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