**The Official Arx owner's thread (A1, A1b, A2, A2b, A3, A5, etc.)** - Page 3

Arx A1b measurements and an FR graph have been posted by Jon @ TAI:

http://www.theaudioinsider.com/forum/showthread.php?1904-Arx-A1b-response

"Since TAI does not recommend measured response as the primary indicator of speaker sound, and since over-reliance on specs and measurements can mislead a buyer, we haven't posted response plots. We're going to experiment with them starting with the Arx A1b.

Major vertical divisions are ten Decibels apart and minor divisions are 3.33dB apart. The A1b's response is therefore +/- less than 2dB from the low forties to beyond 20kHz.

Remember that good measured response may indicate competent design, but it does not guarantee good sound. There's a good argument that modern commercial speaker design relies on cookie cutter methods to achieve acceptable measured response. Sound from a lot of pop brands is average at best.

Like all Arx and Dana models the A1b's response owes to lots of design modeling and just as much listening and verifying. The A1b uses a transfer function between the two drivers that renders good off axis power response and an in-phase summation. The speaker's impedance magnitude remains above 6.5 ohms throughout it's range.

The design includes diffraction step compensation and may be converted for boundary reinforcement by stopping the ports with Arx port plugs. "



"Further thoughts: TAI isn't advocating proof by measurement and therefore we're really not suggesting that simple plots - which vary depending on who takes them, with what, where, and how - should be used to compete one product against the other.

This does happen, and when it does becomes what we feared, which is that a suite of partial data becomes a yardstick. This does not inform the user in his best interest, but moves him around the market in a way not directly related to what TAI is trying to provide, which is an in-home experience.

We're suggesting a quick review of the graphical data just to confirm that this and our other models aren't just parts thrown into a box. Each design reflects a comprehensive program of objective testing (within the limits of testing, which are significant), days of modeling proofs, and weeks of confirmation testing. Design proof should be evident in the data and nothing more.

The A1b is a $300 product and its design has not been compromised to hit this price point. It's true that it costs half of what similar audiophile designs using antiquated technologies did in 1983 dollars did thirty years ago, but the ultimate test must still be how it sounds in the user's system to the user's ears. Products in similar acoustical classes - in the A1b's case, all 5.25" 2-way stand monitors - sound different from one another and must be heard to determine how. Competing them against one another in a good-better-best matrix based on measurement alone is deeply misleading.

The user's experience does not come from a graph, and it should not be influenced by one. "



"This is the 1w/1m on axis response of the Arx A1b taken perpendicular to the vertical middle of the baffle."


Edited by BufordTJustice - 1/6/13 at 2:42pm

The A3's soundstage is just as wide as the A1b's. The A5's is noticeably wider...it literally wraps around you with quality stereo recordings. This is due to its damn-fine dedicated midrange driver.

They get even sweeter with time. Wait and see.

You're certainly using the right amplification. I use an Arcam AVR300 w/ toroidal transformer and the Arx's LOVE the high current goodness that quality amplification brings. Make sure you're using 14ga or bigger cable. I use the BJC ultra-sonically welded 10ga speaker cable with WBT connectors to great effect. However, even Monoprice 14 awg stuff is great.

I actually have the A3's in my living room as well. I demo'd them during the A5's development so Jon and I had reference points for performance. The A3's are 2.5 way...which means the bottom woofer plays only bass frequencies, while the top woofer acts as a woofer and a midrange and actually crosses-over with the tweeter. They sound a little "bigger" than the A1b's because they a) have twice as much bass radiating surface area and b) the added bass creates a sense of depth to recordings.

Just as adding a subwoofer to some NHT Super Zero's makes them sound like completely different speakers, so does moving from the A3, though the difference would be less stark between the A1b and A3.

The A5's needed to be noticeably better than the A3's...which were already damn fine and stand among very few true competitors at their $500 per pair price point. All Arx products have a "blackness" to them that allows you to hear INTO the recordings. Like in the Rolling Stones 'Gimme Shelter' off of their 40 licks album...in the bridge, just after he female vocalists' voice cracks....you can hear Mick actually reacting to her voice cracking and her effort by a "whoa!" or "Yeah!" (hard to tell). This is, by far, favorite Stones song of all time....and as many times as I had heard it before...on so many systems and speakers, I had never really heard into it enough to realize that I was MISSING that little tidbit of sonic info. It just wasn't there. Well, the A5's made it "appear".

Another example of what gets lost in most speakers: the bongos in the Stones tune "You can't always get what you want". They tend to disappear during the busy passages of the song until you hear it on a quality set of speakers, such as Arx.

Agreed on the BJC. They are pleasantly neutral.

The new tweeter is actually slightly more sensitive and has slightly lower distortion (and a little more power handling) than the current planar tweeter. Their sound is supposed to be near identical except for a flatter response to over 30khz (the current tweeter easily reaches into the 20's). The current tweeter is certainly not weak. I've actually never heard the current tweeter distort, though it has made my ears hurt. I have a background in pro audio, mixing front of house for concerts and productions.....so I'm very familiar with what constitutes "loud" and what does not. Jon tasked me with torture testing the A3's and then the A5's....and please believe me when I say that I played them LOUD. The Arx tweeter plays plenty loud.

The Arx midwoofer, due to its extreme excursion capabilities, does require some "working in" time for the long-throw suspension to soften up some.

