going. I'm constantly tossing ideas around for different setups.


Well the ext would be pretty good with a tower like that but with 3 Arx 6.5s they would have tons of head room for dynamics and sheer punch. I've also asked Jon on a few occasions about a large planar midrange similar to the BG Neo 10 but he feels the current Arx midranges does everything he asks it to do. I bet we are talking about a 48-50" tower with about 15-18" deep, crazy awesome speakers take up space.
gtpsuper24 is offline  
post #190 of 667 Old 03-13-2013, 05:41 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Nice info. It would be nice too see a side by side comparion pic of the two drivers. I'd really like to see a larger Arx tower (A7) have a MTM top with triple 6.5", that would be one powerful high output tower for sure. I'd also like to see a larger MTM 6.5" center model too.

An ARX tower that looks like the e55 would be pretty darn cool. My biggest complaint about the e55 is still the tweeter. The level is too far down and I personally think it requires EQ to make it right. Once you add that in, they're absolutely incredible. With the time I've spent reading up on the Anarchy mids (when I was deep into car audio), they are likely above the 6.5" mids used in the EMP's. BUT...having 3 or even 2 Anarchy's and a MTM design on top of them would make the speaker pretty pricey I'd assume. Awesome though! That'd be a VERY high output, clean/low dist. tower.

I definitely wouldn't mind giving my thoughts on the Arx line, especially in comparison with the EMP Impression line, if Jon would like. Good to see an owner/engineer/builder/whatever you want to call him that is always around and very knowledgeable. That "comparison" in another thread isn't exactly.....well...yeah....I'm sure you all know.


Are you going to the NE Spring Speaker Shootout GTG in April? The A5's will be there to hear (along with some other really sick setups).

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #191 of 667 Old 03-13-2013, 05:43 PM
Newbie
 
macarena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I asked this q to gtsuper on another thread, but here is
probably better to ask. I just purchased songtowers with a songcenter, non- ribboned. What do you guys think about putting the a1b's as rear surround, would they 'work' as far as sound go.
macarena is offline  
post #192 of 667 Old 03-13-2013, 05:48 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Yes a MTM WWW tower would be pure awesomeness lol. I would definitely do a preorder on a pair if Jon goes ahead with the project later. I would say after seeing the Arx XBL drivers that they are probably around $50-60 retail if they were sold at somewhere like Madisound or PE. I would guess a monster Arx tower with 6.5" would come in around $1200-1600 a pair.

I've been trying to figure out how to squeeze a few of those Anarchys in a car audio setup, but it has to be the most unfriendly driver for car audio use. $180+ is alot of money to buy them and test them out in the car. The Shivas are on order so i'll see if I even need monster midbasses.

That comparison in the other thread was kind of off IMO. I know he is a novice and its his opinion but theres just too many conflicting opinions in his post. First the Arx midrange was nice and detailed but yet, "Not enough" then it was too much and too forward. I really think he was just struggling to give negatives and positives of each.


Eh, he's finding his way. Can't give him too much crap...at LEAST he seems to be really willing to try new things, like new things, and change his paradigm. Can't fault him for that since many people don't even make the leap.

The Arx midrange is more of a $70-$100 price class driver if it were sold retail due to the extra copper in the motor (which is getting very expensive), among other things. Here is a link to a torture test video of the Arx midwoofer in the A3 towers. I did not reach x-max here:

http://vimeo.com/20716328

There is a bigger Arx model that Jon and I have on the drawing board. I'm not permitted to say anything about it yet...but it would be physically larger than the A5.

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #193 of 667 Old 03-13-2013, 05:50 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

I asked this q to gtsuper on another thread, but here is
probably better to ask. I just purchased songtowers with a songcenter, non- ribboned. What do you guys think about putting the a1b's as rear surround, would they 'work' as far as sound go.

I think they would work fine. Voice-matching is really most important for the front soundstage. The A1b's would work just fine, though their finish would pale in comparison tot he Salk's. It's not a bad finish, but Salk is outstanding when it comes to premium finishes. As long as the cabinet finish doesn't need to match, I don't see why they wouldn't work just fine.

