Acculine Owners Thread - Page 5

Tawaun, what about the Dana 930s? I know you love yours as much as I love mine. How do the A3s compare to them?

you have 930's also? what other speakers have you heard and how do the 930's compare to them?

Tawaun,

would you ever think of an informal "craig sub style" speaker rankings list? I'm sure it would be immensley popular given all the speakers you've listened to

This report has just about pushed me over the edge! I think I am going to have to order some A1's to check them out. I would like to know all the criteria that was being used when these were "scored":

Ascend 340's: 66.38 points
Acculine A1's: 76.19 points

That's a pretty fair margin for a speaker priced as low as the A1 and considering how well regarded teh 340's are. Amazing!

Would it be better to use 3 x A2, 3 x A1, or A1/A2/A1 for LCR? Advantages, disadvantages, best sound?

TIA!

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.

With this in mind, if you're working in a wall unit, close to back walls, or in any somewhat enclosed space (hence the "bookshelf" in bookshelf speakers) I'd consider either the A1 for LCRE, or the A2 for LCR and the A1 for effects. The A2 has a rotating tweeter so it can be used horizontally or vertically. The A1 should always be used vertically.

The difference between the A1 and A2 is that the latter has twice the available acoustic output -- doubled midbass area and displacement and twice the thermal power handling. It simply goes much louder. It also has a somewhat more cohesive directivity, giving it some advantages where more consistent dispersion is a plus.

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.

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.

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?

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


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.


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


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.

Is there a Dana Owner's Thread? 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?

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

TIA

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


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...


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.

if you want you can listen to my 630s when they show up (should be soon). I'm in west LA.

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?

Thanks! I'll keep that in mind....

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!!

I believe this is it.


Well within Q1.


If it does, not much more.


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.

I see great reviews about these speakers. Mostly though I see comments about these speakers in terms of music. How do they sound as home theater speakers? I will use them 50% for music and 50% for movies.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Best thing to do. It also helps that the APerion audition is cost-free. Atleast from the pictures the Dana and Aperion look quite similar - understated scandanavian furniture chic.

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.

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?