Amphion Argon1 Quasi-Anechoic Spinorama and Measurements (Updated)

[napilopez]

I recently got the Ampion Argon1s in for review. Though I haven't had time to run the full suite of measurements (hard to find the time to run 70 sweeps without annoying my SO) I did run some horizontal measurements today. I'll probably redo them as they were a little more rushed than I'd normally like, but they should be representative. Thought I'd share in the meantime.

Edit: Finished them!

Here's the spin:

Squishy scale(approximately matching Amir's reviews):


Horizontal 0-90:

Polar:

Vertical 0/5/10/15 and Ceiling and Floor Reflections:

Polar:

Measured @1m, gated at 6.5ms. Measured on tweeter axis - was flatter than between the woofer and waveguide.

Some thoughts so far:

• On-axis rising treble. I can't say I 've noticed it much perhaps because this region also drops off pretty quickly off axis. Strangely, I noticed similar rising treble on the Sonus Faber Sonetto II way more, but I have hearing up to 19kHz or so and that one is more egregious high up. That said, I have preferred the Argons them with minimal toe-in.
• Flattest measurements is about 15-30 degrees off axis, which matches more typical at-home placement with less toe in. Might be a conscious choice. Unfortunately, Amphion provides no placement guidelines in the one-page manual, but they do show it with no toe in in promo images(who knows if that has any engineering merit though).
• Quite nice horizontal directivity behavior overall.
• But unlike some big waveguides, this one doesn't seem to extend directivity of the high treble very much ( like, say, the Buchardt's).
• Messiness from 400-900Hz. Can't say this is particularly audible with regular music yet. Changes with angle so I suppose it balances out.
• Taking 20 degrees as the direct sound, a pretty smooth response otherwise, with minimal jaggies and clean looking off-axis radiation.

Subjectively:
Enjoying them a lot so far. Bass keeps on surprising me for 5 inch woofers. Timbre sounds neutral, and vocal clarity seems to shine. Amphion says it focuses on keeping the region from 2-5k neutral, and I think it shows in the sound. And i like the minimal design and customizable colors (I have the blue grilles).

That's all for now.

 

[napilopez]

Bumping with the complete measurements now. Pretty impressed by the vertical measurements, they're surprisingly clean because of that low crossover. Amphion says they focus on the 2-5kHz region and you can see that easily in the spins. Not perfect, especially with the messiness in the mids, but it seems to balance out pretty decently overall.

 

[amirm]

Thanks for posting these measurements. If you can add a bit more intro as I do with the price of the unit, a picture (could be from their site), etc., then I can promote the thread to the review page.

 

[Ilkless]

Awful upper midrange. Every modern Amphion I've seen measures like ass. The waveguide doesn't control directivity all that well, and the upper midrange is a joke, especially for what they cost. Just another example of regressive engineering given a cult of personality.

 

[jhaider]

Not too different from my Argon 3S measurements.

Does Argon 1 have the same terrible binding posts?

 

[napilopez]

Awful upper midrange. Every modern Amphion I've seen measures like ass. The waveguide doesn't control directivity all that well, and the upper midrange is a joke, especially for what they cost. Just another example of regressive engineering given a cult of personality.

You mean lower/mid mids? Upper mids look fine to me.

Interesting about the One18's -- look very similar despite the passive radiator/different woofer size.

I admit that when I see how some of the older amphions measured, the performance in the mids is disappointing. Amphion Argon2 measurements from almost 20 years ago (Soundstage Network/NRC) look much cleaner.

On the other hand, I see some merit in their approach. The 2-5kHz region is the region I always look for the most in the measurements. In part because our hearing is so sensitive to it, but subjectively because it seems to be the one that affects my impressions the most. In the vertical this region is cleaner than most speakers that aren't coaxial.

Of course, there are other speakers that manage that without midrange messiness.

Not too different from my Argon 3S measurements.

Does Argon 1 have the same terrible binding posts?

Haha, I'd read your review so I was expecting that. But no, they are very normal binding posts:

One separate note -- it seems the optimal listening axis is actually slightly above the tweeter axis - gets rid of that slight 1.6kHz dip. That works well with my 25-inch stand listening from 10ft away.

 

[Ilkless]

You mean lower/mid mids? Upper mids look fine to me.

Interesting about the One18's -- look very similar despite the passive radiator/different woofer size.

I admit that when I see how some of the older amphions measured, the performance in the mids is disappointing. Amphion Argon2 measurements from almost 20 years ago (Soundstage Network/NRC) look much cleaner.

Of course the boundaries are fluid but I consider ~800Hz upwards upper mids, ~200Hz-500Hz lower mids (ie. male vocal fundamental range). Just semantics. No dispute it's really bad from 600Hz to 1.6kHz

 

[napilopez]

For the curious, it seems much of the messiness has to do with a less than ideal port/cabinet. There's a spike of energy in the port response at the midrange that's almost as loud as the port's main response:

Inside the port just seems to be a straight shot to the woofer from what I recall.

Despite some obvious problems, I can't help but notice the Argon1 measures curiously similar to the Elac Debut Reference, or at least seems to show flaws of similar magnitude.

Granted, the ELAC is a much cheaper speaker, but it excels by the preference score metric regardless of its price bracket. Yet that one was a speaker I might not have thought to be a particular standout based on visual assessment of the measurements, until I understood more about what the preference score values.

For example, on-axis and listening window:

Elac wins, but probably not by much. Depends on what I'm 'missing' from the lower mids in resolution. The preference score looks at narrow band deviations which seem to be pretty similar between the two.

And as noted earlier, the optimal axis seems to be slightly above the tweeter and slightly off axis (though as far as I'm concerned, if the manufacturer doesn't specify, that's a design flaw).

Predicted in room, meanwhile, is nearly identical:

Normalized horizontal directivity, actually looks smoother on the amphion, other than whats happening around 500-900Hz.

Elac:

Amphion:

Of course, you can't compare my measurements completely to amirs, but still interesting to me how the ELAC has some obvious flaws in my traditional interpretation of measurements yet still seems to do well. At some point I'd like to try to get some of the same speakers as amir and see how close the preference score calculation would be between the two sets of measurements...

I also wonder what effect sealing the port would have on that 600Hz bump. Probably would make it worse assuming its a standing wave resonance but I might check out if I can be bothered to measure the speaker again.

 

[Ilkless]

Port design is very rarely discussed. The only two brands I know of that actively measure and correct for port resonances are Technics (SB-C700) and KEF. Technics uses a padded partition while KEF uses semi-permeable port walls. Both demonstrably show a smooth rolloff in port response.

What's weird is that even the pro Amphions with a passive radiator have similar lumpy midrange behaviour in the same range (see Amphion One18 measurements above).

 

[maty]

[Polish] Amphion Argon 2
https://audio.com.pl/testy/stereo/kolumny-glosnikowe/49-amphion-argon-2

 

[Blumlein 88]

Wonder if there old trick of filling the port with drinking straws would be enough to help?