[Bill-99]

Hi everyone,

It's been a while since I've been to this forum. Good to see it still flourishing. I'm not new to ACI. I have Panoramas, an Essence, and Sapphire's as my mains, center, and surround speakers, respectively. I'm also using an old Velodyne FSR-12 sub, which mated nicely in the system, all driven by a B&K AVR507 A/V receiver. It's been a great rig.

Recently we made some changes in our family room where all of these speakers live, and the Sapphires now make it kind of tight to get out of our doors onto our deck. It seemed like a pair of Emerald XLs might free up some space, and I could used the Sapphires in a second music-only system hooked to my PC in a fairly small second bedroom. After placing the order with ACI, I discovered that the Sapphires are simply too big for that bedroom room. I can't get them close enough together, and they sound like they're out of phase. In a larger room, they sound fine. Nuts.

So, anyhow, the Emerald XLs arrived today. Being anxious to break them in, I hooked them up to a NAD C325BEE integrated amp and a Sony DVP-NS700H DVD player, and then popped in some tunes. Now, I know that ACI speakers require 60+ hours of break-in to sound their best, and the electronics are definitely a cut or two below my big rig, but even right out of the box, this combo sounds very nice. I've been running a lot of different tunes through this system, and it's quite musical on the cheap. No, it doesn't go LOW but it goes low enough for a lot of applications.

Overall, color me impressed. What a nice way to start the break-in period.

I'll post more if anyone is interested in how this combo progresses.

-Bill

[Bill]

After initially hooking up the Emerald XL's, there was an irritating edgy / etched crispness in some passages. Based on my prior experience with ACI speakers, it seemed likely that these early traits would change quickly. That seems to be the case.

At the 15 hour mark, there doesn't seem to be any of the edgy crispy stuff left. The Emeralds are getting sweeter and more detailed. Sound quality has literally stopped me in my tracks to listen for a few minutes. These speakers are very listenable right now.

Regardless, the game plan is to give them the full 60 hour break-in that ACI recommends.

[Eric]

Let us know your further impressions

[DR]

I will second the break in period. I have Sapphire Xl's, Emerald Xl's and a Force Xl and they do require break in. So if they sound good to you now, just wait!

[Bill]

At the 30 hour mark, the sound is continuing to slowly evolve. Something interesting has come up while doing some listening to see how the speakers had changed. Now, I’ve tried to listen from the same location with the same music at the same volume and with the speakers in the same position. What was audible that was new was some sibilance. What the heck? That drew me back in to listen more closely. Yep, it was definitely there. That was when I noticed that the speakers were toed-in maybe 10 degrees. On a hunch, I changed their position to pretty much no toe-in. The sibilance was gone. So, you have to wonder, did I miss the sibilance originally or did the speakers break-in more to make it noticeable? I’m going with the additional break-in theory for now but it’s impossible to be certain.

The break-in process itself was originally being done using broadcast FM out of the big rig in our family room, but interfered with too many normal activities, like actually using our home theater. For the remainder of the break-in, the Emerald XLs, the NAD integrated, and the Sony DVD player were moved to our bedroom where the Sony is playing a variety of music in repeat-mode off of a CD-R. The bedroom area can be easily closed off from the rest of the living space, making it a convenient location for isolating break-in sound though it won’t garner much SAF (spouse approval factor), especially with everything spread out on the floor. But that’s just a temporary inconvenience. Actually, my wife has been very patient. Her biggest complaint is that she’d like to hear something other than the 3 disks that have been playing in repeat mode.

[Mike Dzurko]

Thanks for writing Bill. DR is right, it will just continue to get better   Looking forward to your continued impressions.

[Bill]

Eric - DR - Mike,

Thanks for the feedback, and no problem. I was taking notes anyhow, so why not share? 

I've been thinking about posting some other impressions after the break-in:
- Emerald XL stand-alone
- Emerald XL with a sub
- Emerald XL vs Sapphire
- Emerald XL vs Panorama
- Emerald XL as surrounds in the big rig
Maybe some other stuff in this vein. Some of it depends on how much free time I can find, and any suggestions you might have to refine the list of tests. All input welcome, especially if you see that I'm in the weeds.

