[jimmy b]

With all a few of the old models being discontinued and the new XL mini speakers getting rave reviews what do you all expect from the next gen full size speaker from ACI?

I personally want to own an almost full range half size tower with 2 or 3 7" woofers that plays fllatfrom 35hz to 35Khz in a sealed box with the new XL styling. What do you all think Mike will come up wiith next?

[ajayrav]

I personally want to own an almost full range half size tower with 2 or 3 7" woofers that plays fllatfrom 35hz to 35Khz in a sealed box with the new XL styling. What do you all think Mike will come up wiith next?

OOOOHHH! That sounds really good!  Drool! 

[Mike Dzurko]

Anything else folks would like to see us working on?

[ajayrav]

Anything else folks would like to see us working on?

LFMs for the XLs would be really nice as I've stated in another thread.  I'd have to sell my dedicated SA stands though!

[Filbert]

I'm not new at this, but I have to ask, what's an "LFM"? I did a search and it seems to have something to do with the box on the bottom of Jaguars.

For me, I am interested in a 3 way with a bass driver that will take the low frequency load off of the mid drivers. I listen to classical a lot and I find that two-way monitors can get congested trying to deal with all the information they have to handle on orchestral pieces, especially as the volume goes up.

[Mike Dzurko]

You're right about the LFM:

http://www.audioc.com/speakers1/jaglfm/lfmse.htm

I believe we are nearly sold out.

You bring up one of the reasons people buy our subs and the optional high-pass filters:

http://www.audioc.com/accessories1/misc/hipass.htm

[Filbert]

Not interested in a sub for a variety of reasons. Also not interested in filters, but I am interested in a good 3 way speaker. Thanks for responding.

[jimmy b]

Not interested in a sub for a variety of reasons. Also not interested in filters, but I am interested in a good 3 way speaker. Thanks for responding.

ACI's subs will make those reasons go away, they are 100
% musical and can be tunned so that all they do is fill in thta 18-30 hz that most 3 ways cant hope to acchive in reality. they may play low but they dont put out reall tactile sound down there...give em a try i say

[Mike Dzurko]

Not interested in a sub for a variety of reasons. Also not interested in filters, but I am interested in a good 3 way speaker. Thanks for responding.

I'd love to know why you are not interested in subs or filters . . .  would help me to understand. If you have a moment I would appreciate understanding this. Thanks!

[Carl V]

Not interested in a sub for a variety of reasons. Also not interested in filters, but I am interested in a good 3 way speaker. Thanks for responding.

I'd love to know why you are not interested in subs or filters . . .  would help me to understand. If you have a moment I would appreciate understanding this. Thanks!

Well, I chime in here (hear).  2-ways plus a sub can be a challenge to
'properly integrate' & some might say it never gets done quite correctly.
There is always a phase or coherency issue. Among other things.
And this has been true for a long time...
early M&K designs for 30+ years ago (pioneers at this)
dealt with this both in the home & studio.  Age old polemic amongst
recording engineers....everyone has an opinion.

Next midwoofers have to do many things upper bass & all the midrange.
That's a mighty tall order to fill.  And most of the time we are asking
a smallish 165mm driver to do this.  Obviously some are more up to
the challenge than others.  But Physics will tell you, there's only so
much a 165mm driver can do..and do well.  180mm drivers can do more
obviously...simple math & geometry.  But now we are dealing with the
radiation pattern tradeoffs & power response issues.  Always a tuff
balancing act.  Life is full of compromises.  Tweeters radiation pattern
& the nature of the 'blend' is another challenge.

The designer must take into account the various rooms & seating
postions and come to his own conclusion on XO shapes & BSC.
Consider floor bounce, Allison effects & partnering gear...another
tuff & Tall order.

Last but not least...the gentleman who listens to a great deal
of Classical music is more keenly aware of the Power region of
music.  It's not 25Hz to 125 Hz either.  Dynamic music really
taxes speakers in the 85Hz to ???? lets say 885 Hz for sake of
argument. (Fundamentals) Harmonics are a whole 'nuther subject.
And ROCK or jazz fits this power region...core dynamics.  So let's
not focus on Classical music.

