AVS Forum banner

Acculine Owners Thread

71K views 351 replies 88 participants last post by  KramerTC 
#1 ·
I have noticed that this speaker line is starting to gain momentum from a few forum members. I thought it would be a good oppertunity for owners and future owners of Acculine speakers to post their setups, chime in, share their thoughts, and opinions about the Acculine speakers.


For those who have not heard or read up on the Acculine speakers, they are a very new brand exclusively available at TheAudioInsider. These may potentially be the next big thing for those looking for budget speakers delivering great sound. I think these are very unique because they feature a Bohlender-Graebener Neo3 (3" Wideband Planar Magnetic Driver) for high frequencies. I am hoping people will try these Acculines out and compare them against other popular Internet Direct speakers in the same price range such as the Ascend 170SE. av123 X-LS, SVS SBS-01, SVS SCS-01M, etc.


My two LCRs should be coming in next week, which will be used in my bedroom 2.1 computer stereo setup. I'll be comparing them with my Boston Acoustics CR67s


Product Links:

Acculine A1 Bookshelfs (Single 5.25", 3" Wideband Planar Magnetic)
http://www.theaudioinsider.com/produ...products_id=65


Acculine A2 LCR (Dual 5.25", 3" Wideband Planar Magnetic)
http://www.theaudioinsider.com/produ...products_id=66


Acculine A3 Towers (Dual 5.25", 3" Wideband Planar Magnetic)
http://www.theaudioinsider.com/produ...products_id=67


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update June/2010


Arx A1,A2,A3 are now shipping!


Arx A1 - Bass reflex satellite/monitor. Single 5.25" XBL2 woofer and single 3" planar tweeter. Black simulated ash PVC with black knit grille.


Arx A2 - Bass reflex LCR/Center speaker with rotating tweeter for either vertical or horizontal use. Dual 5.25" XBL2 woofers and single 3" planar tweeter. Black simulated ash PVC with black knit grille.


Arx A3 - Bass reflex floorstanding tower. Dual 5.25" XBL2 woofers and single 3" planar tweeter. Black simulated ash PVC with black knit grille.


Arx A4 - High-output 3-way stand monitor / theater speaker to compliment the A6. Single 6.5" XBL2 woofer, single 5.25" midrange, and single 3" planar tweeter. Black simulated ash PVC with black knit grille. Stocks Fall 2010


Arx A5 - Bass reflex floorstanding tower the same size as the A3. Triple 5.25" XBL2 woofers, single 5.25" midrange, and single 3" planar tweeter. Black simulated ash PVC with black knit grille. Stocks Summer 2010


Arx A6 - Large format, horizontal, sealed LCR/center speaker to compliment the A4. Dual 6.5" XBL2 woofers, single 5.25" midrange, and single 3" planar tweeter. Black simulated ash PVC with black knit grille. Stocks Fall 2010


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User Reviews

My First Impressions and Comparison to Original Acculine A2
 
See less See more
#127 ·
Wow, Jon, thanks for the comprehensive, and quick, answer!


Understood about the doubled midbass output on the A2 - makes sense, especially after reading LTD02's thread...


By cohesive directivity, do you mean it has a narrower 'sweetspot'? Is the MTM design of the A2 subject to the condition known as 'lobing' mentioned in other threads? How do the depth and width of the soundstage compare on the A1 and A2?


Also, what would you consider a 'somewhat enclosed space'? A 10'x10' room, a 14'x20' room, or...?
 
#128 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speqtre /forum/post/12089406


Wow, Jon, thanks for the comprehensive, and quick, answer!


Understood about the doubled midbass output on the A2 - makes sense, especially after reading LTD02's thread...


By cohesive directivity, do you mean it has a narrower 'sweetspot'? Is the MTM design of the A2 subject to the condition known as 'lobing' mentioned in other threads? How do the depth and width of the soundstage compare on the A1 and A2?


Also, what would you consider a 'somewhat enclosed space'? A 10'x10' room, a 14'x20' room, or...?

You're certainly welcome. Last question first: The MTM style (as opposed to the true d'Appolito symmetrical array, at least as I recall it) has symmetrical lobing along the long axis, with one null on either side of the perpendicular (tweeter) axis that depend on crossover type and driver alignment for severity. The true, aligned, 1st order MTM (or d'Appolito array, IIRC) has no such lobing, but rather a rather mild rippling of amplitude as one measures across the array's long axis. It also has perfect impulse response.


The majority of mid-treble-mid arrays are not true d'Appolito arrays, as such are difficult to construct without fairly specialized drivers and because power handling can be limited. The same will hold true for the Acculine A2 (although its tweeter has excellent bandwidth and power handling, should we want to explore that feature in an alternate design one day.)


The benefit the A2 and other similar MTM's have is the increased power handling afforded by their crossover's steeper stopbands. The A2 therefore takes more power and goes louder, plus it has a relatively constant on-axis response -- it's flat on axis and it's off axis response sums relatively flat as well, although it has the usual lobes virtually all MTM's have.


