Adam A5X Review (Powered Studio Monitor)

[YSC]

The acoustical effect of cancellation notches get overrated because they look so bad in the frequency response and CSD plots.
With normal music material you'd have a hard time to ABX a difference between one and the same speaker with such a notch (emulated with a proper filter) and without. The reason is such deep high-Q notches need tens of cycles of a sine with constant amplitude to develop their depth (and then release a "reverb tail" when the sine stops abruptly. You simply don't hear it with the normal decaying spectrum even when you hit the right note.

EDIT: In general, a seemingly ragged frequency response in all the fine-grain is completely unrelated to how it sounds. A known worst case are coaxials measured (and listened too) direct on axis, as the total symmetry emphasizes irregularities, a very inappropriate magnifiyng glass.
IHMO, these high resolution plots should be forbidden to be published as people will get them wrong and fussing about it.

Further, cancellation notches is one of the things we are so accustomed to, basically our whole sound source distance judgments in everyday life is based on it to a big part so we just don't bother (even though it is different than a resonance-based cancellation). If we did, the floor bounce of speakers that is ususally very strong would totally spoil our listening experience... which it obviously does not.

agree it's overall a great speaker especially at it's era, but then same question arise: if no brand preference, at exactly the same price point, why not choose one without the notch problem

 

[Zensō]

The speaker reviewed is mine. Before that I owned the T5V and I can say that the A5X is superior. The clarity and separion of voice and instruments is significantly better and it goes a great deal louder. I'm sure there is more and cleaner power on tap.

I use the A5X with a SVS SB1000 sub crossed at 80hz so I don't miss the low end.

I have this speaker and also prefer it over the T5V (which is a better value though). I use it near-field corrected with Sonarworks and it does the job it’s designed to do.

 

[EXIF68]

The question is: Why are out there not more speakers with passive radiators instead of standard rear- or front-ports? With passive radiators there are no problems with port resonances and from the price point: The difference is not so much. So what? Additionally no problems with air turbulences at higher SPL and adjustable bass responce with addtional weight at the passive radiator.
The adavantages must be weightened much "heavier" than the little price target of such a device.

 

[temps]

The question is: Why are out there not more speakers with passive radiators instead of standard rear- or front-ports? With passive radiators there are no problems with port resonances and from the price point: The difference is not so much. So what? Additionally no problems with air turbulences at higher SPL and adjustable bass responce with addtional weight at the passive radiator.
The adavantages must be weightened much "heavier" than the little price target of such a device.

Focal Shapes use two PRs but they are priced at a bit of a premium to most of their competitors.

It is curious why more companies don't use them. iirc PRs roll off very quickly below their tuning frequency - 32dB/oct vs. 24dB/oct for a port. I think they also tend to have slower transient response in the low end - this may be seen as undesirable in a studio monitor.

 

[sacguy231]

I have and still use the older A7 (not the "X" version) and love them. I think they are going on 11 or 12 years old now. Their tonality is great, and they are highly resolving - perhaps a bit spicy up top, but easy to tame in my setup. I have had to replace the cheap power switches on both left and right speakers to the tune of $80 each, something common on my model but I believe was resolved later on. I haven't come across anything with a similar form and functionality that has tempted me to upgrade, but I've liked all the Adam monitors I've heard.

 

[dfuller]

The question is: Why are out there not more speakers with passive radiators instead of standard rear- or front-ports? With passive radiators there are no problems with port resonances and from the price point: The difference is not so much. So what? Additionally no problems with air turbulences at higher SPL and adjustable bass responce with addtional weight at the passive radiator.
The adavantages must be weightened much "heavier" than the little price target of such a device.

Focal Shapes use two PRs but they are priced at a bit of a premium to most of their competitors.

It is curious why more companies don't use them. iirc PRs roll off very quickly below their tuning frequency - 32dB/oct vs. 24dB/oct for a port. I think they also tend to have slower transient response in the low end - this may be seen as undesirable in a studio monitor.

Couple reasons...
1, PRs are expensive compared to ports (most of a speaker vs a piece of pipe). This is the big one.
2, They ring more at their tuning frequency than a port does (because again, it's basically another driver sans electrical control), albeit without the associated pipe resonance tomfoolery.

 

[Zvu]

More rigid, but also not as well damped, so...

I hope we do not have to talk again about advantages of hard cones compared to flexible. My dicky ticker will not be able to stand it...

 

[andymok]

can we also see the phase measurement? Would like to see how the woofer and the AMT match

 

[dfuller]

I hope we do not have to talk again about advantages of hard cones compared to flexible. My dicky ticker will not be able to stand it...

All things being equal a stiffer cone is always better in terms of pistonic action in its passband but the problem is that most (not all) stiffer cones have poor internal damping and as such have some pretty wild stopband behavior. Most composite/sandwich cones get around that somewhat by using a mix of high internal damping but not very stiff and very stiff but poor internal damping.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

It is curious why more companies don't use them. iirc PRs roll off very quickly below their tuning frequency - 32dB/oct vs. 24dB/oct for a port.

In principle a PR and a port should behave roughly the same. Both make the system 4th order. But a PR has different second order behaviour to air in a port, so things won't quite align. PRs have mechanical losses in the suspension that ports don't for instance.

Other than cost, the big problem with PR is size. To work properly they need to be larger in diameter than the bass driver. This makes them a difficult item to integrate into a small enclosure. Indeed PRs are usually sufficiently large that people mistake speakers with them for three ways.