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #194 of 667 Old 03-13-2013, 06:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Reefdvr27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cape May, NJ
Posts: 3,219
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 826 Post(s)
Liked: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfD View Post

My Denon AVR decided that my A1b's were "large" speakers when I ran audyssey setup just now. Last time it set them as "small" speakers. Should I set them as "small" or "large" speakers in my AVR? Thanks!
If you using a sub then set to small, if your not using a sub, I would set them to the size they are.
Reefdvr27 is offline  
post #195 of 667 Old 03-14-2013, 12:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
BarnacleBill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Francicso
Posts: 510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

Aesthetics play a huge role to a lot of people and when you've already counted it as something you wouldn't want in your home, you'll find ways to justify another speaker

I was very fortunate. My wife looked at the A5s and because they were so slim, she said they looked "elegant." They are amazingly unobtrusive and tend to disappear.
BarnacleBill is offline  
post #196 of 667 Old 03-14-2013, 12:17 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarnacleBill View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

Aesthetics play a huge role to a lot of people and when you've already counted it as something you wouldn't want in your home, you'll find ways to justify another speaker

I was very fortunate. My wife looked at the A5s and because they were so slim, she said they looked "elegant." They are amazingly unobtrusive and tend to disappear.

Me as well. My wife just doesn't give a sh!t about how it looks. She cares more about how her closet looks. wink.gif

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #197 of 667 Old 03-14-2013, 07:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ousooner2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 2,123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Well I'd love to have a set of Dyns but they are way above my budget. Even from those unauthorized online dealers they are well over $1k for a 3way setup. I've been tossing around using the CSS XBL2 tweeter and the small 4" XBL midrange with the Anarchy cover the midbass under 150-200. Just have no idea about how to an active Xover for car audio. I've grown tired of the ED 13av.2 subwoofer as it has hardly any output above 55-65hrz but I got great extension down into the teens in my car cool.gif no subsonic filter and it just keeps going. I'm constantly tossing ideas around for different setups.


Well the ext would be pretty good with a tower like that but with 3 Arx 6.5s they would have tons of head room for dynamics and sheer punch. I've also asked Jon on a few occasions about a large planar midrange similar to the BG Neo 10 but he feels the current Arx midranges does everything he asks it to do. I bet we are talking about a 48-50" tower with about 15-18" deep, crazy awesome speakers take up space.

You can run whatever mid/tweet combo you like, doesn't have to match. Especially if you run an 8" or 10" midbass as you'll likely cross them pretty low to your mid. Have a look at the Esotec MW182 (very shallow and can fit most car applications). There's a very nice guy we all use (on Acurazine and DIYMA) that is an authorized dealer for Dynaudio, ID, etc that has great prices and even better customer service. Let me know if you want his contact info.

Okay...I'm done with car audio. Don't want to take up space in the arx thread. PM me if you have any more questions or anything...

Panny 65st60 / Denon X1000 / EMP e55ti / EMP e56ci / EMP e5bi / (2) e1010i
ousooner2 is online now  
post #198 of 667 Old 03-14-2013, 08:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Well the ext would be pretty good with a tower like that but with 3 Arx 6.5s they would have tons of head room for dynamics and sheer punch. I've also asked Jon on a few occasions about a large planar midrange similar to the BG Neo 10 but he feels the current Arx midranges does everything he asks it to do. I bet we are talking about a 48-50" tower with about 15-18" deep, crazy awesome speakers take up space.

Because size and cost would put them into different categories, I'm not (yet) committed to products in this brand and class that have serious output below the 5.25" driver's natural range. It happens to be in the 40Hz area, but that's more of a natural limit for the four models that all use them than it is a design goal. An upcoming A6 center/LCR will use a pair of 6.5" SplitGaps flanking a T/M array in the center, but it'll be acoustic suspension so will have similar F3 to the 5.25"-based models. Like the A5 the goal will be high output above a sub, low distortion, and intelligibility but not subwoofer-replacing bass.

That said, limited production of higher end Dana models comes online this year and could transfer elsewhere...

Because of its serious limits, I'm not a fan of the 8" planar. The 10" is a better unit but if the 8" is already defeating important goals partly because of its length, a bigger driver won't help. Non-flat responses need oodles of filtering to be corrected, and the physical sizes make uniform coverage even more troublesome. Together they can force odd topologies that don't suit the brand's philosophy - in a V8 world, there's not too many cars you'd want to use a straight 8 in. Meanwhile we have truly exceptional wideband cone mids being developed monthly that suit smarter design goals.