Well, back to the waiting and break-in.

[Bill]

At the 45 hour mark, the sound is still continuing to evolve. Near the beginning of this 15 hour break-in segment, it seemed like the bass was filling out but was muffled by the carpet where the speakers were sitting. No problem. The speakers are now perched atop two 100-disk CD-R storage container tubes – a temporary measure to get the Emerald XL’s off the floor. That cleaned up the bass a lot. In fact, the bass that’s present right now is quite a bit more than I was expecting. Some real measurements with warble tones at various frequencies should provide more meaningful insight but it sounds like there is usable LF below 70Hz. Stay tuned.

As the break-in has continued in our bedroom, three things have become clear. First, this room has pretty decent acoustical properties. The Emerald XL’s sound great in there just sitting on the CD-R tubes. Second, it’s now clear how the Emerald XL’s would make a nice 5.1 bedroom system. Maybe that should be on my Christmas wish list, though a more likely gift is another tie I don’t wear.

What about the third item? Well, as the speakers have continued to break-in, the amount of detail has risen, and that has exposed just how bad some of my recordings are. Mind, some things sound great, but there’s a bit of ruthlessness in how these little speakers expose bad software. It looks like it will be necessary to be selective when the critical listening tests begin.

[DR]

Bill,

Regarding "It looks like it will be necessary to be selective when the critical listening tests begin."

I found this also. The ACI product is so revealing that for a while I couldn't listen to anything but Jazz or Classical on CD. LP's were fine. When I bought the BluRay player, I fully intended to leave my SACD player in for two channel. Then I heard something. Rock Cd's that sounded awful before sounded great! What I attributed to a bad source recording was really bad DAC's compared to what you can get today. The point here is ACI speakers will reveal source deficiencies, but in my case it was the electronics. Note to self.

[Bill]

At the 54 hour mark, the sound is fairly stable. Still, they will get a few more hours of break-in before any serious listening sessions are done. One interesting thing did occur that had me concerned. At one point during the last break-in session, these speakers started to sound ‘boxy’. I tried to dismiss it and just get on with the break-in, but it was there. I’ve since put the speakers back on the floor, right on top of the carpet, and the boxy-ness seems to be gone. This could all be related to positioning, so I’ll be doing an appropriate amount of prep work to get these speakers in a good location for the next phase of the evaluation.

Up next: Finish the break-in, Initial critical listening impressions.

[Bill]

Thanks for the feedback, DR.

It's funny that you mention DACs. I think you nailed it. The music in question sounds good on the big rig, but that rig also has high quality DACs. It seems unlikely that this is a coincidence.

I guess I can live with the lower quality DACs for the rest of the break-in period.

[Bill]

The speaker break-in period is finished at last. The documentation accompanying the speakers said to allow at least 60 to 70 hours of break-in, and these speakers got 65.5 hours. For anyone who has never done this kind of break-in, it’s not very convenient but it is interesting to hear how the speakers evolve. And it seems appropriate to condition the speakers in the way that the manufacturer recommends. Think of it like the break-in period for a new car.

OK, on to the more interesting bits…

It may eventually be possible post more about the Emerald XL’s but my schedule is about to become nuts for a few weeks. So, to be very brief, I plan to keep these speakers. At a minimum, they will pull duty with my PC. What about as surrounds in the big rig? That’s not clear yet, and it will require more elaborate testing than time permits right now.

For some quick listening tests, the Emerald XL’s sat atop of my Panoramas. It’s less than optimal on height, but the position in the room is excellent. As expected, they don’t have much LF, nor can they compare with the midrange fullness of the Panoramas.  But on the high end, they are very similar. Using the XL’s with a sub (cross over @ 80Hz) was very nice. It seemed like there wasn’t quite enough in the midrange to fill my 22’L x 14’5”W x 9’H family room. Still, they were always musical and accurate, IMO. It was more like an error of omission rather than what is more common in other speakers – additional content that shouldn’t be there. There was none of the boxiness heard earlier, but the XL’s were also running on much better electronics and in a better tuned room.

