[dayneger]

Hi Hugh,

I’m trying to convince a friend to build your Aksonics, for purely unselfish reasons of course , but he’s unwilling to build main speakers without corresponding designs for a center and surrounds.  He understandably doesn't want to fool with voicing issues etc. as he grows into multichannel and HT.

Any plans for a center and/or surround speaks to match the Aksonics?  Aksenter and Aksurrounds would fit in with the family terminologie quite well!!  

Dayne

[wireburn]

What would be bad about 5 Aksonics?  I envision surrounds upside-down on the ceiling.  May sound great, who knows?

-Mike

[AKSA]

Hi Dayne,

Fair call, particularly on the center channel.

I will think on this;  I've had the request before, so I'll re-examine the economics.

Cheers,

Hugh

[dayneger]

Hugh,

Thanks for considering it!  I'm interested to hear what you and the fellow who designed the Aksonics with you (forgot his name) think.

Dayne

[bluesky]

Hi fellow Aksaphiles

I wholeheartedly endorse the concept of a Aksonics centre speaker and I have mentioned this to Hugh previously.  One of the problems in designing a new speaker is the cost of development.  Hugh needs to know whether he can recoup these costs let alone make a profit.  Pretty reasonable I think since it is his livelihood we are talking about here.  

So far we know there are two of us who want a centre speaker, perhaps those that are interested can tell Hugh of their intention to buy one so he can make an informed judgement on whether or not to go ahead with designing and producing a kit for all of us Aksaphiles.   I also think the Aksonics is the perfect size for a HT speaker and would have a high WAF, especially when you can tell "she who must be obeyed" how much money your "saving" by building kits.  

One thing I would like to see is a mains filter kit, most of the ones I have researched are quite expensive.  I would be quite happy with a PCB and some instructions to build it.  A full kit would be great but I understand that providing all the bits and pieces would be hassle and yet more stock for Hugh to carry.  Anyone else think this is a good idea?

Bluesky

[Jens]

Hi there,

As I see it, there should not be too many problems in creating an Aksenter speaker on the basis of the current Aksonics.

Having played around quite a lot with the bass/mid drivers used in this and the previous version and their "brothers", I would suggest keeping the Vifa XT and use a couple of 5" bass/mid drivers from either Peerless or Vifa. Since there is no real need for bass extension in a center speaker, it would be possible to use a closed or semi-closed enclosure of say around 10 litres or less, which could make for a very neat and smallish enclosure. The Peerless and Vifa drivers are quite easy to work with and sound fine, so I wouldn't worry about sonics - they are almost guaranteed.

Obviously, when turning down this road, you may get calls to go all the way, i.e. people may want rear speakers and a (powered?) subwoofer, too!

Thus, things could well get out of hand developmentwise (and financially), and it would be understandable if Hugh is a bit reticent about embarking on further speaker projects, while he is still working hard on the factory-finished version of the GK-1 and on the DAKSA (and perhaps more?).

Just my 2 cents ....

Cheers,

[dayneger]

I currently don't use Aksonics--unfortunately I ordered and made a kit before Hugh's masterpiece hit the market--but I would most likely order an Aksenter.  I have the problem of no center with my kit, but since mine use the XT tweeter and a Scan Speak Super Revelator, I hope I'd land in the same audio ballpark.  The only thing that'd get in the way on my end is if I decided to get a projector, in which case I might consider just making a third identical speaker.

What would make sense for Hugh is one speaker platform that can be used for both center and surrounds.  The issue might be whether the speaker is horizontal or vertical, since I've read this can make a difference in the XO due to the dispersion or something.  If the difference were minor, and all drivers otherwise the same, then you could build the enclosures however you best see fit and then just swap out a cap or resistor.  Since the Aksonic XO already includes some tunability, that might not even be necessary.  In my case I'd rather have a vertically-oriented center with better lateral dispersion, so they'd all be the same.

I don't think there's any need for an AKsub.  If I were Hugh I'd just let people get and/or make their own.  With products like the DIY miniWMD and the one from Selah Audio hitting the market, there's no need.

But with so many people like me running mixed 2-channel/HT systems plus the trend toward multichannel sound of whichever format, I think this will help keep the Aksonics a viable candidate.  As always, just my 2 cents as well!

Dayne

[Tinker]

What would make sense for Hugh is one speaker platform that can be used for both center and surrounds. The issue might be whether the speaker is horizontal or vertical, since I've read this can make a difference in the XO due to the dispersion or something. If the difference were minor, and all drivers otherwise the same, then you could build the enclosures however you best see fit and then just swap out a cap or resistor. Since the Aksonic XO already includes some tunability, that might not even be necessary.

Centre speaker orientation can be crucial in multichannel music, as the centre channel can cause combing. This is not a problem in HT where the centre channel is baiscally dialogue.

And yes, you are right, the crossover is important, namely because with mid and tweeter side-by-side the crossover's lobing may not make the sound project forward, but rather have a hot spot to one side. This is most likely why the horizontal MTM arrangement is often used, symmetry with a low profile. If using a two speaker (MT) centre with odd order crossover, it generally needs phase correction or to be vertically oriented.

Any help?

T.

[AKSA]

Guys,

I've spoken to the designer of the AKSonics.  We now have a matching AKSenter on the backburner........(no promises on when it surfaces, however!)  

Cheers,

Hugh

[dayneger]

Very cool, Hugh!       Keep us updated as things progress.

Is the concept for the center only or also for surrounds?  Inquiring minds want to know!

Tinker, thanks for the explanation.  From what I've heard a vertically-oriented TM tends to have better lateral dispersion than a MTM placed on its side, which would be an advantage in my book.  Is this true?

[Tinker]

Tinker, thanks for the explanation.  From what I've heard a vertically-oriented TM tends to have better lateral dispersion than a MTM placed on its side, which would be an advantage in my book.  Is this true?

I think this depends on the crossover network.
With a vertical MT arrangement, horizontal dispersion is primarily constrained by the box and drivers, e.g. using a pistonic model the dispersion decreases with rising frequency, with this effect being a funciton of driver diameter, larger drivers cast more narrow beam at high frequency.

Horizontally, an MT will have a directional lobe, which could be phase compensated to point forward. The sideways MTM arrangement with just about any even-order crossover will have a lobe that points forward, but as we have said is kinda narrow. Now, from memory, a third order butterworth in this arrangement has a funny flat lobing pattern that is not nearly as sharp as say a Linkwitz-Riley. This should give better dispersion for the mid range compared to the MT, but no abovious improvement in the tweeter.

This is all theory mind you, I've never built and tested the MT vertical vs MTM horizontal using the same drivers and measured it. In fact, at tpresent I am a stereo man....
Anyhow, that's the textbook answer as I see it.

Cheers,
         T.