I think they also tend to have slower transient response in the low end - this may be seen as undesirable in a studio monitor.

Transient response is exactly defined by frequency response. As has been discussed before, deeper bass response is often perceived as slower bass. If you want "fast" bass, limit how low your speaker can go. It may be that the perception of slower bass is because the PR equipped speakers had deeper bass.

 

[temps]

Transient response is exactly defined by frequency response. As has been discussed before, deeper bass response is often perceived as slower bass. If you want "fast" bass, limit how low your speaker can go. It may be that the perception of slower bass is because the PR equipped speakers had deeper bass.

I'm sorry but that doesn't sound correct, at all... not even close.

In principle a PR and a port should behave roughly the same. Both make the system 4th order. But a PR has different second order behaviour to air in a port, so things won't quite align. PRs have mechanical losses in the suspension that ports don't for instance.

I find a lot of sources saying PRs are fifth order below tuning while ports are fourth. I can only find references to PRs being fourth order when they're used in a bandpass subwoofer box?

 

[Paco De Lucia]

I have and still use the older A7 (not the "X" version) and love them. I think they are going on 11 or 12 years old now. Their tonality is great, and they are highly resolving - perhaps a bit spicy up top, but easy to tame in my setup. I have had to replace the cheap power switches on both left and right speakers to the tune of $80 each, something common on my model but I believe was resolved later on. I haven't come across anything with a similar form and functionality that has tempted me to upgrade, but I've liked all the Adam monitors I've heard.

Yeah, I have run the original A7 as nearfield monitors for music making for ten years and they are excellent, you don't buy these type of speakers for relaxing day to day music listening, they are for production. if you eq them using the pads on the back you can make them warmer and more friendly but that defeats their role as nearfield monitors

 

[Francis Vaughan]

I'm sorry but that doesn't sound correct, at all... not even close.

Which bit? The part about transient response definition is hard fact. Fourier etc. The part about perception has been discussed here, and isn't very controversial.

"slower transient response in the low end" is technically meaningless. Fourier again.

 

[EXIF68]

In principle a PR and a port should behave roughly the same. Both make the system 4th order. But a PR has different second order behaviour to air in a port, so things won't quite align. PRs have mechanical losses in the suspension that ports don't for instance.

Other than cost, the big problem with PR is size. To work properly they need to be larger in diameter than the bass driver. This makes them a difficult item to integrate into a small enclosure. Indeed PRs are usually sufficiently large that people mistake speakers with them for three ways.


Transient response is exactly defined by frequency response. As has been discussed before, deeper bass response is often perceived as slower bass. If you want "fast" bass, limit how low your speaker can go. It may be that the perception of slower bass is because the PR equipped speakers had deeper bass.

Correct, the passive radiator must be lager than the bass driver. But the placement of the passive radiator is not a problem as you can see on my speakers here:

The passive radiator is well suited on the side of the cabinet. The net volume of the speakers is about 10 liters, I think the size is compareable to the Adam-Speaker.

and about "slow" bass: listening to my speakers there is no inzidenz for slow bass audible ;-)

 

[temps]

Which bit? The part about transient response definition is hard fact. Fourier etc. The part about perception has been discussed here, and isn't very controversial.

"slower transient response in the low end" is technically meaningless. Fourier again.

Oh, okay. Semantics and vague allusions to a concept so incredibly general no meaningful Google results can be found. Never mind.

 

[LTig]

Further, cancellation notches is one of the things we are so accustomed to, basically our whole sound source distance judgments in everyday life is based on it to a big part so we just don't bother (even though it is different than a resonance-based cancellation). If we did, the floor bounce of speakers that is ususally very strong would totally spoil our listening experience... which it obviously does not.

Well, here it does. When I remove the carpet between the LP and my O300Ds which reveals a very hard and reflective stone floor the sound is so bad you really don't want to listen any more.

 

[Dave Tremblay]

Only from the outside.The Neuman port is not a classic port at all, rather it has a clever degeneration (controlled leakage) to make it look like a distributed lenght port, acoustically, plus it does the same for leakage signal entry from the inside of the port.

Also worth noting that the Neumann is a 100% stuffed enclosure. It's a solid block of foam in there. That prevents the higher frequencies, like 1kHz from ever reaching the port at significant volume. Would be interesting to see an impedance sweep of that Neumann woofer to see if it is actually behaving as ported enclosure. When I cracked one open, my guess was that it would behave a little more like aperiodic loading, or somewhere in the middle...

 

[KSTR]

Also worth noting that the Neumann is a 100% stuffed enclosure. It's a solid block of foam in there. That prevents the higher frequencies, like 1kHz from ever reaching the port at significant volume. Would be interesting to see an impedance sweep of that Neumann woofer to see if it is actually behaving as ported enclosure. When I cracked one open, my guess was that it would behave a little more like aperiodic loading, or somewhere in the middle...

Yes, the KH120 is "damped to death" so to say, the port has not that much efficiency.

 

[Dave Tremblay]

Personally, I have never preferred the sound of ADAM monitors. I haven't listened to these, but in the past it seemed like they were using the mid-bass driver into the cone breakup frequencies. You can maybe see that this is still the case here, with some pretty ragged peaks in the 1-3kHz range.

 

[KSTR]

Well, here it does. When I remove the carpet between the LP and my O300Ds which reveals a very hard and reflective stone floor the sound is so bad you really don't want to listen any more.

Well, exceptions prove the rule, as they say...