Also, the Sierra-1 is obviously tuned differently from Arx. It is a little hotter in the high mid range than Arx. I've heard both. While I wouldn't describe the Sierra-1 as "bright", it is forward in the highs as the volume rises. I have been able to play Arx products much louder and still not experience any listener fatigue. If this listener prefers Arx, then he prefers Arx. If he didn't like the Sierra-1...then he didn't like it. You're not in a position to invalidate his opinion...nobody is.

Loudspeakers can be very preference driven.

As for the songs, it shines at all volume levels. Arx products sound great even at very low volume levels. Their resolution is outstanding.

The A5's are the most transparent. Disappearing into a "wall of music" is an Arx trait, if there were one singular defining element to the line. The A5's literally create wrap-around stereo. They create such a large, cohesive image that when I first began testing the prototypes for Jon, I repeatedly watched Blu ray movies in stereo only (forgetting to change to 5.1 surround) and I was completely unaware that the center channel of surrounds were off. The voices appeared to emanate directly from the TV screen, anchored in the center, effects seemed to emanate from well outside the physical confines of the A5's, with some crazy phase-manipulated effects seeming to come even from the sides and behind. If your room is that small, the Arx tuning system port plugs could be inserted and/or the speakers set to "small" in your bass management settings. The midrange offers unprecedented clarity for an under $1K tower.

When Jon and I were working on the A5's, he and I agreed that they were to be refined and tuned to the level of a stand-alone pair of stereo reference speakers. We agreed that we would settle for nothing less. They come across as refined stand monitors that happen to have incredible bass extension and authority. They are like the A1b with refinement and clarity turned up to "12" (not just "11"). The tweeter sounds the same...but you can get LOST in the midrange. It's a very expensive and refined sound...ESPECIALLY for the price.

No need to get into an argument. You stated the following:

"I would think that anything audible would happen within the first few minutes/hours. I would think our EARS are more of what's "breaking in", but that's just me and I have no medical proof or anything like that lol. Going from the RC-10's to the Sierra-1's and thinking they're bright kinda furthers my point. Maybe think they're neutral and obviously Dave hadn't heard that someone thought they were sibilant or bright too often. "

I disagree that his ears have broken-in at all. He spent time with the Sierra-1's and didn't like them. It's not a knock on the Sierra's at all...he just didn't like them.

Your implication that his ears may have been breaking in, and your referencing his previous speakers (RC-10's) as a source of bias suggests that he is somehow mistaken. Have I taken these statements out of context? How else am I supposed to interpret what you wrote, if not than to undermine his listening experience with the Sierra's?

Also, your opinion about LOZO'S OPINION is what I am discussing. I think Lozo is intelligent enough to speak for himself.

EDIT: I'll add that some people will favor one brand's "sound" over any other. For some it is Salk, others Philharmonic, others GoldenEar, others Ascend, others Arx, etc. Ad infinitum. You use the word opinion, but then begin to "decode" Lozo's opinion about what HE MEANT. If you're unsure of what he meant...how about we just ask him, no?

Everybody IS entitled to an opinion. We are NOT entitled to interpret the opinions of others when they are here to speak.

So, if I have somehow interpreted your post incorrectly, please tell me how I should interpret it, as I am at a loss right now.
Edited by BufordTJustice - 1/8/13 at 2:49pm

Again, you are NOT entitled to interpret Lozo's opinion. You can and have offered your own. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

The Sierra's are fantastic speakers, without caveat. They are very well designed and use top quality drivers, materials, and workmanship. They just didn't fit you...and that's okay. There will be plenty of people who will find that Arx doesn't fit them...and that is okay as well.

I had an NAD T751 before my Arcam and NAD's do indeed bring warmth to any speaker. If you tried the Sierra's with NAD power and you found them too strident, it wasn't gonna get any warmer than that.

I'm not giving you one inch on this. You can attempt to twist what I have said all you want, but it stands nonetheless. You made statements and drew conclusions that INTERPRETED what another forum member posted. That is misleading since the other forum member (Lozo) could EASILY be consulted for his own opinion or for clarification. He didn't need you to provide it for him.

You're talking about providing reasons to explain another member's personal opinions about the sound of a loudspeaker when that person is here to provide the clarification. That's akin to guessing what your girl wants for dinner when she's sitting right next to you. I have a better solution that will prevent needless conjecture and bias: JUST ASK HER.

You can waste your breath...I can't stop you. But I'm not going to sit idly by and be silent when you attempt to inject needless bias into an argument. It's not primitive; it's logical. I can explain this to you, but I can't understand it for you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interpret

Definition of INTERPRET
transitive verb

1: to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms

Since Lozo is here and is active (and not banned or in another state of limbo), why, would you waste time with a two-degrees-detached piece of conjecture about what Lozo said? If we're after accuracy and truth I audio and video, why even put the "S" at the ed of the forum name? Unless you are close personal friends with Lozo, there is no way that you could know what he means if he does not say it. None of us can. Yet you still have attempted to interpret what he said on his behalf.

So, I'm going to ask in all politeness and with due respect....please just leave this thread after you're done talking with me.

You can try to appeal to my masculinity all you want. I didn't misunderstand you. I saw through you. Just be warned, every time you try to spin an opinion, I'm gonna be here to challenge you on it. The conjecture started with you.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

I have already explained why a break in is required.... due to the long travel suspension. I know this through first hand experience.

I don't understand why you would add speculation when you could just ask. Instead, you implied that Lozo's hearing was off and that the changes in what he heard didn't really exist. In what world is this okay?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2