Planars make excellent tweeters and they make excellent long lines but I probably won't use them in mid lengths in multiways.
gtpsuper24 likes this.

Jon Lane
Chane Music & Cinema
Jon Lane is offline  
post #199 of 667 Old 03-14-2013, 09:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gtpsuper24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Because size and cost would put them into different categories, I'm not (yet) committed to products in this brand and class that have serious output below the 5.25" driver's natural range. It happens to be in the 40Hz area, but that's more of a natural limit for the four models that all use them than it is a design goal. An upcoming A6 center/LCR will use a pair of 6.5" SplitGaps flanking a T/M array in the center, but it'll be acoustic suspension so will have similar F3 to the 5.25"-based models. Like the A5 the goal will be high output above a sub, low distortion, and intelligibility but not subwoofer-replacing bass.

That said, limited production of higher end Dana models comes online this year and could transfer elsewhere...

Because of its serious limits, I'm not a fan of the 8" planar. The 10" is a better unit but if the 8" is already defeating important goals partly because of its length, a bigger driver won't help. Non-flat responses need oodles of filtering to be corrected, and the physical sizes make uniform coverage even more troublesome. Together they can force odd topologies that don't suit the brand's philosophy - in a V8 world, there's not too many cars you'd want to use a straight 8 in. Meanwhile we have truly exceptional wideband cone mids being developed monthly that suit smarter design goals.

Planars make excellent tweeters and they make excellent long lines but I probably won't use them in mid lengths in multiways.

Sounds great, looking forward to that A6 center. That might be just what i've been hoping for as a setup from the A2 center. What about an A5 but using MTM at the top and adding an extra 5.25" splitgap? The Arx midrange sounds great but was jus curious about those planar midranges, the planar tweeter is so articulate and natural sounding that I though a planar midrange would be just as good. But I guess it would add cost and complexity to the xover design, making it not worth it compared to the cone midrange.

Dana does make a little more sense in sticking with full range towers for strict 2ch fans compared to Arx, which seems to be split between high impact theater and stereo.
gtpsuper24 is offline  
post #200 of 667 Old 03-15-2013, 11:10 AM
Senior Member
 
MarsianMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

That comparison in the other thread was kind of off IMO. I know he is a novice and its his opinion but theres just too many conflicting opinions in his post. First the Arx midrange was nice and detailed but yet, "Not enough" then it was too much and too forward. I really think he was just struggling to give negatives and positives of each.

I'll make an attempt at clarifying. The Arx A5 treble was crisp and any comments about forwardness was directed at this range only. I just thought that long term listening may lead to a headache or ears hurting. The midrange was not as present as I would want and maybe I mean warm. The midrange (or what i think of mids) just felt overshadowed by vocals and sounds like cymbals. I also thought that voices didn't have the timbre I expected. I think that the issues I noted in the first review remained whether calibrated or direct, it was just a matter of how much I thought it mattered or how noticeable it was. Calibrated and with dynamic EQ it was much less noticeable than in pure direct mode. Yes I did have it miscalibrated originally, but the characteristic sound was still there. Kind of like how an author might write a fantasy and thriller book, but their style is the same. It took me awhile to see beyond the EQ/calibration and realize the similarities I noticed in each mode.

I was trying to find positive and negatives for each that's true. Not sure how to compare without those...

I'm sorry you didn't think my evaluation was helpful, but feel free to ask me questions in that thread so I can clarify or find better words to describe them. I am very clear on the differences that I noticed, it's the words I have trouble with.
MarsianMan is offline  
post #201 of 667 Old 03-15-2013, 11:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gtpsuper24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 92
No don't get me wrong the review was helpful and probably more helpful for those researching towers in the 600-1000k range. It just seemed like you counterdicted yourself a few times, is all. In the end what ever your happy with and enjoy.

There was just a few unknowns a few people including myself, like whether each speaker was calbrated and eq'd or if you didn't use an eq and how you actually went about testing each of them.