So a Three way has a bass driver which goes from 35  to let's
say 250Hz....with slopes it helps the midrange a bit higher.  The
Midrange now escapes BSC & the heavy lifting of <250 Hz.  The
very nice Midrange  At least 165mm-- 180mm can really shine.

You can always add a Sub to this competent 3way to augment
the low end...because the 10" or 12" or 15" bass driver is rolling
off some....and as we know the best location for a Midrange isn't
always the best location for bass.


Lat but not least Bigger drivers aren't just for SPL...they are nice
for sensitivity & directivity.

For the record I like the new XLS desgin...but prefered the Jag/LFM
desgin.

[DSK]

Hi Carl,
Interesting points and I agree with most of them.

However, as you say, life is full of compromises. And theory doesn't always produce the expected results sonically. Played loud and/or in a large room, a 2-way will struggle (compared to a 3-way) trying to play full range and will result in congestion in the mids, distortion etc etc. It also won't have the power handling of the 3-way.

Adding a decent subwoofer and HPF to the 2-ways can relieve the 2-ways of much of these problems, IF integrated properly, and sound just as coherent as a 3-way. The 2-way has no xo between the HPF freq and the xo to tweeter, leaving the fundamentals of most intruments and vocals to be done by a single driver. There is a often a certain 'magic' heard from a really good 2-way that is missing in most 3-ways and I feel that the lack of an extra driver and xo (which also have phase issues) is a large part of the reason. Obviously some people go even further with this and advocate single full range drivers.

I feel that the main reason that most people shy away from the 2-way plus subwoofer setup is that they don't have the measurement equipment to ensure a seamless transition between them. Setting up a sub optimally by ear is an extremely difficult and frustrating exercise. The combinations of subwoofer placement, adjustable phase setting, gain level, LP filter setting and slope, are almost limitless. Then there is the decision of whether to plug the ports of the 2-way and whether to run them full range or use an HPF, and what freq and slope should be used for an HPF etc. And, is the particular midwoofer in the 2-ways suited to a sealed box, and if so, is the ported box size optimal for a sealed box for that woofer?

There are definitely a lot of things to get right for a great 2-ways + sub setup, but if they are suitably addressed (and a tight, articulate, well damped sub is used) the result can be as good or better than a 3-way (with or without sub) setup.

The ETF5 software is not very expensive and I have found it invaluable in optimising the integration of my 2-ways and subwoofer. Perhaps I am lucky with my room but I have managed to get a fairly flat measured response from 20hz on up and it sounds much more coherent than what I was able to do by ear (and in far less time). Among other benefits, it actually increased system resolution, dimensionality, scale, dynamics and effortlessness. I believe that most people look at the manufacturer's published specs (eg. F3, F10) and graphs (eg. FR) and base decisions on these figures (eg. HPF frequency & slope) assuming that the published data will be identical to what the speakers do in their own rooms at home. This is one reason why mismatches can occur and why measurement software is mandatory to get the integration right in YOUR room. Others choose the same freq for their sub's LPF and speakers' HPF, without regard for the slopes of each or the natural rolloff of the speakers themselves and are therefore unlikely to get an optimal blend.

Sorry for the ramble, just another point of view to consider ...

[Filbert]

Thanks to all for the very informative posts. This is why less informed people such as myself come to sites like this.

Mike, to answer your question:

First, in my case, I have a space problem. A fairly crowded listening room and not a lot of places I could put a sub. Secondly, I have a fairly standard pre-amp with 2 outputs. If one goes to the amp for a pair of monitors and one to the sub, how do I tell the monitors to stop responding to frequencies below the level at which the sub takes over? My experience with filters is that they come at the sacrifice of level - reduced volume. Means I may very well need a more powerful amp. And then there is the issue of having another piece in the path, which makes me uncomfortable. Maybe I need edumacation.

