or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › **The Official Chane M&C 'Arx' owner's thread (A1, A1b, A2, A2b, A3, A5, etc.)**
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #61 of 494
Thread Starter 
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
post #62 of 494
Hi folks,

I just got my ARX A1b's in today and hooked them up, I will break them in for some time (30-100hrs) but did take a listen to them fresh out of the box. I immediately was suprised by the neutrality of the sound.

I am trying to re-build a hi-fi system around an NAD T748. I orginally had Energy RC10's. Those for the money ($200), sounded great but wanted better soundstaging and definitiion. Next I tried the Ascend Sierra 1's with base tweeter. I really wanted to like those puppies, incredible detail but the sound to my ears was too forward. I actually had a couple of emails with Dave at Ascend Acoustics and he was very surprised by my findings. He feels that with the base tweeter the Sierras are actually warm. I just couldn't get over the extreme detail they presented...too much for me, it actually rendered some of my cd's worthless.

Now back to the ARX A1b's. As I said I immediately sat down and listened to a couple of cd's and did not hear the high end forwardness I was hearing from the Sierra's...neutral sounding...right out of the box. I can't wait to hear them once they are broken in, hoping that they still retain the neutrality and slight warmth they have right now.

In any case...I hope I have found my liitle bookshelfs! If these continue to improve in sound quality then I may be tempted to move up to the A3's or A5's.

I would like feedback from A3 or A5 owners...in particular I do not want to lose the soundstage (width and depth). So if I move up to the A3 or A5 what do I gain or lose?
post #63 of 494
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lozoyad View Post

Hi folks,
I just got my ARX A1b's in today and hooked them up, I will break them in for some time (30-100hrs) but did take a listen to them fresh out of the box. I immediately was suprised by the neutrality of the sound.
I am trying to re-build a hi-fi system around an NAD T748. I orginally had Energy RC10's. Those for the money ($200), sounded great but wanted better soundstaging and definitiion. Next I tried the Ascend Sierra 1's with base tweeter. I really wanted to like those puppies, incredible detail but the sound to my ears was too forward. I actually had a couple of emails with Dave at Ascend Acoustics and he was very surprised by my findings. He feels that with the base tweeter the Sierras are actually warm. I just couldn't get over the extreme detail they presented...too much for me, it actually rendered some of my cd's worthless.
Now back to the ARX A1b's. As I said I immediately sat down and listened to a couple of cd's and did not hear the high end forwardness I was hearing from the Sierra's...neutral sounding...right out of the box. I can't wait to hear them once they are broken in, hoping that they still retain the neutrality and slight warmth they have right now.
In any case...I hope I have found my liitle bookshelfs! If these continue to improve in sound quality then I may be tempted to move up to the A3's or A5's.
I would like feedback from A3 or A5 owners...in particular I do not want to lose the soundstage (width and depth). So if I move up to the A3 or A5 what do I gain or lose?

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. smile.gif 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.
post #64 of 494
Going from A1s to A5s was a HUGE leap forward in soundstage, output, bass, midrange clarity. I've never heard the A3 but from the way Jon described them is the top half is just like the A1 but with an extra limited bass woofer for extend/more bass.

I have found that I sit and listen to the Arx setup for longer periods than any other speakers i've ever owned. I think it just goes to show how natural and easy sounding they are.
post #65 of 494
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Going from A1s to A5s was a HUGE leap forward in soundstage, output, bass, midrange clarity. I've never heard the A3 but from the way Jon described them is the top half is just like the A1 but with an extra limited bass woofer for extend/more bass.
I have found that I sit and listen to the Arx setup for longer periods than any other speakers i've ever owned. I think it just goes to show how natural and easy sounding they are.

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".
post #66 of 494
Thread Starter 
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.
post #67 of 494
Wow. Can't wait for the burn in to complete. I am using Blue Jean Cables Twelve White running from my NAD T748 to the ARx A1s. The BJC have a nice sound to them, they don't add stuff or take away stuff.

So the A5's have a bigger soundstage...this is very good news.