It doesn't bother me one bit that you didn't go with Arx, I was just wanted to make sure each had a truely fair chance at sounding its best.
gtpsuper24 is offline  
post #202 of 667 Old 03-15-2013, 11:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

What about an A5 but using MTM at the top and adding an extra 5.25" splitgap?

Unless a model idea is practically unfeasible or likely to be audibly off, we'll try to serve customer demand for it as our first priority. A model with an MTM top and four 5.25" midwoofers is probably out because if we were to add two drivers to what's basically the A5 class, I think we'd rather just connect to the topology in the A6 LCR concept and go to 6.5" woofers. This simplifies the design and adds a significant new option in the bass.

One of the points I don't seem to have made well, including to the user in the recent shootout where bass depth seems to have been key, is that the A5 isn't designed for bass extension as much as it is bass quality, including how well it crosses to the ubiquitous subwoofer. Adding a fourth midwoofer only increases what's already a lot of output without adding any more reach or extension. Four SplitGap 5.25" drivers will shake the place but only down to the natural cutoff 5.25" drivers have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

The Arx midrange sounds great but was jus curious about those planar midranges, the planar tweeter is so articulate and natural sounding that I though a planar midrange would be just as good. But I guess it would add cost and complexity to the xover design, making it not worth it compared to the cone midrange.

In terms of the sound of a complete speaker package, the current 5.25" midrange is actually superior to the 8" panel. It is so partly intrinsically, but partly because the panels force the design into channels that I think mitigate the benefits it could be thought to have. Self-noise and odd directivities and raw responses do not occur in the cone alternative, plus the latter is a platform that allows for infinite tunings and retunings, whereas the panel functions in a narrow parametric channel just to work. I spent years working around and with planars at the OEM level and while the tweeters and long lines serve real purposes, the mid panels are problematic in this particular context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Dana does make a little more sense in sticking with full range towers for strict 2ch fans compared to Arx, which seems to be split between high impact theater and stereo.

The SB Acoustics drivers, especially including the custom versions we've been furnished, are simply superb. I couldn't be happier with the Arx components but in Dana we have new possibilities that I think will strike a chord in the user base.

Jon Lane
Chane Music & Cinema
Jon Lane is offline  
post #203 of 667 Old 03-15-2013, 01:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsianMan View Post

I'll make an attempt at clarifying. The Arx A5 treble was crisp and any comments about forwardness was directed at this range only. I just thought that long term listening may lead to a headache or ears hurting. The midrange was not as present as I would want and maybe I mean warm. The midrange (or what i think of mids) just felt overshadowed by vocals and sounds like cymbals. I also thought that voices didn't have the timbre I expected. I think that the issues I noted in the first review remained whether calibrated or direct, it was just a matter of how much I thought it mattered or how noticeable it was. Calibrated and with dynamic EQ it was much less noticeable than in pure direct mode. Yes I did have it miscalibrated originally, but the characteristic sound was still there.

If I may, a point or two. First, designing for good clarity is important to this brand, but designing to a well-tempered mid-treble balance is paramount. This is a primary directive at TAI and so I had to think about the comment above in the context of systems and amplification before it struck me what has probably happened.

I'll use an example. Another customer recently found the A5 - the identical speaker - very good except for excess bass warmth. Since the A5 uses smaller midwoofers that roll off higher than larger drivers in larger enclosures, I found this curious. He felt the speaker was superior to two trending, popular models from two different ID brands elsewhere in the spectrum - neither of which I would have thought the A5 at its price would have bettered - but in his system the issue was bass bloom. About this time this three-tower shootout happened and if I read it for what the OP meant, in his experience the opposite occurred, more or less.

In the former case the amplifier was a classic design, large push pull beam tetrode tube amplifier, with convertible triode/pentode circuitry. In the latter case where the speaker was less full sounding, even to the point of shout, the amplifier was way over on the other end of the amplifier spectrum, a relatively low current receiver.

Investigating a tube amplifier of this particular circuit's type, especially driving a 5 ohm (dcr) speaker, reveals an already very high impedance device like a penta-element beam tetrode working into the amplifier's highest transfer ratio - into the 4 ohm tap - having first given the output tubes a somewhat mismatched primary impedance - roughly the halfway point between the optimum triode and optimum pentode primary impedances. What we'll end up with is about as low a damping factor as possible from an already completely unregulated vacuum tube amplifier. We could all but anticipate bass bloom and excess warmth.

