Argon 6350 bookshelf speaker, Spinorama measurements

[Ageve]

Here are measurements of the Argon 6350 bookshelf speaker.

Argon speakers are developed and sold by the Danish retail chain Hifi Klubben (founded by Peter Lyngdorf). The retail price was ~131 USD/pair (1396 SEK) in 2014.

I measured at 10 deg increments both horizontal and vertical, using a calibrated UMIK-2 (1m).

The on-axis response is a bit uneven, but the early reflections are surprisingly smooth. Directivity error at crossover.

Horizontal directivity:

0-90 deg for comparison with Stereophile measurements:

Vertical directivity:

Distortion, 86 dB SPL at 1m (96 dB at 30 cm):

I didn't measure at higher SPL since it's not my speaker, and I want to return it in working order . There was no audible distortion or port noise though.

Overall, the results are quite impressive considering how inexpensive these speakers were. They were discontinued in 2018.

 

[Penelinfi]

On axis : I'm Batman!!!

In room : The light that you shine can't be seen

 

[amirm]

Nice to see. Promoted to home page.

 

[beefkabob]

In room looks impressive, especially for the price. Too bad they're not made anymore.

 

[ENG]

In room looks impressive, especially for the price. Too bad they're not made anymore.

At Argon Audios homepage you can get a speaker in the same size and at a modest price, DKK 1.498. I don't know about the audio quality.

FORUS 4

Classic design, high performance, all at great value. This compact speaker with a 4-inch woofer and smooth tweeter fits any space. Add our MALMÖ sub for richer audio.

argonaudio.com

 

[Ageve]

Nice to see. Promoted to home page.

Thanks!

Here's a teardown:

At Argon Audios homepage you can get a speaker in the same size and at a modest price, DKK 1.498. I don't know about the audio quality.

I think the Forus 4 replaced the smaller 6340. 6350 is closer to the Forus 5 in size (DKK 1.998):

FORUS 5

Enjoy clear, full audio for every lifestyle. Each note, from deep bass to crisp highs, shines with our 5-inch woofer and silk-dome tweeter.

argonaudio.com

 

[Bicep]

Nice to see Argon being analyzed! I have a bunch of Audio Pro gear i hope to one day analyze

 

[uwotm8]

Overall seems good for the price and tuned "right" but for that price you'd better get something active (anyway it's not gonna be a reference tool).
The look is very cheap tho.

 

[DanielT]

Good job Ageve. Interesting. I have been wondering how Argon performs.

Argon speakers often pop up on the used market in Sweden. I don't believe that is because they are bad speakers, which you have shown with the Argon 6350 that they are not (on the contrary, it looks ok), but the large amount that was sold.

Used, you can buy a pair of Argon 6350 for around $45.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

To be honest, using a umik and measuring the speaker just give wrong data. If you don't have a Klippel or a very good anechoic, is better to do something else.

You did use a umik, personally i did use that mic too for experience how wrong these measurements are in our homes, that being said. You have a chamber... or something like that...? I dont see any pics from your measurements gear, just measurements without proper protocols using a chamber

 

[kemmler3D]

To be honest, using a umik and measuring the speaker just give wrong data. If you don't have a Klippel or a very good anechoic, is better to do something else.

You did use a umik, personally i did use that mic too for experience how wrong these measurements are in our homes, that being said. You have a chamber... or something like that...? I dont see any pics from your measurements gear, just measurements without proper protocols using a chamber

You can do psuedoanechoic measurements with a mic in-room as long as you gate them and then merge those with nearfield measurements in low frequencies (below the gate wavelength). Apparently when done correctly they come out close enough to klippel or true anechoic measurements to be worthwhile. There is a thorough tutorial on how to do it in a thread on ASR somewhere. I assume this is what @Ageve is doing - and not for nothing, I don't think Amir would promote it to homepage if there was good reason to believe the measurements are faulty.

@Ageve thanks for another interesting set of measurements! This looks like another set that is probably pretty good to listen to from across the room, like in the kitchen or something. Nearfield they are only suitable for playing the batman theme song, unfortunately.

 

[Ageve]

To be honest, using a umik and measuring the speaker just give wrong data. If you don't have a Klippel or a very good anechoic, is better to do something else.

You did use a umik, personally i did use that mic too for experience how wrong these measurements are in our homes, that being said. You have a chamber... or something like that...? I dont see any pics from your measurements gear, just measurements without proper protocols using a chamber

Thank you for the input, and I kind of agree. You should never trust only one source of measurements, unless it's by Amir or Erin using Klippel.

I'm using this guide for quasi-anechoic results (nearfield port+woofer measurements, corrected for baffle diffraction), combined with gated 1m measurements (5ms window):

How to make quasi-anechoic speaker measurements/spinoramas with REW and VituixCAD

Quasi-anechoic measurements are a way to capture the 'real' frequency response of a speaker without the influence of a room. They are called 'quasi-anechoic' because they have the potential to get you really close to the results one might achieve with a non-reflective environment like an...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Also, I'm using UMIK-2. It supports higher resolutions, has a lower noise floor, and can handle higher SPL. I know there were firmware issues with the first UMIK-2s, but that was 1-2 years ago, or more. I have the latest firmware.