The A1, on the other hand, like all vertical asymmetrical "arrays" always has a distinct lobe pattern. The A1 should therefore be used vertically at approximately ear level, as this places the listener somewhere roughly in the speaker's intended, flattest response soundfield. Standing well above or lying on the floor below any conventional array of two different drivers crossed over to differing bandwidths typically puts a listener in a non-flat portion of the speaker's vertical directivity pattern -- the usual "lobing" occurs -- and that's due to a host of factors.


A "more cohesive directivity" is a subjective coined phrase, one I intend to point out that the A2 has a more predictable, usable off-axis response to left and right when used horizontally than the A1 (or any other conventional 2-way) would when used horizontally, a placement we wouldn't recommend. The A2 also has the benefits of that fabulous planar tweeter, including it's ability to be rotated for maximum horizontal dispersion regardless of the speaker's installed axis.
 
#130 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by federiko /forum/post/12096459


Besides the crossover point, what are the other technical differences between the A2 and the A3?

The A2, being designed for use closer to boundaries, has a higher F3 but slightly more midrange/treble sensitivity (not evident in the specs).


The A3 is a "2.5"-way design that fills in the diffraction step and goes lower. You'd use them further out into the room.
 
#131 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane /forum/post/12084623


For best results, the A1 and A2 are designed for closer placement to boundaries than the larger A3 tower, or for that matter, than most fullrange, full-sized speakers. The A3 tower "likes" free-air use, as you would most of those fullrange, full-sized speakers.

How much "free air" are we talking about? I keep going back and forth on A1 vs. A3 for front mains. I'm in an apartment and will be using a small sub so I won't necessarily get all the "benefit" from the bigger cabinet/extended bass. I don't have shelves though so A1s would go on stands. The main benefit for me is flexibility in placement for an A1 vs. A3 unless you don't need *that* much free space around it. But isn't the porting the same on both?
 
#132 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by nostatic13 /forum/post/12200500


How much "free air" are we talking about?

About the same as other fullrange towers, or roughly 2ft plus to the front baffle.

Quote:
I keep going back and forth on A1 vs. A3 for front mains.

The A2 is a nice intermediate step for main L/R too: They'd want a shorter stand than the A1 and about 1' plus from the wall.

Quote:
I'm in an apartment and will be using a small sub so I won't necessarily get all the "benefit" from the bigger cabinet/extended bass.

The A2 could again be an option. A2 planar tweeters rotate 90 degrees, which lets them be used vertically or horizontally.

Quote:
I don't have shelves though so A1s would go on stands. The main benefit for me is flexibility in placement for an A1 vs. A3 unless you don't need *that* much free space around it. But isn't the porting the same on both?

The other advantage to the A3 may be no stand cost.


The bass system is different: The A3 fills in the diffraction step - that area below which the A1's lower midrange and bass becomes onmi-directional and in doing so, begins to drop in level somewhat. Here and below the A3's second, lower woofer comes into play, supporting the lower octaves and balancing the spectrum.
 
#134 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoshizzle /forum/post/12321847


Is there a Dana Owner's Thread?

I believe there is, you may have to search for it.

Quote:
I've heard many good things about the Dana 630......how do they rate vs the Acculine bookshelves? Would you say they are worth the $100 price diff?

I'll answer the first question: They're in the same acoustical class: Both are 5.25" ported compact bookshelf monitors. Drop us a line and we can probably arrange for a comparison in your own system...

Quote:
Can I get the Dana's in a piano black finish?

Almost. Today we signed off on gloss finishes starting Q1 2008 -- all the usual suspects like piano black and gloss rosewood and direct from one of the world's finest plants. I think we can expect good stuff.
 
#136 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane /forum/post/12202850


The A2 is a nice intermediate step for main L/R too: They'd want a shorter stand than the A1 and about 1' plus from the wall.


Any recommendation for stand size for the A2? I'm thinking 26" to put the tweeter roughly where it'd be for the A3 (36"). Also, I'm using a front projector and need to put the center in front of the screen. I see stands that angle the speaker up, which makes sense to me. Any concerns about this center placement? Finally, what about using a vertical placement for the center in a FP setup? Would this be best even though the three speakers will not be the same height?
 
#138 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane /forum/post/12323572


I believe there is, you may have to search for it.


Almost. Today we signed off on gloss finishes starting Q1 2008 -- all the usual suspects like piano black and gloss rosewood and direct from one of the world's finest plants. I think we can expect good stuff.

I searched for Dana but didn't find any Owner's Thread.


Re: Piano Black - Does that mean they will be available for purchase near the end of Q1 '08? Will this finish cost extra? I saw the current special you have on the Diva system.....will there be something similar for the Dana's.....especially since I read your post about a new upgraded Dana line in the future.


I apologize since my questions don't relate to the Acculine series. If there is a more appropriate thread, please let me know.


I'm ready to pull the trigger on a 5.1 setup in Piano Black. The Dana's and Aperion are at the top of my list. Axiom is almost twice the price for Piano Black!!
 