Over on the other end of the scale a low current receiver will not source the significant amounts of drive that what is basically a 4 ohm speaker requires for adequate dynamic music signal. (The other two towers in this test were 8 ohm systems and larger as well.) To be sure, the receiver will certainly run the speaker, but it will do so without the drive and authority a heavier duty amplifier will where there are ample amounts of instantaneous current on tap. The end result will almost certainly be a leaner, less rich sound, perhaps even bordering on forward as volumes rise.

This range of audible characteristics came from one loudspeaker, and in this case a speaker with the distortion-lowering technologies you'd expect to reveal such differences as its key feature. Regardless of whatever virtues or failings the A5 has - and it is after all a diminutive, economical 5.25" based platform in this field of 6.5" systems - it will be and must be thought of as a system together with its amplifier. In one of these setups other factors entered too, such as auditions occurring within a roughly 3' by 4' wall of loudspeakers with some bass reflex ports on the front and others on the back, but I suspect that when a particular finding shows up as the exception to the user consensus for the model the first place to investigate is amplification, setup, use, and even sources.

It's an odd-sounding statement but I've always said things sound like what they are. Once you know how all the different factors lay out in any one of the infinite system possibilities, generally you'll discover that you could have nearly predicted the outcome. None of this meant to revise anyone's findings as such in a relatively simple matchup between what appear to be similar components. It's intended to offer the reader an insight into just how those seemingly similar components, when driven across class and by strikingly different front ends, will invariably sound the only way then can.

Jon Lane
Chane Music & Cinema
Jon Lane is offline  
post #204 of 667 Old 03-15-2013, 04:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gtpsuper24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Unless a model idea is practically unfeasible or likely to be audibly off, we'll try to serve customer demand for it as our first priority. A model with an MTM top and four 5.25" midwoofers is probably out because if we were to add two drivers to what's basically the A5 class, I think we'd rather just connect to the topology in the A6 LCR concept and go to 6.5" woofers. This simplifies the design and adds a significant new option in the bass.

One of the points I don't seem to have made well, including to the user in the recent shootout where bass depth seems to have been key, is that the A5 isn't designed for bass extension as much as it is bass quality, including how well it crosses to the ubiquitous subwoofer. Adding a fourth midwoofer only increases what's already a lot of output without adding any more reach or extension. Four SplitGap 5.25" drivers will shake the place but only down to the natural cutoff 5.25" drivers have.
In terms of the sound of a complete speaker package, the current 5.25" midrange is actually superior to the 8" panel. It is so partly intrinsically, but partly because the panels force the design into channels that I think mitigate the benefits it could be thought to have. Self-noise and odd directivities and raw responses do not occur in the cone alternative, plus the latter is a platform that allows for infinite tunings and retunings, whereas the panel functions in a narrow parametric channel just to work. I spent years working around and with planars at the OEM level and while the tweeters and long lines serve real purposes, the mid panels are problematic in this particular context.
The SB Acoustics drivers, especially including the custom versions we've been furnished, are simply superb. I couldn't be happier with the Arx components but in Dana we have new possibilities that I think will strike a chord in the user base.

Yeah I kind of figured the quad 5.25" would be kind of an oddball design. I think the midrange is good enough that with two of them I bet the 5.25" would run out of steam before the mids would. They just seem to never have any problems with loud output with the midbass are going crazy the midrange has almost zero movement.

I only brough up the planar midrange because, the planar tweeter is so articulate and natural sound that I though for sure it would be awesome as a midrange as well. But like I said seems the cone mid does just fine and i'm totally happy with it.

While i'm not interested in Dana as a customer, I look forward to see whats around the corner.
gtpsuper24 is offline  
post #205 of 667 Old 03-16-2013, 07:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Yeah I kind of figured the quad 5.25" would be kind of an oddball design. I think the midrange is good enough that with two of them I bet the 5.25" would run out of steam before the mids would. They just seem to never have any problems with loud output with the midbass are going crazy the midrange has almost zero movement.