That’s it for today. I’ll try to post more impressions before my free time evaporates.

[Eric]

Thanks for letting us take the jouney with you

[Bill]

If you haven’t seen the Emerald XL’s, it’s worth a visit to the ACI web site to take a look. Mine are satin black, unobtrusive, and tiny, especially next to the Panoramas. Are they great looking speakers? Well, that’s probably subjective. I find them neither offensive nor compelling; they’re kind of neutral. There has been good attention to detail, and the small cabinet is well made. The binding posts are different from those on my other ACI speakers but seem at least equal in quality and are possibly better. The port on the back is located near the top of the speaker cabinet – kind of the opposite of the location of ports on my Panoramas and Sapphires. The grills attach via small posts into holes in the speaker cabinet. They look fragile, and care may be needed to keep them from snapping off. By contrast, the Panoramas and Essence use magnets to hold their grills in place – a feature I like since it reduces the risk of accidents.

The system with which the XL’s will be evaluated is the “big rig”, that is, my primary 5.1 home theater and music system. Why test in this system? Having lived with it for a few years, I know how it sounds, so the impact of changes should be easier to identify and understand.

Here’s a list of the hardware in the audio chain:
•   B&K AVR507 A/V receiver
•   Pioneer Elite DV59AVi DVD player
•   ACI Panoramas, mains
•   ACI Essence, center
•   ACI Sapphires, surrounds
•   Velodyne FSR-12 sub
•   DH Labs D-75 digital cable, DVD player to receiver
•   DH Labs BL-1 interconnects, 3 pairs from DVD player to receiver
•   DH Labs SubSonic II interconnect, receiver to sub
•   DH Labs T-14 speaker cable, receiver to Panoramas, Essence, Sapphires
This configuration supports DVD-Audio and SACD disks, as well as regular CDs and DVDs.

Next up: Let the testing begin!

[Bill]

Eric -- my pleasure.

[thedeskE]

Nice to hear you're still having fun with the Ol' Rig Bill

Eric

[Bill]

Hi Eric -- Good to see you still checking out the forums. Still have your ACI gear?

[Bill]

We’re having a rainy weekend here in the mid-west. That means the outdoor chores can wait, and indoor play time…um, the evaluation can move forward.

Some caveats around the tests that follow
1) This is not a double blind test. I don’t have the facilities, resources, or additional help to pull off something like that. That means that my impressions will be informed, subjective, and potentially biased by knowledge of what’s in the audio chain.
2) Speaker comparisons required a bit of lag time to relocate and position speakers. Hearing memory is typically short, so that can increase the error in comparisons.
3) I’m not in any way affiliated with ACI except as a customer.
4) I’m not in the audio business. I’m just an enthusiastic listener.
5) The only compensation I get for the time and effort invested is experience to help form my opinions. IMO, that’s a fair trade.
6) Label all of this as IMO. Your results (or mileage) may vary, etc.

Test 1 – Emerald XL’s Standalone, with and without sub

Setup
•   The speakers were positioned on the same stands that would normally be used for my Panoramas, about 20% into the room, firing straight out – no toe-in.
•   The AV receiver was adjusted to set the front left/right to LARGE, sub crossover set to 30Hz, sub physically turned off. The intent here was to see just how low the XL’s go cleanly
•   There’s a HF hump in the room at about 5kHz that has generally been tamed with the AVR equalizer, and that was also done here though the XL’s didn’t seem to need quite as much taming.
•   In room measurements with a Radio Shack sound level meter and warble tones put it on par with the last set of measurements on the Panoramas in terms of linearity down to 70 Hz. At 63 Hz, sound was down 6db and it dropped off rapidly below that point.