#139 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoshizzle /forum/post/12332476


I searched for Dana but didn't find any Owner's Thread.

I believe this is it.

Quote:
Re: Piano Black - Does that mean they will be available for purchase near the end of Q1 '08?

Well within Q1.


Quote:
Will this finish cost extra?

If it does, not much more.

Quote:
I saw the current special you have on the Diva system.....will there be something similar for the Dana's.....especially since I read your post about a new upgraded Dana line in the future.

Unless we're discontinuing a product, TAI very rarely runs further discounts -- we feel the standard Internet-direct rate is quite competitive. We've had one further major sale event in four years.
 
#141 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoshizzle /forum/post/12332476


The Dana's and Aperion are at the top of my list. Axiom is almost twice the price for Piano Black!!

I auditioned the Aperions and Swans together. The Aperions were very good for HT but I found the treble to be harsh for music at elevated volumes. My Swan 5.1 and 4.1 are both more musical then the Aperion 533ts that I auditioned. If, as everyone says, the Dana are more refined then they will surely be much better for music then the Aperions were. Nice thing about the APerions is their 30 day free audition though. ANd the customer service is awsome as well.
 
#142 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by usp1 /forum/post/12354399


I auditioned the Aperions and Swans together. The Aperions were very good for HT but I found the treble to be harsh for music at elevated volumes. My Swan 5.1 and 4.1 are both more musical then the Aperion 533ts that I auditioned. If, as everyone says, the Dana are more refined then they will surely be much better for music then the Aperions were. Nice thing about the APerions is their 30 day free audition though. ANd the customer service is awsome as well.

Thanks for your input! I'm probably going to use 70% HT 20% Music and 10% gaming.


I keep reading the same thing about the Dana's being very detailed for music.......does that translate into a good HT speaker as well? I prefer detail and clarity over loud and muddy if I had to choose.
 
#143 ·
I am thinking of buying 3 of the A2's as LCR speakers. However, I just noticed the Nominal Impedance is 4 Ohms. I have the Onkyo 705. Does it have enough power to drive these speakers? The A1's are 8Ohm. What is the difference and or benefit of 4 or 6 ohm speakers versus 8 ohms?
 
#144 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoshizzle /forum/post/12362861


Thanks for your input! I'm probably going to use 70% HT 20% Music and 10% gaming.


I keep reading the same thing about the Dana's being very detailed for music.......does that translate into a good HT speaker as well? I prefer detail and clarity over loud and muddy if I had to choose.

I have a 630 LR, 660 C and it is shocking how articulate the vocals are. And especially at low (reasonable) volumes. I am finding it to be an excellent HT speaker.
 
#146 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by usp1 /forum/post/12363460


phoshizzle,


Unless you want really high SPLs a good music speaker should work well for HT. For good HT performance you will need a good center and a good sub. So if the Dana center speaker is as good as the Swan center, you should have no problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostatic13 /forum/post/12363403


I have a 630 LR, 660 C and it is shocking how articulate the vocals are. And especially at low (reasonable) volumes. I am finding it to be an excellent HT speaker.

Thanks.


I might audition the Aperions w the Danas to see which sound better. Are there any reviews which compare the two? I've seen several on the Danas and read the CNET review of the Aperions but am curious how they stack up against each other?
 
#147 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoshizzle /forum/post/12366056


Thanks.


I might audition the Aperions w the Danas to see which sound better. Are there any reviews which compare the two? I've seen several on the Danas and read the CNET review of the Aperions but am curious how they stack up against each other?

Not to say they don't exist but I haven't seen any comparisons of the two. Based on what I know of Dana and what I've read about Aperion, my prediction is you'll prefer the Danas but until you hear both, who knows. If you do, I hope you'll post your impressions here on the forum.
 
#149 ·
I've owned Aperion 633's, 533's, and 532's... and now have a pair of Dana 930's in-house. The Dana sound, IMO, is leagues better than any of the Aperions I've tried out. Now, granted, I'm talking about the top-end 930's.. but every comment I've seen on the 630's has been stellar as well.
 
#150 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by einsteinjb /forum/post/12366887


Not to say they don't exist but I haven't seen any comparisons of the two. Based on what I know of Dana and what I've read about Aperion, my prediction is you'll prefer the Danas but until you hear both, who knows. If you do, I hope you'll post your impressions here on the forum.

Definitely will post my impressions of the two. Right now I've gotta figure out how I'm going to place the cc though.....


Does anyone know what program to use to post a sketch of my room config?
 
#151 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by jephdood /forum/post/12367010


I've owned Aperion 633's, 533's, and 532's... and now have a pair of Dana 930's in-house. The Dana sound, IMO, is leagues better than any of the Aperions I've tried out. Now, granted, I'm talking about the top-end 930's.. but every comment I've seen on the 630's has been stellar as well.

I've seen these Dana 930s mentioned but couldn't find them anywhere on TAI site. Am I missing something?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top