• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Aperion N5T Speaker Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 12 5.1%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 108 45.6%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 112 47.3%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 5 2.1%

  • Total voters
    237
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
69
Likes
72
I've always wondered about Aperion. Because they are localish, there are a fair number of used speakers available and some of them look really nice. These seem to be aimed more at the HT over stereo listening so the dip might not be as bothersome?
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
5,005
Likes
4,701
Location
UK
Mah... As Amir says you have 50hz at 0 db, 40 hz at -5 db and 32 hz at - 10... all at very low distortion and/or high SPL. Just plainly impossible to get them with a small speaker.
(You could just about argue 60Hz is at 0dB, but not 50Hz)
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
5,931
Likes
5,348
Mah... As Amir says you have 50hz at 0 db, 40 hz at -5 db and 32 hz at - 10... all at very low distortion and/or high SPL. Just plainly impossible to get them with a small speaker.
(You could just about argue 60Hz is at 0dB, but not 50Hz)
The maximum SPL is directly proportional to the cone diameter and port tuning. Efficiency though is related to enclosure size. Theoretically you can produce even 20Hz at 0dB — though the port tube may have extend outside of the box :D
 

fpitas

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
3,089
Likes
3,703
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
The maximum SPL is directly proportional to the cone diameter and port tuning. Efficiency though is related to enclosure size. Theoretically you can produce even 20Hz at 0dB — though the port tube may have to be outside the box :D
I've seen that, wrapping around like an old-fashioned exhaust. Of course a passive radiator is the more conventional solution.
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
5,931
Likes
5,348
I've seen that, wrapping around like an old-fashioned exhaust. Of course a passive radiator is the more conventional solution.
I’d love to see that!
 

fpitas

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
3,089
Likes
3,703
Location
Northern Virginia, USA

pseudoid

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
2,788
Likes
1,667
Location
33.6, -117.9
Thank you @amirm for the measurements and review.
I am perplexed as to what business the mid-woofers' components have any business with such excessive resonances in the HF.

Is there some kind of a subliminal messaging going on in the Klippel's Vertical Directivity Response graph?
202211_UterusInHeart.jpg

All I see is a Love sign with a Uterus inside it.:confused:
 

Brian6751

Active Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2019
Messages
132
Likes
133
I've always wondered about Aperion. Because they are localish, there are a fair number of used speakers available and some of them look really nice. These seem to be aimed more at the HT over stereo listening so the dip might not be as bothersome?
I have not heard this line but their Verus line is definitely capable of great stereo listening. You should check them out. they have a showroom
 

AndreaT

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
438
Likes
794
Location
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Wonderful treat, a new review of a speaker. It does bother me to see an irregular frequency response in the ear-sensitive 1500-2500Hz region. Directivity might be problematic in HT settings, were the couch is probably not at tweeter level. Efficiency seems to be on the low side. Price reasonable considering the overall measurements. Considering the current offers from Revel, and their better measurements, I think I would pass on these Aperion N5T. Thank you Amir!
 

GWolfman

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
534
Likes
787
Generally speaking of MTM designs: would the vertical directivity be better if it were an MMT or TMM configuration (e.g., tweeter not sandwiched between the mid woofers)?
 

fineMen

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Oct 31, 2021
Messages
737
Likes
260
Nice. Directivity in D’Appolito drivers configuration is always a bit tricky.
The original trick, better to say the purpose of D'Appolito's scheme was to avoid exactly that bad interference pattern. D'Appolito stated rules by which the not as bad intereference with conventional configurations could be circumvented: 3rd order x/o, quite limited center to center distance between drivers, symmetry, period ;-)

If designers break the rules You get what is seen here. But don't call it "D'Appolito"--its deeply unfair.

Another is the decision to use both bass/mid drivers for bass. There is the viable option to use one for the bass reproduction, and the other for mids only. Reasoning: the single bass would generate lots of harmonic distortion if driven harder, but HD is of less concern especially in bass. The other driver, taking over at about 250Hz would be free of bass and significant excursion, thus generating not even a tenth of intermodulation. Such the midrange, especially up at say 500Hz .. 2kHz will be very much cleaner. I think the sacrifice of maybe 3dB of headroom in bass is worth the more polished mids.

As a diy'er I tried that and wouldn't do the look-alike-D'Appolito anymore for the two reasons given. Not too bad, but still no good i/m/o.
 