It's getting dark outside, so I can't measure on my porch where I usually set everything up (behind the window in the picture), but anyway, here's a gated measurement of my Revel M16, compared to Klippel-measurements by Amir.

Note: This was measured in my living room (fairly high ceiling, but still not ideal), at 1m distance:

edit: Indoor Quasi-anechoic measurement added:

(The reflections in the piano finish are from my Apple TV. I'm not on a boat. )

The result was surprisingly accurate inside as well, but if a strong reflection hits the mic too soon, it will ruin the results. Also, I had to play with the reference time settings to get a smooth result (see the attached rew-file). Not ideal.

I usually put my (ugly, but working) turntable on a box when measuring outside (to avoid/delay the floor reflection).

The only deviations in the measurements above are >16 kHz, but Harman's own measurements also differ compared to Amir's. It could be that he is using a more modern setup. I don't know.

My simple setup only works for small speakers, and I don't want my M16 to fall down on my porch... That's why I haven't done a spin of it. I also don't have to since there are better measurements available.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Thank you for the input, and I kind of agree. You should never trust only one source of measurements, unless it's by Amir or Erin using Klippel.

I'm using this guide for quasi-anechoic results (nearfield port+woofer measurements, corrected for baffle diffraction), combined with gated 1m measurements (5ms window):

How to make quasi-anechoic speaker measurements/spinoramas with REW and VituixCAD

Quasi-anechoic measurements are a way to capture the 'real' frequency response of a speaker without the influence of a room. They are called 'quasi-anechoic' because they have the potential to get you really close to the results one might achieve with a non-reflective environment like an...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Also, I'm using UMIK-2. It supports higher resolutions, has a lower noise floor, and can handle higher SPL. I know there were firmware issues with the first UMIK-2s, but that was 1-2 years ago, or more. I have the latest firmware.

It's getting dark outside, so I can't measure on my porch where I usually set everything up (behind the window in the picture), but anyway, here's a gated measurement of my Revel M16, compared to Klippel-measurements by Amir.

Note: This was measured in my living room (fairly high ceiling, but still not ideal), at 1m distance:

View attachment 375705

edit: Indoor Quasi-anechoic measurement added:

View attachment 375715



(The reflections in the piano finish are from my Apple TV. I'm not on a boat. )

The result was surprisingly accurate inside as well, but if a strong reflection hits the mic too soon, it will ruin the results. Also, I had to play with the reference time settings to get a smooth result (see the attached rew-file). Not ideal.

I usually put my (ugly, but working) turntable on a box when measuring outside (to avoid/delay the floor reflection).

The only deviations in the measurements above are >16 kHz, but Harman's own measurements also differ compared to Amir's. It could be that he is using a more modern setup. I don't know.

My simple setup only works for small speakers, and I don't want my M16 to fall down on my porch... That's why I haven't done a spin of it. I also don't have to since there are better measurements available.

Like that you baselined your test rig against a known measurement and can show high correlation. It shows that you are disciplined and your measurements can be trusted. To get a good bass match is impressive and testimony that shows that even with lesser equipment, solid results can be achieved (when the tester is sufficiently skilled).

 

[beagleman]

Like that you baselined your test rig against a known measurement and can show high correlation. It shows that you are disciplined and your measurements can be trusted. To get a good bass match is impressive and testimony that shows that even with a lesser equipment, solid results can be achieved (when the tester is sufficiently skilled).

Agreed~!
And his results could easily be within the small unit to unit variations between actual retail units.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Agreed~!
And his results could easily be within the small unit to unit variations between actual retail units.

yes, notably with tweeters one can encounter more variation between individual units.

 

[restorer-john]

You have some pretty decent agreement in measurements. Well done.

 

[Ageve]

Like that you baselined your test rig against a known measurement and can show high correlation. It shows that you are disciplined and your measurements can be trusted. To get a good bass match is impressive and testimony that shows that even with a lesser equipment, solid results can be achieved (when the tester is sufficiently skilled).

Thanks!

The Baffle Edge Diffraction Simulator by Jeff Bagby makes it quite easy. I measured the M16 as close to the port as possible, without having the mic inside the port or flare, and then 3 mm from the woofer (It should be 0.05 x 5.2 inches (~6.6 mm), but half the distance gave the same results but with higher SPL).

I have attached the measurements if anyone wants to check them out.

 

[Ageve]

Here's another comparison, with measurements by Newport Test Labs (from Australian Hi-fi magazine):

https://www.excelia-hifi.cz/revel/test/revel-concerta-m16-australian_hifi_11_18.pdf

"Low-frequency response is measured by Newport Test Labs using a near-field technique that simulates the response that would be measured if the speaker were in an anechoic chamber"

Using Klippel as a reference, my measurements are actually more accurate, lol.

Near fileld bass response:

 

[Rick Sykora]

Not too surprised, as we seem to be finding a lack of accuracy on bass measurements by audio publications lately.

When an amateur can do better, not sure whether it is ignorance or apathy, but certainly undermines their credibility.

 

[beagleman]

@Ageve Great work sir!

Sincerely look forward to more speakers measurements if you have the time and inclination.