I also heard from Jon Lane that he is changing out the tweeter on the A3's...that is why we are not seeing them in stock. He said the sound signature will be the same...just going to a more durable planar tweeter. Not sure if there have been issues with the tweeter or what...or he may just be fine tuning an already great speaker. So having said that, I'm wondering if he has any plans for the A5's?
post #68 of 494
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lozoyad View Post

Wow. Can't wait for the burn in to complete. I am using Blue Jean Cables Twelve White running from my NAD T748 to the ARx A1s. The BJC have a nice sound to them, they don't add stuff or take away stuff.
So the A5's have a bigger soundstage...this is very good news.
I also heard from Jon Lane that he is changing out the tweeter on the A3's...that is why we are not seeing them in stock. He said the sound signature will be the same...just going to a more durable planar tweeter. Not sure if there have been issues with the tweeter or what...or he may just be fine tuning an already great speaker. So having said that, I'm wondering if he has any plans for the A5's?

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. wink.gif
post #69 of 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by lozoyad View Post

Hi folks,
I just got my ARX A1b's in today and hooked them up, I will break them in for some time (30-100hrs) but did take a listen to them fresh out of the box. I immediately was suprised by the neutrality of the sound.
I am trying to re-build a hi-fi system around an NAD T748. I orginally had Energy RC10's. Those for the money ($200), sounded great but wanted better soundstaging and definitiion. Next I tried the Ascend Sierra 1's with base tweeter. I really wanted to like those puppies, incredible detail but the sound to my ears was too forward. I actually had a couple of emails with Dave at Ascend Acoustics and he was very surprised by my findings. He feels that with the base tweeter the Sierras are actually warm. I just couldn't get over the extreme detail they presented...too much for me, it actually rendered some of my cd's worthless.
Now back to the ARX A1b's. As I said I immediately sat down and listened to a couple of cd's and did not hear the high end forwardness I was hearing from the Sierra's...neutral sounding...right out of the box. I can't wait to hear them once they are broken in, hoping that they still retain the neutrality and slight warmth they have right now.
In any case...I hope I have found my liitle bookshelfs! If these continue to improve in sound quality then I may be tempted to move up to the A3's or A5's.
I would like feedback from A3 or A5 owners...in particular I do not want to lose the soundstage (width and depth). So if I move up to the A3 or A5 what do I gain or lose?

Maybe some can chime in here, but in all reality...how much "break in" is needed for speakers. 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. The jump in sonic signatures from the RC-10 to the Sierra-1...I would think (my opinion) was the culprit there. How long did you get to listen to them before sending them back/selling them?

I'm always up for a discussion with actual facts, studies, etc....just wanted to make sure everyone in the Arx thread knew I'm not trying to knock a speaker or whatever. Here to learn and make some E-friends lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

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".

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

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.

I'm interested to go home and try these 2 songs on my e55ti's and see if I get those characteristics to shine through. Is there any volume level that they finally come through for you, is this little sonic tidbit there at all volumes on the Arx's or what??
post #70 of 494
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

Maybe some can chime in here, but in all reality...how much "break in" is needed for speakers. 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. The jump in sonic signatures from the RC-10 to the Sierra-1...I would think (my opinion) was the culprit there. How long did you get to listen to them before sending them back/selling them?

I'm always up for a discussion with actual facts, studies, etc....just wanted to make sure everyone in the Arx thread knew I'm not trying to knock a speaker or whatever. Here to learn and make some E-friends lol

I'm interested to go home and try these 2 songs on my e55ti's and see if I get those characteristics to shine through. Is there any volume level that they finally come through for you, is this little sonic tidbit there at all volumes on the Arx's or what??

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.
post #71 of 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

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. wink.gif

Thx BTJ for the quick responses. I don't play my music as load as I think you are discribing. LOL. Here I am discussing the A5...I haven't even broken in the A1b! Crazy huh? However, if I buy the ARX A5, will it disappear into the music, much like a well designed bookshelf will? Some claim that floor standing speakers tend to resonate a bit more and radiate sound waves more...thus lending themselves to behave differently than a bookshelf. Also, am wondering if the A5 may be too large for my room. My media room is 15x15.5ft, carpeted...so I'm thinking at worst the A3 but would rather go with the A5 if it will 'fit' my enclosed media room. What do you think?
post #72 of 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

Maybe some can chime in here, but in all reality...how much "break in" is needed for speakers. 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 . Going from the RC-10's to the Sierra-1's and thinking they're bright kinda furthers my point. Most think they're neutral and obviously Dave hadn't heard that someone thought they were sibilant or bright too often. The jump in sonic signatures from the RC-10 to the Sierra-1...I would think (my opinion) was the culprit there. How long did you get to listen to them before sending them back/selling them?