You're right. We'd consider two limits for a design in this range. One is displacement linearity and the other is thermal overload. Any large design should ratio the two in a consistent fashion, such as two or three 5.25" SplitGaps for each midrange driver and no more than two 6.5" SplitGaps for each midrange driver. To your point I'd undoubtedly go to an 5.25" MTM above a trio of 6.5" SplitGaps.

At that point another issue comes up, which is tweeter limits. In, for example, a triple 6.5" SplitGap, MTM midrange system, can we be sure one tweeter won't be run past its limits? They're remarkably durable but if we double them up we radically alter the design goal and probably have to move right to a line source to avoid very odd polar response. To me the question becomes just how much acoustical power and thermal limit we need above a bass section could build 120dB down to 30Hz. 3x 6.5" SplitGaps is a big system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

I only brough up the planar midrange because, the planar tweeter is so articulate and natural sound that I though for sure it would be awesome as a midrange as well. But like I said seems the cone mid does just fine and i'm totally happy with it.

It's a completely logical view, it's just that big mid panels do odd things. I share the attraction but the inherent compromises of a part that measures like some of them do turns me off. However...never say never...
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

While I'm not interested in Dana as a customer, I look forward to see whats around the corner.

I''m rethinking model size limits. I can see an eight driver four way in this brand that won't violate any of our design principles.

Jon Lane
Chane Music & Cinema
Jon Lane is offline  
post #206 of 667 Old 03-23-2013, 09:55 AM
Member
 
lozoyad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Folks,

I'm finding that I cannot get deep soundstaging from my ARX A1b's, the width is ok but the depth is lacking. I have had them for a few months and enjoy them for their characteristically neutral sound and great low end (for their size). I also have a pair of PSB B6's for reference. The B6's have wonderful sound stage both wide and deep and are a warm sounding speaker. I have tried pulling the A1b's away from the wall (about 2 ft) as well as a 5-7 degree toe in and that helped a little. But still they do not come close to matching the B6's depth. I suspect they are what they are....a great speaker for the price but short on the width and depth of the soundstage.

My setup is main stream - Marantz SR6005, BlueJean Cables, Panasonic Blu-ray (transport only). IMO, I don't think the issue is with setup as the B6's as well as a pair of Sierra 1's I tried all had wonderful width and depth to the soundstage using the same setup. If you have any suggestions on improving the soundstaging...I'm all ears (pun intended).

Also, I have read in the forums that the ARX A5's may have a deeper and wider soundstage and I believe better imaging? I would like to hear from owners of both the ARX A1b and A5 on your impressions of those two speakers. My list of a speaker characteristic is this - neutral, don't like forward sounding highs (I like a warm speaker non-fatiguing ), good soundstaging as well as good imaging and inexpensive. I got everything from the ARX A1b except the soundstaging and perhaps the imaging could be better. However, when you stop and consider the price...you get a great deal, that in itself is a major accomplishment. My son is actually waiting in the wings...just in case I get something else as he wants those ARX 1b's!

Having said all this, right now the ARX A1b's are off to the side...using the PSB B6's.

So...if I cannot improve on the soundstaging of the ARX A1b, I will consider the ARX A5, or perhaps the PSB Image T6 (almost twice the price)
1) Will the ARX A5 deliver great soundstaging?
2) Is the ARX A5 neutral sounding (much like the ARX A1b)?
3) Will I have to change my setup to better accomodate the ARX A5's? e.g. perhaps look at separates (thinking Outlaw 975 pre, Outlaw or Emotiva amp)
lozoyad is offline  
post #207 of 667 Old 03-23-2013, 01:09 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by lozoyad View Post

Folks,

I'm finding that I cannot get deep soundstaging from my ARX A1b's, the width is ok but the depth is lacking. I have had them for a few months and enjoy them for their characteristically neutral sound and great low end (for their size). I also have a pair of PSB B6's for reference. The B6's have wonderful sound stage both wide and deep and are a warm sounding speaker. I have tried pulling the A1b's away from the wall (about 2 ft) as well as a 5-7 degree toe in and that helped a little. But still they do not come close to matching the B6's depth. I suspect they are what they are....a great speaker for the price but short on the width and depth of the soundstage.