After listening to a number of cuts of rock, jazz, classical, bluegrass and country, with and without the sub, I prefer these speakers with a sub. When the XL’s tried to go low in my system, other areas of performance suffered. In particular, the midrange sounded more ragged and the imaging flattened. Adding my sub with the crossover at 80Hz gave more of a sense of ease, images regained some depth, and the midrange was cleaner. Keep in mind that I was pushing these speakers into the 70 to 80db range, with peaks even louder, in a 22’L x 14’5”W x 9’H room. They actually performed pretty well. They don’t play REALLY BIG but they do play relatively big. In this size room, imaging is more often 2D than 3D, but I’ve also listened to them in a smaller room where the imaging was strikingly good. They didn’t seem to smear or get shout-y as volumes increase, either. It’s a nice little speaker, better than might be expected from such a small box, and it confirmed my initial impression that it would be a solid pick for an inexpensive stereo-only system.



Test 2 – Emerald XL’s versus Sapphires

So, how do the XL’s stand up next to their siblings? It’s very clear that the Sapphires are a step up in the product line. The soundstage is better, there’s a sense of ease or perhaps they are more laid back, and HF sounds like cymbals sound more natural. Drum hits sound more like, well, drums. Not surprisingly, there’s a lot more LF, too. The Sapphires still don’t make a bad recording sound good. Sometimes the imaging gets wild. On the Eagles “No More Walks in the Wood”, there was very good imaging but the performers sounded like their heads were 2 feet in diameter. (That seems unlikely.) Instrumentals took on a much richer, more natural character that draws you into the performance. IMO, they are clearly a superior product to the XL’s, as you’d expect.


Test 3 – Emerald XL’s versus Panoramas

These are my primary speakers for music, and going back to them was a breath of fresh air. They put out a big sound stage, are cleaner, and in better control than the XL’s or Sapphires. I’d call them rich and laid back, forgiving but without failing to be true to the source, if that makes any sense. With some of my test tracks, only the Panaoramas were what I would characterize as listenable. They were simply the best in this group, and that’s no surprise.


Other Thoughts re: Emerald XL v Sapphire v Panorama

All of these speakers have the ACI signature sound, i.e., it’s easy to see and hear that they are from the same family. None of these speakers entry-level. IMO, they are all high-end overachievers that smoke the competition at their price point based on speakers that I’ve heard, but I haven’t heard everything available, either, so your mileage may vary, etc.

How big of a difference is there between each step up? IMO, what you get at each incremental step up is better imaging, cleaner highs and mids, more extension into LF, more forgiving treatment of less than pristine source material.


Up next: Home Theater Tests

[Bill]

Test 4 – Emerald XL versus Essence as Center Channel

Moving into the Home Theater realm, how good is the XL when used as a center channel, and how does it compare to the Essence?

The XL is surprisingly good as a center channel. It’s not fatiguing and intelligibility of dialogue is excellent. It does show limitations in applications sounding too closed in, as if the dialogue is coming out of a small room. The Essence, by comparison, sounds much more natural. It makes the room echoes sound accurate, it’s richer and fuller without being heavy.

So, where does the Essence fall in the rankings? I’d place it mid-way between the Sapphires and the Panoramas. The XL’s remain in a tier below the Sapphires. As a center channel, the XL easily out performs built-in speakers in any TV I’ve encountered. If I remember it correctly, it also beats my first center channel: a Snell CR.5.

Given the dialogue accuracy and the musical nature of the XL’s, it’s easy to see how they could make a solid value 5.1 system since the price is good and the level of quality is high.



Test 5 – Emerald XL’s versus Sapphires as Surround Speakers

This is perhaps the most difficult area in which to assess speaker applicability. With the types of software we generally view, there simply isn’t all that much information coming out of the surround channels, Mostly, it seems to be hall echo and ambient noise. The XL’s did fine in the limited test performed, but so did the Sapphires.

At present, I’m at a loss for the best way to test the speakers in this configuration. If anyone has thoughts on a good set of tests here I would welcome that input!


Up next:  As PC Speakers

[DR]

Bill,

Thanks for your interesting and varied comparison of the ACI products. I have not heard many of the older models.


Just for the record though, all of my Emerald XLs, Sapphire XLs and Force XL are inlaid Cherry. They all look amazing. This presents an opportunity to put Mike on the spot. What are the audible design differences between the Sapphire XLs and the Sapphires (port lower) that Bill refers too?