I'm always up for a discussion with actual facts, studies, etc....just wanted to make sure everyone in the Arx thread knew I'm not trying to knock a speaker or whatever. Here to learn and make some E-friends lol

I'm interested to go home and try these 2 songs on my e55ti's and see if I get those characteristics to shine through. Is there any volume level that they finally come through for you, is this little sonic tidbit there at all volumes on the Arx's or what??

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

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.

Firstly, I'm not sure how many more ridiculously apparent comments I can make stating those were MY OPINIONS and that I was looking for other "views" on the subject. Second, just because you've heard the speaker (Sierra-1) doesn't mean everyone else will hear the speaker the same way you did. Ultimately, I couldn't care less whether he prefers Arx or any other speaker for that matter. My comments were non-attacking opinions. EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this forum is in no position to offer anything but an OPINION in regards to comments. Your comment about speakers being preference driven couldn't have been closer to my original statement, so I have no clue where any of that came from or why it was needed.

I won't even begin with the last 3 sentences and how that sounds following your post(s). We all understand you like the Arx products. Who are you to tell me how the ARX would sound to me though? You're in no position


...at the end of the day....it's a FORUM. Most are here to learn and talk like adults about the products....
Edited by ousooner2 - 1/8/13 at 2:27pm
post #73 of 494
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lozoyad View Post

Thx BTJ for the quick responses. I don't play my music as load as I think you are discribing. LOL. Here I am discussing the A5...I haven't even broken in the A1b! Crazy huh? However, if I buy the ARX A5, will it disappear into the music, much like a well designed bookshelf will? Some claim that floor standing speakers tend to resonate a bit more and radiate sound waves more...thus lending themselves to behave differently than a bookshelf. Also, am wondering if the A5 may be too large for my room. My media room is 15x15.5ft, carpeted...so I'm thinking at worst the A3 but would rather go with the A5 if it will 'fit' my enclosed media room. What do you think?

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.
post #74 of 494
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

Firstly, I'm not sure how many more ridiculously apparent comments I can make stating those were MY OPINIONS and that I was looking for other "views" on the subject. Second, just because you've heard the speaker (Sierra-1) doesn't mean everyone else will hear the speaker the same way you did. Ultimately, I couldn't care less whether he prefers Arx or any other speaker for that matter. My comments were non-attacking opinions. EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this forum is in no position to offer anything but an OPINION in regards to comments. Your comment about speakers being preference driven couldn't have been closer to my original statement, so I have no clue where any of that came from or why it was needed.
I won't even begin to start with the last 3 sentences and how that sounds following your post(s)...

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
post #75 of 494
I'm not going to clutter a thread b/c there is nothing more annoying than that...BUT

You disagreeing about those things makes it YOUR OPINION. Unless you have clear cut proof (be it medical or audio related) it's an OPINION. Nothing more. I'm clearly stating my OPINION on my audition of the RC-10's and how they sounded to me. Again, I could care less if he enjoyed them or not because at the end of the day if he's happy then that's all that matters. If he didn't like the Sierra-1's at first then why is the option of possibly liking them after the speaker breaks in taken off the table?

Look how peoples opinions change during speaker comparisons. Is the speaker breaking in during that time also? Look at how one persons bright is another persons neutral. We all perceive things differently for some reason and I'd bet our ears play a larger role than the break in of a speaker. I'm not even saying speaker break in isn't true, as I believe it might happen to some extent, but I feel our ears have more of a control on perception of sound.