Jim Shaw

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
560
Likes
1,012
Location
Northeastern Ohio, USA, in the woods
I agree. The issue is that I measured this speaker two months back and I just can't find the time to listen to it. It is also blocking the pipeline for other speakers. So I decided to release the measurements.
As a potential user with a reasonably large and tall open-plan room to drive, I am interested in compression tests. Are these no longer a part of your Klippel regime? Are other readers disinterested in compression data? Can the compression numbers be divined from the test data presented here?

For example, I am a several-year user of the Elac DBR62 speakers. I bought them based on your report. But I don't recall seeing compression test results in that report. And I find my only slight dissatisfaction with them is sound quality at high (?) SPLs.

(No, I don't sit in front of them and want to destroy my hearing. But I often wish to play them loud in a place other than my normal listening chair.*)
*My normal listening position is about 4 meters away at the tweeter level where I might wish to have peak SPLs of 88 dB (~100 dB @ 1 meter). But I regularly listen casually at my desk, which is about 8 meters away. To achieve even 82 dB there, I need to have >>100 dB at 1 meter. I have 150 watts RMS from my amplifier, so signal power isn't the limitation.

So, compression is surely a factor. And I'm pretty sure that many here don't listen in a 4 meter x 5 meter x 3 meter spare bedroom. :)
 

beagleman

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
802
Likes
1,005
(No, I don't sit in front of them and want to destroy my hearing. But I often wish to play them loud in a place other than my normal listening chair.*)
*My normal listening position is about 4 meters away at the tweeter level where I might wish to have peak SPLs of 88 dB (~100 dB @ 1 meter). But I regularly listen casually at my desk, which is about 8 meters away. To achieve even 82 dB there, I need to have >>100 dB at 1 meter. I have 150 watts RMS from my amplifier, so signal power isn't the limitation.

So, compression is surely a factor. And I'm pretty sure that many here don't listen in a 4 meter x 5 meter x 3 meter spare bedroom. :)


I am trying to imagine how your desk is 8 Meters from the speakers with the speakers out a bit into the room and your deck chair about a meter from the wall. meaning the entire room must be approximately 10 meters in length...

but.....you say the room actually is 4 meters x5 meters..in size...........?
 

Jim Shaw

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
560
Likes
1,012
Location
Northeastern Ohio, USA, in the woods
I am trying to imagine how your desk is 8 Meters from the speakers with the speakers out a bit into the room and your deck chair about a meter from the wall. meaning the entire room must be approximately 10 meters in length...

but.....you say the room actually is 4 meters x5 meters..in size...........?
No to the 4 x 5 x 3... (that was cited as an example of a small listening room.)

It may be hard to envision this, but here goes. My home is an open 3 story floor plan with outside dimensions (of the top two floors) of ~11m x ~12m x ~3 to ~6m high (depending on where you measure. The desk is along one exterior wall and the speakers are placed on a diagonal facing away from an opposite corner exterior wall in the ~6 m ceiling area. My desk is ~10 m from the nearest main system speaker. My listening chair is ~4 m from each speaker. My tv watching chair is about 8 m from the nearest main speaker. The tv and the desk have their own speakers, but for music, I often listen to just the main system in any chair, because twin subs provide good bass distribution throughout much of the area.

If I drew it for you, you would easily understand. But I don't know how to draw, here.
 

Maiky76

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
361
Likes
2,871
Location
French, living in China
Score is 5.3 and 6.3 with an EQ. If you add a perfect subwoofer, you get to 6.9 and with both EQ and sub 8.0.
Below you can see the effect of a simple EQ:

View attachment 241071

Code:
EQ for Aperion N5T computed from ASR data
Preference Score 5.3 with EQ 6.3
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.16
Dated: 2022-11-04-08:35:24

Preamp: -5.3 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc  1835 Hz Gain +4.06 dB Q 3.00
Filter  2: ON PK Fc  3079 Hz Gain -2.46 dB Q 2.88
Filter  3: ON PK Fc   153 Hz Gain -1.03 dB Q 1.09
Filter  4: ON PK Fc   357 Hz Gain -1.66 dB Q 2.96
Filter  5: ON PK Fc  1941 Hz Gain +1.50 dB Q 2.99
Filter  6: ON PK Fc   171 Hz Gain +0.85 dB Q 2.95
Filter  7: ON PK Fc   605 Hz Gain +1.15 dB Q 2.95
Filter  8: ON PK Fc  1875 Hz Gain -1.37 dB Q 2.87
Filter  9: ON PK Fc  1883 Hz Gain +1.27 dB Q 2.98

My point of view is that the EQ is not really useful in this case. You lose 5dB of max SPL which is a lot. If you have a good room, possibly the dip at 2k (visible in the PIR) is audible but dips are always harder to hear.

