Latest Thread Images

106audioengine.3.jpg
image.jpg
See full thread gallery...
Audio Engine A5+
Mar 11, 2014 at 10:08 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 50
phillyd

phillyd

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Posts
726
Likes
91
Location
Louisville
I've had these speakers for a few months and I absolutely love them. The sound quality blows my old speakers (Klipsch Promedia 2.1) out of the water. The sound is so much fuller.

Anybody use these? Opinions? Mods? Tweaks?

I'm considering getting a pair of crossover filters at 200Hz for use with the subwoofer.

Since they're studio monitors, they are highly directional. Anyone know of any similar price/performance speakers that aren't as dependent on listening location?
 
Mar 11, 2014 at 2:02 PM Post #2 of 50
Near field monitors in general have pretty tight sweet spots. That's an inherent trait.
The size of the sweet spot depends on the design of the speaker and especially the tweeter technology used.
As a rule of thumb horn-loaded tweeters (as your A5 has) are the most directional of all, as the tweeter response is guided or focused by a horn shaped baffle. The deeper the horn, the tighter the focus.
A lot of monitors employ such a scheme to optimize the on-axis tweeter response.
At the other end of the spectrum, ribbon or AMT tweeters offer better dispersion and a broader sweet spot.
But this none of this is set in stone. It always depends on the actual speaker design, choice of drivers, etc.
 
Concerning your issue with the A5's, as you can see the tweeters are horn loaded, and quite recessed into the baffle.
That is what makes them more directional than most and have a relatively narrow sweet spot.
Other similarly priced minimonitors , such as KRK g6 or ESI 05 experience, have a broader sweet spot than the A5 does, but it's not large by any means.
Probably the broadest sweet spot I've heard were from Adam Audio monitors (they use AMT tweeters).
So you might want to take a look at their most affordable model, the F5.
 
A footnote about speaker placement:
The most effective way to reduce directionality is by increasing the distance between the speakers and your ears.
The closer they are to you, the more directional they get and vice versa.
 
Mar 11, 2014 at 8:03 PM Post #3 of 50
bobby s said:
Near field monitors in general have pretty tight sweet spots. That's an inherent trait.
The size of the sweet spot depends on the design of the speaker and especially the tweeter technology used.
As a rule of thumb horn-loaded tweeters (as your A5 has) are the most directional of all, as the tweeter response is guided or focused by a horn shaped baffle. The deeper the horn, the tighter the focus.
A lot of monitors employ such a scheme to optimize the on-axis tweeter response.
At the other end of the spectrum, ribbon or AMT tweeters offer better dispersion and a broader sweet spot.
But this none of this is set in stone. It always depends on the actual speaker design, choice of drivers, etc.

Concerning your issue with the A5's, as you can see the tweeters are horn loaded, and quite recessed into the baffle.
That is what makes them more directional than most and have a relatively narrow sweet spot.
Other similarly priced minimonitors , such as KRK g6 or ESI 05 experience, have a broader sweet spot than the A5 does, but it's not large by any means.
Probably the broadest sweet spot I've heard were from Adam Audio monitors (they use AMT tweeters).
So you might want to take a look at their most affordable model, the F5.

A footnote about speaker placement:
The most effective way to reduce directionality is by increasing the distance between the speakers and your ears.
The closer they are to you, the more directional they get and vice versa.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the tips! I'll be getting stands for them at some point so their placement will be exactly how I want them. I know people typically recommend an equilateral triangle spread but I'll experiment with an isosceles triangle, with the longest leg being between the speakers.

I really do love the sound I get in that sweet spot. Thanks for the explanation?
 
Mar 12, 2014 at 12:45 AM Post #4 of 50
phillyd said:
I'm considering getting a pair of crossover filters at 200Hz for use with the subwoofer.[/quote

Why would you crossover a pair of speakers at 200hz with a sub unless you had no choice? That's going to localize much of your midbass to the sub.
Click to expand...
 
Mar 12, 2014 at 2:42 PM Post #5 of 50
Because I listen to a lot of rap and electronic music. It wouldn't bother me having much of the midbass taken care of by the sub.
 
Mar 12, 2014 at 2:52 PM Post #6 of 50
phillyd said:
Because I listen to a lot of rap and electronic music. It wouldn't bother me having much of the midbass taken care of by the sub.
Click to expand...


An 80 or 100hz crossover would work well for shifting some of the midbass to the sub. At least, that's what most bass enthusiasts I know use.

What kind of subwoofer are you getting?
 
Mar 12, 2014 at 3:20 PM Post #7 of 50
I'm looking into a Lava LSP12. At some point I'll drop $400+ on a better sub but for now I'm severely lacking in money.
 
Mar 12, 2014 at 5:22 PM Post #8 of 50
phillyd said:
I'm looking into a Lava LSP12. At some point I'll drop $400+ on a better sub but for now I'm severely lacking in money.
Click to expand...


Can you get those still? I know that Lava shut down sales on their website. They are being carried as TruAudio subs now.
 
Mar 12, 2014 at 5:52 PM Post #9 of 50
Shoot. I'm mad I missed their run. They were like $150. I guess I'll keep looking. After more research, 120Hz seems like a more reasonable crossover.
 
Mar 12, 2014 at 6:03 PM Post #11 of 50
Here's an example. The Lava sub would not be a good choice for 120hz, or especially not 200hz.



It peaks in native frequency response at 50hz. So, depending on the influence of room acoustics, it would have a huge lower midbass hump.
 
Mar 12, 2014 at 8:57 PM Post #12 of 50
cel4145 said:
Look into the Dayton SUB-1200 and SUB-1500. And check out the budget subwoofer discussion thread over at AVS.

Be sure to find a sub that has been measured not to start rolling off on the top end below 120hz.
Click to expand...


cel4145 said:
Here's an example. The Lava sub would not be a good choice for 120hz, or especially not 200hz.



It peaks in native frequency response at 50hz. So, depending on the influence of room acoustics, it would have a huge lower midbass hump.
Click to expand...


I'm not all that concerned with response balance with this sub. I'm going to be missing much of the low-end because these speakers roll off under 120Hz. If I have a midbass hump, it wont be that big of a deal IMO. I'll make sure everything is tuned better when I get a better sub later on.

The sub might roll off between 60-120Hz but the speakers roll off even more.
 
Mar 12, 2014 at 9:07 PM Post #13 of 50
phillyd said:
The sub might roll off between 60-120Hz but the speakers roll off even more.
Click to expand...


I always assumed that they were similar in frequency response to the original A5s, but certainly not worse. The A5s measured quite respectable in extension for a speaker with a driver that size: "The –3-dB point is at 57 Hz, and the –6-dB point is at 52 Hz."

 
Mar 12, 2014 at 9:32 PM Post #14 of 50
I just need to find an adjustable EQ for cheap and try out different settings for myself.
 
Mar 13, 2014 at 10:33 PM Post #15 of 50
I haven't started looking for a external EQ yet, I have just been using the software one on foobar.  So far, at least for music played through foobar, it works well.  I have a REL T-Zero, with the crossover on the sub set at 150Hz, and basically a slope down on the software EQ from 150Hz down.  I would like to do this at some point with an external EQ so it encompasses all I play through the computer, not just foobar.  Anyone tried an external EQ setup like that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top