AGAIN, I have NO PROOF of any of this and all of this is my opinion. You and everyone else here is free to think/say whatever they'd like. That's the nature of a forum...
post #76 of 494
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

I'm not going to clutter a thread b/c there is nothing more annoying than that...BUT
You disagreeing about those things makes it YOUR OPINION. Unless you have clear cut proof (be it medical or audio related) it's an OPINION. Nothing more. I'm clearly stating my OPINION on my audition of the RC-10's and how they sounded to me. Again, I could care less if he enjoyed them or not because at the end of the day if he's happy then that's all that matters. If he didn't like the Sierra-1's at first then why is the option of possibly liking them after the speaker breaks in taken off the table?
Look how peoples opinions change during speaker comparisons. Is the speaker breaking in during that time also? Look at how one persons bright is another persons neutral. We all perceive things differently for some reason and I'd bet our ears play a larger role than the break in of a speaker. I'm not even saying speaker break in isn't true, as I believe it might happen to some extent, but I feel our ears have more of a control on perception of sound.
AGAIN, I have NO PROOF of any of this and all of this is my opinion. You and everyone else here is free to think/say whatever they'd like. That's the nature of a forum...

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.
post #77 of 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

Maybe some can chime in here, but in all reality...how much "break in" is needed for speakers. 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. The jump in sonic signatures from the RC-10 to the Sierra-1...I would think (my opinion) was the culprit there. How long did you get to listen to them before sending them back/selling them?
I'm always up for a discussion with actual facts, studies, etc....just wanted to make sure everyone in the Arx thread knew I'm not trying to knock a speaker or whatever. Here to learn and make some E-friends lol
I'm interested to go home and try these 2 songs on my e55ti's and see if I get those characteristics to shine through. Is there any volume level that they finally come through for you, is this little sonic tidbit there at all volumes on the Arx's or what??


Sure no problem. I also have NHT 2.5i as a reference. So the Energy RC10 were the only other bookshelf I had on hand to compare. The Sierra's indeed sounded way too forward for my tastes. It all about perception and what you like..right? I perceived the Sierra as a very well made speaker, Dave and company took great care in building a fine product. There is no complaints about the craftmanship. Nice implementation. I simply did not like the sound signature in the high region. I broke them in for 100+ hrs and held on to them till the 25th day. Trust me, I tried hard to make them fit in. I started them off with a Denon 3310ci, then the NAD T748 and lastly an Emotiva amp in hopes that would help clean up the highs a bit. The NAD has a well known 'warmish' sound signature to it, coupled with the Sierras, the sound did improve but not enough for me. Playing the NHT 2.5i produced the familiar NHT sound, no where near as detailed but nowhere near as forward. Having said all that, the ARX A1b immediately cured the issue. The Sierras were actually shipped back before I got the ARX A1b, but I can easyily recall what they sounded like and the ARX A1b is a neutral speaker in comparison right out of the box. .

I realize I'm going against the grain of many that love the Sierras, all I can say is that they are not for me but as stated earlier they sure are nicely built and that soundstage was just unbelievable...wish I could have made them work for me.
post #78 of 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by lozoyad View Post

Sure no problem. I also have NHT 2.5i as a reference. So the Energy RC10 were the only other bookshelf I had on hand to compare. The Sierra's indeed sounded way too forward for my tastes. It all about perception and what you like..right? I perceived the Sierra as a very well made speaker, Dave and company took great care in building a fine product. There is no complaints about the craftmanship. Nice implementation. I simply did not like the sound signature in the high region. I broke them in for 100+ hrs and held on to them till the 25th day. Trust me, I tried hard to make them fit in. I started them off with a Denon 3310ci, then the NAD T748 and lastly an Emotiva amp in hopes that would help clean up the highs a bit. The NAD has a well known 'warmish' sound signature to it, coupled with the Sierras, the sound did improve but not enough for me. Playing the NHT 2.5i produced the familiar NHT sound, no where near as detailed but nowhere near as forward. Having said all that, the ARX A1b immediately cured the issue. The Sierras were actually shipped back before I got the ARX A1b, but I can easyily recall what they sounded like and the ARX A1b is a neutral speaker in comparison right out of the box. .
I realize I'm going against the grain of many that love the Sierras, all I can say is that they are not for me but as stated earlier they sure are nicely built and that soundstage was just unbelievable...wish I could have made them work for me.

Glad your liking the Arx so far. You would really like the A5s and also the A2s as vertical mains are also very nice. Same sound as the A1s but with more bass, dynamics and output. I do think the A5s might be slightly more forward than the A1s are but not by much.
post #79 of 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

Maybe some can chime in here, but in all reality...how much "break in" is needed for speakers. 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.