Carl, I am not comforted by your comments advising that we need not focus on classical music. I don't think there is anything in the rock or jazz world that produces the same challenge as massed violins, large choirs, or both, but I am open to arguments. Does the choir come out like a wall of sound or like a collection of individual voices all singing together? There are so many instruments at work in a classical orchestra and separating them all out to create a complete sound picture is important. Listen to a good recording of Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto. There is a dialogue going on between individual instruments in there somewhere but you can miss it if any part of your system is overwhelmed.

I am not intimidated by setup requirements, but I am concerned about these other issues.

[Mike Dzurko]

Thanks to all for the very informative posts. This is why less informed people such as myself come to sites like this.

Mike, to answer your question:

First, in my case, I have a space problem. A fairly crowded listening room and not a lot of places I could put a sub. Secondly, I have a fairly standard pre-amp with 2 outputs. If one goes to the amp for a pair of monitors and one to the sub, how do I tell the monitors to stop responding to frequencies below the level at which the sub takes over? My experience with filters is that they come at the sacrifice of level - reduced volume. Means I may very well need a more powerful amp. And then there is the issue of having another piece in the path, which makes me uncomfortable. Maybe I need edumacation.

I am not intimidated by setup requirements, but I am concerned about these other issues.

This is a first rate thread with lots of great input . . . fun reading. I agree with many of the points made. Any residual "bad rap" on subs are the results of auditioning poor quality subs (there are plenty out there) and or a less than ideal setup and integration (lots of those as well). Many folks DO a great sub setup by ear, but yes, it is much easier to accomplish if you have measuring equipment. TruAudio RTA or ETF are both excellent tools at very low cost for what they do. Like any software, there is a learning curve. I will say that for someone serious about the performance of their audio or audio/HT system, one of these tools will give you the means to improve your system in many ways. The test disc we supply with our subs, along with the supplied spreadsheet and an inexpensive RadioShack meter can also do the job, but it is more time consuming. 

Filbert:
As to space issues, the Force XL is downright small . . . with the variety of finishes you can choose whether to somewhat hide it away, or feature is as a plant stand, etc. You have the advantage of a separates system which will allow you to send signal directly to the sub and directly to the amplifier that powers you monitors. To rolll-off the lows going to your main amp and monitors, you'll use our passive high-pass filters. They are quite transparent as we've verified with TONS of listening tests. You're right, they do have some insertion loss as they are passive, but this just means a slight reduction in level going into your main amp, NOT a loss of any power. In fact, because your main amp will recieve less signal below the 65Hz or 85Hz cutoff, it will be asked to put out substantially LESS power in those lower frequencies, resulting in more headroom where you need it! A lot like buying a substantially more powerful amp.
I don't like having anything in the path that doesn't have to be there myself . . .  but the real sonic benefits far outweigh any potential sonic drawbacks. I hope this helps!

[Carl V]

Carl, I am not comforted by your comments advising that we need not focus on classical music. I don't think there is anything in the rock or jazz world that produces the same challenge as massed violins, large choirs, or both, but I am open to arguments.

Oh I'm in agreement with the difficulty in reproducing Classical...
i was merely trying to avert the usual 'class' distinction of audio
Joe six pack Rock VS 'enlightened' Classical Musical listener.

But the Freq I listed are the significant Fundamentals of most
musical instruments.

Interesting discussion so far.

DSK.

yeah, I'm in agreement on much of what you stated.
I use TruAudio RTA.

2 way VS 3-ways.  It's an age of argument...amongst
Audiophiles at home & recording engineers.  Pick up some
old MIX magazines or recording Musician...  I don't see the
definitive answer coming soon.  ATC- PMC- Westlake- M&K et. al.,
all tackle this in their own unique ways.

[jimmy b]

 On the question of 2 vs 3 way would a soulution be to go 4 way and use 2 tweeters.
 What I see is a set of woofers a nice midrange then a large tweeter that can play fairly low with a super tweeter to take off the very highs.
 This could center the mid and tweeter in the same range that a normal 2 way would be.