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

Please report your findings, positive or negative!

The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration. If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...helf-speaker-review.11144/page-26#post-800725

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 5.2
With Sub: 6.9


Spinorama with no EQ:
  • Resonances
  • Very narrow V directivity
Aperion N5T No EQ Spinorama.png

Directivity:

Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.
Aperion N5T 2D surface Directivity Contour Only Data.png
Aperion N5T LW Better data.png


EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.
  • The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
  • The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

Score EQ LW: 5.1
with sub: 7.2

Score EQ Score: 5.9
with sub: 7.8

Code:
Aperion N5T APO EQ LW 96000Hz
November072022-130807

Preamp: -4.7 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 52.24,    0.00,    1.43
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 80.44,    -2.57,    1.44
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 353.81,    -1.18,    5.03
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 579.51,    1.84,    3.69
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1910.63,    4.48,    2.36
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2521.00,    -1.31,    4.14
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 4507.81,    2.48,    3.28
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7643.85,    2.06,    0.61

Aperion N5T APO EQ Score 96000Hz
November072022-130808

Preamp: -5 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 44.72,    0.00,    1.48
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 79.94,    -2.02,    1.44
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 349.79,    -1.69,    6.00
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 595.22,    1.84,    2.47
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1888.24,    4.82,    2.36
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2570.19,    -1.31,    3.86
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 4245.65,    1.76,    6.49
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 9032.49,    1.80,    0.49

Aperion N5T APO EQ Design.png



Spinorama EQ LW
Aperion N5T LW EQ Spinorama.png


Spinorama EQ Score
Aperion N5T Score EQ Spinorama.png


Zoom PIR-LW-ON
Aperion N5T APO Zoom.png


Regression - Tonal
Aperion N5T APO Regression - Tonal.png


Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Minor improvements
Aperion N5T APO Radar.png


Comparison with Pierre's EQ: 6.2 / 7.9
Score EQ: 5.9 / 7.8
Zoom Comparison
Would be interesting to hear the feedback of people trying A/B these two EQ.
I suspect Pierre EQ might be better received as it stays rather close to the initial tuning that was found OK by the buyer in the first place... See the EDIT.
"True Score EQ" is much closer to Pierre's and the original tuning.
Aperion N5T Pierre vs Score EQ.png




The rest of the plots is attached.

EDIT:

Just realized that I forgot to free one of the critical optimization parameters.
Here is the revised Score EQ:

True Score: 6.4 / 8.1

Code:
Aperion N5T APO EQ True Score 96000Hz
November072022-150939

Preamp: -4 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 44.72,    0.00,    1.48
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 91.04,    -1.85,    1.19
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 349.41,    -1.87,    5.00
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 584.59,    1.52,    2.86
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1899.49,    5.11,    2.37
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2558.68,    -1.21,    3.64
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 4252.65,    2.06,    5.39
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 3814.70,    -1.17,    0.26
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 7970.00,    1.10,    1.30

Aperion N5T Pierre vs True Score EQ Design.png


Aperion N5T APO EQ True Score 96000Hz.png

Aperion N5T Pierre vs True Score EQ.png
Aperion N5T EQ True Score Radar.png
 

Attachments

  • Aperion N5T 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
    Aperion N5T 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
    291.1 KB · Views: 11
  • Aperion N5T 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
    Aperion N5T 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
    442.4 KB · Views: 10
  • Aperion N5T 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
    Aperion N5T 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
    456.6 KB · Views: 11
  • Aperion N5T Normalized Directivity data.png
    Aperion N5T Normalized Directivity data.png
    300.9 KB · Views: 9
  • Aperion N5T Raw Directivity data.png
    Aperion N5T Raw Directivity data.png
    455.2 KB · Views: 11
  • Aperion N5T Reflexion data.png
    Aperion N5T Reflexion data.png
    141.6 KB · Views: 11
  • Aperion N5T LW data.png
    Aperion N5T LW data.png
    140.4 KB · Views: 13
  • Aperion N5T APO EQ Score 96000Hz.txt
    429 bytes · Views: 10
  • Aperion N5T APO EQ LW 96000Hz.txt
    428 bytes · Views: 12
  • Aperion N5T APO EQ True Score 96000Hz.txt
    480 bytes · Views: 10
Last edited:
Top Bottom