From my perspective the A1b's took longer to break in then most other bookshelf speakers I've run across. Initially they seemed a bit thin, but now they sound anything but. Interestingly, they had pinpoint accuracy right out of the box. At higher volumes I do sense a bit of compression, but that usually doesn't start to occur until I'm beyond 0dB. I'm running them with the port plugged though, so you may find a different characteristic if they're used as bass reflex.
post #80 of 494
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lozoyad View Post

Sure no problem. I also have NHT 2.5i as a reference. So the Energy RC10 were the only other bookshelf I had on hand to compare. The Sierra's indeed sounded way too forward for my tastes. It all about perception and what you like..right? I perceived the Sierra as a very well made speaker, Dave and company took great care in building a fine product. There is no complaints about the craftmanship. Nice implementation. I simply did not like the sound signature in the high region. I broke them in for 100+ hrs and held on to them till the 25th day. Trust me, I tried hard to make them fit in. I started them off with a Denon 3310ci, then the NAD T748 and lastly an Emotiva amp in hopes that would help clean up the highs a bit. The NAD has a well known 'warmish' sound signature to it, coupled with the Sierras, the sound did improve but not enough for me. Playing the NHT 2.5i produced the familiar NHT sound, no where near as detailed but nowhere near as forward. Having said all that, the ARX A1b immediately cured the issue. The Sierras were actually shipped back before I got the ARX A1b, but I can easyily recall what they sounded like and the ARX A1b is a neutral speaker in comparison right out of the box. .
I realize I'm going against the grain of many that love the Sierras, all I can say is that they are not for me but as stated earlier they sure are nicely built and that soundstage was just unbelievable...wish I could have made them work for me.

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.
post #81 of 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

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.

Wow hahah. So I'm NOT entitled to make my own opinion or offer a possible cause for someone else's findings or opinon? Some primitive thinking there my friend
post #82 of 494
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

Wow hahah. So I'm NOT entitled to make my own opinion or offer a possible cause for someone else's findings or opinon? Some primitive thinking there my friend

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.
post #83 of 494
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

Wow hahah. So I'm NOT entitled to make my own opinion or offer a possible cause for someone else's findings or opinon? Some primitive thinking there my friend

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.
post #84 of 494
Everybody just take a deep breath and calm down. No reason to turn this helpful thread into a fight feast for pages and pages. Misunderstanding on both parts and just move on discussing the topic, Arx setup, technology, comparisons ect... Not arguing over what might just have been a total misunderstanding.

Thank You smile.gif

Now back on topic.
post #85 of 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

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.


Ahahahha man....you're a trip my friend. I'm beginning to think you're a little off, but who knows. If you come from anything of a scientific background....that is what the "S" in this forum is about correct?.......you'd know that factual results are made by people bouncing ideas of each other. Those ideas are known as OPINIONS. You can interpret finding and make your own conclusions/opinions about what you think something means. If you were not allowed to draw our own conclusions about something someone said, then the scientific community wouldn't exist. Well it would, but there would be A TON of misleading, misguided and just downright WRONG statements out there. Not once did I say that my opinions on the subject were anything but that. I'm not sure if I needed to say "in my opinion" 6 more times or 20 more times in that post to get it through to you that it was MY OPINION. I'm allowed, just like every single person on this earth to draw our own conclusions about someone's statements and figure out for yourself what you believe and/or what is ultimately correct. Is that not what happens EVERY SINGLE DAY with this thing we call education? Not sure how far yours goes, but I'm beginning to wonder..

Look at the replies again and you'll see where I stated that everything was MY OPINION. If you'd like to say I interpreted what he heard, then you have that right....or maybe you don't by your standards. You can sit here and post little webstar dictionary terms all day long if you'd like (and I think you just might), but that doesn't make you an educated man. Seems like you're here to see how big you can get you E-dick on these forums. Kind of like an "everyone look at me" kinda guy is the vibe I'm getting, but whatever floats your boat I guess. In my opinion there's not much difference, but that's just my interpretation. You're free to interpret what that means
Edited by ousooner2 - 1/9/13 at 11:32am
post #86 of 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Everybody just take a deep breath and calm down. No reason to turn this helpful thread into a fight feast for pages and pages. Misunderstanding on both parts and just move on discussing the topic, Arx setup, technology, comparisons ect... Not arguing over what might just have been a total misunderstanding.
Thank You smile.gif
Now back on topic.