My setup is main stream - Marantz SR6005, BlueJean Cables, Panasonic Blu-ray (transport only). IMO, I don't think the issue is with setup as the B6's as well as a pair of Sierra 1's I tried all had wonderful width and depth to the soundstage using the same setup. If you have any suggestions on improving the soundstaging...I'm all ears (pun intended).

Also, I have read in the forums that the ARX A5's may have a deeper and wider soundstage and I believe better imaging? I would like to hear from owners of both the ARX A1b and A5 on your impressions of those two speakers. My list of a speaker characteristic is this - neutral, don't like forward sounding highs (I like a warm speaker non-fatiguing ), good soundstaging as well as good imaging and inexpensive. I got everything from the ARX A1b except the soundstaging and perhaps the imaging could be better. However, when you stop and consider the price...you get a great deal, that in itself is a major accomplishment. My son is actually waiting in the wings...just in case I get something else as he wants those ARX 1b's!

Having said all this, right now the ARX A1b's are off to the side...using the PSB B6's.

So...if I cannot improve on the soundstaging of the ARX A1b, I will consider the ARX A5, or perhaps the PSB Image T6 (almost twice the price)
1) Will the ARX A5 deliver great soundstaging?
2) Is the ARX A5 neutral sounding (much like the ARX A1b)?
3) Will I have to change my setup to better accomodate the ARX A5's? e.g. perhaps look at separates (thinking Outlaw 975 pre, Outlaw or Emotiva amp)


Lozo, I have to admit that I have never experienced what you are hearing, but I'll do my best to help you troubleshoot. I have always found a wide sound stage and good depth...certainly nothing flat or shallow sounding.

Can you identify the exact source material you are using? i.e. The media (CD, DVD, or FLAC?) and the specific songs that represent what you are hearing? Also, maybe a picture of the listening area with the A1b's in frame?

I can and will opine on the A5's, but I want to concentrate on the A1b's for now, since your experience is not typical, if that is okay with you?

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #208 of 667 Old 03-23-2013, 03:11 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 33
I'll add that I typically prefer to toe-in Arx models so that they converge between 2 and 4 feet behind my head at the listening position.

Also, if a room is highly treated, I've found that the Arx can sound less lively than is optimal. The high directivity on the tweeter could have a negative effect, I suppose, because of reduced floor and wall bounce. What are your room treatments like, if any?

Also, are you employing any room correction or EQ?

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #209 of 667 Old 03-24-2013, 10:59 AM
Member
 
lozoyad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10



BTJ,

I've enclosed a shot of my listening room. It is roughly 16x17 and is upstairs, to the right is the HSU sub. The ARX A1B's are about 2 ft from the back wall. Addtionally my music reference material is as follows, all references and baselines are done using these CD sources:

1) Biber - Unam Ceylum
2) Jean Luc Ponty - No Absolute Time
3) Jean Luc Ponty - Tchokola
4) Janis Ian - Breaking Silence
5) Bozzio, Levis, Stevens - Black Light Syndrome
6) Jon Anderson - Survival and other Stories (track #3)
7) Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms
8) The Absolute Sound - Hearts of Space
9) Tabula Rasa - Bella Fleck, Bhatt, Chen

All speakers are sent thru my list above. If they do not pass the mustard then I begin to question what may be going on. For example I almost settled on the Ascend Sierra-1, wonderful build, 3D imaging and soundstage. However, to my ears they sounded a bit too forward. These were the baseline non-NrT speakers. The designer and I went back and forth..he couldn't believe I thought they were too bright. IMO (getting on soapbox), there seems to be a trend in speaker design to cater to a certain style of listening these days, relying too heavily on pure analytical measurements. Having said that, I do not get that impression from Jon Lane - he believes in neutrality, he believes in what his ears tell him. The ARX A1B's deliver that in spades.

Ok, so there you have it. Again, simply switching back to the PSB B6's makes a difference in soundstage delivery, the B6's open up. To be honest I prefer the linear (no prominent peaks and valleys) neutral sound of the ARX A1b...but I also love the soundstage of the B6's.
lozoyad is offline  
post #210 of 667 Old 03-24-2013, 11:07 AM
Member
 
lozoyad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
One other thing, how are you folks generating those SPL graphs?...sure would like to know how that is done.
lozoyad is offline  
Reply Speakers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off