 Or else would any one like to see a two way speaker but with more drivers to pump out that sweet sound? maybe  dual tweets with a tripple woofer araingment, maybe nice

Am I off base here? or could these be options?

[stevekim]

Anything else folks would like to see us working on?

Hmmm... With news that the Panoramas won't be available for much longer, I'd put in a vote for an active version of either the Panos or XL's.  I have to admit being tempted to try a pair of the XL's, but active speakers would push me right over the fence!

 

[jimmy b]

Anything else folks would like to see us working on?

Hmmm... With news that the Panoramas won't be available for much longer, I'd put in a vote for an active version of either the Panos or XL's.  I have to admit being tempted to try a pair of the XL's, but active speakers would push me right over the fence!

 

By active do oyu mean oyud want to use an electronic cross over set to your own settings?
Sounds tricky, why not let the pros do this work for you.


I just want a bigger speaker that doesent have to work so hard to put out physical SPLs

[stevekim]

By active do oyu mean oyud want to use an electronic cross over set to your own settings?
Sounds tricky, why not let the pros do this work for you.


I just want a bigger speaker that doesent have to work so hard to put out physical SPLs

I was thinking integrated amplifier/crossover circuits, prehaps with some "tunability" for the lower octaves.  I still remember an audition of Paradigm Active speakers as one of the most effortless and "huge sound from smallish boxes" experiences I've had.

The ideal system for me would be a full-range digitally corrected speaker, hopefully with an input that could accept digital signals natively and avoid one D/A conversion.  But I'm about ready to give up waiting for such a beast to come into my budget!  An analog active speaker from Mike and his team would no doubt sound great!
 

[Toka]

I realize this thread is real old, but I was about to ask the same question, and the discussion was so good I figured some new people might want to read it.

Anyway, I was always like some others in that I was never a fan of subs in a 2-channel setup, both in practice and in principle (I could never get subs to blend in what I felt was a seamless manner, and I like to keep things simple. I try to at least.). But, I'm coming around on the idea...not ruling it out for the future.

Still, I'd be more inclined to invest the same/slightly more money (equiv. to pair of Sapphire XL's, two Force subs, stands, etc.) into a full-range, floorstanding, single-unit setup if I had the choice. 2-way, 2.5, 3-way, no sticking points there. I've come to like transmission-line designs, basically...anything that can hit into at least the very low 30's (flat) without being a total bear to drive. Passive radiators, whatever works. Scan-Speak makes some pretty hefty woofers, from what I can gather. Just tossin' my 2 cents around.

[Robert57]

In the spirit of wishlist brainstorming in subs, I'll throw out another idea:  a Force- or Titan -sized sub with dual 10" or 12" drivers on opposite sides of the cabinet. Hi-Fi + Mag. last issue had a sub review and found that this design in a new Eclipse TD 725 SW (twin 10" drivers) had better musicality and was also much easier to integrate with the L &R mains, with less fussy placement issues, compared with the REL and Velodyne DD12. The reviewer also found that one Eclipse sub would suffice in a moderate sized room whereas two subs with a single driver (REL and Velo) were needed for more convincing , less directional bass. I have owned a lowly Cambridge Soundworks Newton P500, with dual 8 in. opposing drivers (500 watt class D Bash amp in a tiny one-ft. cube package), which still surprises me with its ability to blend easily with my bookshelf speakers with room-filling bass. I wonder if having opposing drivers loads the room more evenly, and may somehow reduce the pressure inside the cabinet. Isobaric woofer designs (one driver behind another in series) is another high-end sub design to reduce cabinet pressure that might be explored.

I'd love to have just one sub cabinet in a smaller room, with the benefits of twin drivers to load the room more evenly. It would be ideal to have opposing 10" or 12" drivers in a small cabinet ( Force size) for WAF purposes. Just a thought...

Rob