Lol you're tellin' me! I was hoping someone would chime in with some studies they've read or actual facts about the possible speaker break-in and/or how audible change is perceived in the human body. Nothing more. I stated my opinions on what I thought this guy might be hearing and nothing more. Am I right? Who knows. Am I wrong? Who knows. Only he knows what HE heard, but I sure as hell can add my opinion on why his interpretations may have been that way. Anyways...rolleyes.gif
post #87 of 494
The Arx speakers are not tested and the drivers are install "green" meaning never been powered or played. So when you get the speakers there has never been any content ran through them. So the brand new parts are still stiff. Plus with the excursion of the drivers it takes alittle more effort to "loosen" the suspension and surrounds up. I think theres about a 10-30% change in TS parameters from new to several hours break in and I think the F3 is also lower. I don't think its really about how long you break them in its how you do it. Bass heavy rap cd or action movie would do the job just fine.
post #88 of 494
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

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.


Ahahahha man....you're a trip my friend. I'm beginning to think you're a little off, but who knows. If you come from anything of a scientific background....that is what the "S" in this forum is about correct?.......you'd know that factual results are made by people bouncing ideas of each other. Those ideas are known as OPINIONS. You can interpret finding and make your own conclusions/opinions about what you think something means. If you were not allowed to draw our own conclusions about something someone said, then the scientific community wouldn't exist. Well it would, but there would be A TON of misleading, misguided and just downright WRONG statements out there. Not once did I say that my opinions on the subject were anything but that. I'm not sure if I needed to say "in my opinion" 6 more times or 20 more times in that post to get it through to you that it was MY OPINION. I'm allowed, just like every single person on this earth to draw our own conclusions about someone's statements and figure out for yourself what you believe and/or what is ultimately correct. Is that not what happens EVERY SINGLE DAY with this thing we call education? Not sure how far yours goes, but I'm beginning to wonder..

Look at the replies again and you'll see where I stated that everything was MY OPINION. If you'd like to say I interpreted what he heard, then you have that right....or maybe you don't by your standards. You can sit here and post little webstar dictionary terms all day long if you'd like (and I think you just might), but that doesn't make you an educated man. Seems like you're here to see how big you can get you E-dick on these forums. Kind of like an "everyone look at me" kinda guy is the vibe I'm getting, but whatever floats your boat I guess. In my opinion there's not much difference, but that's just my interpretation. You're free to interpret what that means

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
post #89 of 494
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Everybody just take a deep breath and calm down. No reason to turn this helpful thread into a fight feast for pages and pages. Misunderstanding on both parts and just move on discussing the topic, Arx setup, technology, comparisons ect... Not arguing over what might just have been a total misunderstanding.
Thank You smile.gif
Now back on topic.

Lol you're tellin' me! I was hoping someone would chime in with some studies they've read or actual facts about the possible speaker break-in and/or how audible change is perceived in the human body. Nothing more. I stated my opinions on what I thought this guy might be hearing and nothing more. Am I right? Who knows. Am I wrong? Who knows. Only he knows what HE heard, but I sure as hell can add my opinion on why his interpretations may have been that way. Anyways...rolleyes.gif

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
post #90 of 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by ousooner2 View Post

Wow hahah. So I'm NOT entitled to make my own opinion or offer a possible cause for someone else's findings or opinon? Some primitive thinking there my friend

Anyone & everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion. That goes without saying, but when you "offer a possible cause for someone else's findings or opinon', it could be viewed more as an excuse and/or a rationalization, especially if fans and even staff of a certain ID speaker brand have a history of displaying such behavior to the extreme whenever the sheer horror of somebody actually liking another speaker better than theirs happens. Kind of like Al Gore after the 2000 election.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › **The Official Chane M&C 'Arx' owner's thread (A1, A1b, A2, A2b, A3, A5, etc.)**