Low sensitivity is more a concern with distance, generally speaking.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
AsciLab F6B Bookshelf Speaker Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
there is one done by Erin if you have not seen it in the meantime for if amirm was sent one for review as well
Last edited by a moderator:
kimmosto
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
- Messages
- 321
- Likes
- 774
c-c ~ 1/2 wave length at XO frequency is one option, but it could be close to worst for power response creating clear leg/step to sound power and directivity index responses. Low XO compared to c-c allows higher listening window at near...mid field, but that advantage could be lost to longer distances and random listening positions radically off-axis where power response start to rule overall balance.
Very short c-c down to 1/4 wave length or less at XO has been a long term dream, but it's almost impossible in practice between M and T. c-c close to wavelength at XO is possible and more advantageous for power response. Early vertical reflections are combination of floor and ceiling bounces which usually travel different distances so they could partially compensate each others in overall balance. Statistically a bit longer than one wavelength compensates vertical early reflections the best, but that depends on directivity of the radiators and distance range where smoothness of total vertical ER is evaluated.
Example: Some active 2-way with 6.5" mid-woofer and 1" tweeter with wave guide compared to different AsciLab models, c-c = 1.3 x wave length at XO, distance 2 m:
For example KH 150 has the same kind of power and directivity step, but DI at tweeter's range is significantly higher so it's worse to other than near field monitoring assuming that room room acoustics is "good"; not harsh with long (early) decay times.
Very short c-c down to 1/4 wave length or less at XO has been a long term dream, but it's almost impossible in practice between M and T. c-c close to wavelength at XO is possible and more advantageous for power response. Early vertical reflections are combination of floor and ceiling bounces which usually travel different distances so they could partially compensate each others in overall balance. Statistically a bit longer than one wavelength compensates vertical early reflections the best, but that depends on directivity of the radiators and distance range where smoothness of total vertical ER is evaluated.
Example: Some active 2-way with 6.5" mid-woofer and 1" tweeter with wave guide compared to different AsciLab models, c-c = 1.3 x wave length at XO, distance 2 m:
For example KH 150 has the same kind of power and directivity step, but DI at tweeter's range is significantly higher so it's worse to other than near field monitoring assuming that room room acoustics is "good"; not harsh with long (early) decay times.
Emiyanez
Member
@AsciLab great work on this one!
How is the floorstanders line envisioned? Are you thinking about levering on the current designs and adding extra drivers and XO? 2.5 or 3 way? How many different speakers and which price ranges are you aiming to (if I am allowed to ask)?
I am tempted to jump into a pair of C6B but I would regret if a reasonably priced floorstander is launched in a few months from now.
Robbo99999
Master Contributor
Ok, so there stuff is not gonna be inexpensive! But I suppose if performance is top notch it could be competitive or good value in relative terms.Their current roadmap is here, has specs and prices for most of them
Last edited:
I seem to have learned a lot more about speaker design than I ever expected from reading through a review thread.
I've been pondering getting another pair of speakers for some time - but will probably wait a bit longer until some more of the range is available.
I've been pondering getting another pair of speakers for some time - but will probably wait a bit longer until some more of the range is available.
Luvchampagne
Active Member
Yes. Totally missing. The Cardioid plus bass extension is exactly that. It also is fully active with all the bells and whistles like a Kii3. I would not call that a tower. The tower is a larger version of the bookshelf. Passive, not cardioid.
Luvchampagne
Active Member
I'm confused on why you're at odds. In what business does increasing cost of raw materials not result in a minimum price increase of profit margin multiplied by raw material cost increase? Especially in a higher end business such as hifi. Take a look at any AI server and look at the cost increase of a different cpu and memory. It is not the actual cost difference of the parts. Not even close. BTW, you probably don't want to even peek at the price of the Purifi version of the C6B, if the pricing of the C6B offends you. Imho, with the cost of the R&D and production engineering, fairly low production volumes and quality level of the Asci speakers, their pricing is quite fair.
Last edited:
He probably means means the transcribed transcribed version that contains all the graphs. Some people can absorb the info and graphs better in a Web page format. He currently doesn't have the written version done yet.
Because I like to compare graphs.
The price difference of $110 between F6B and F6S is reasonable. Retail price for a pair of those oval SB PRs is about $60. They are going to be a lot cheaper in volume, but then there is also the margin to consider and the extra effort of countersinking the PRs.
The retail price difference between the fiber and CAC midranges is also on the order of $ 60, and there is not extra countersinking, so even if you throw in the price difference for the tweeters (btw, what are those in the F and the C?), in extrapolation, the price should be south of $1000.
But then they look fancier, so maybe value based pricing?
Luvchampagne
Active Member
Interesting analysis. Can you point people to this south of $1k speaker that performs at this level?
I was merely pointing out that when I apply the pricing of F6P vs. F6S, the C6P should not be so much more expensive than the F6P unless I am overlooking a major change (so far assumed going from SB15 fiber to CAC cone and from SB alu to CAC-like dome, which is essentially the same cone after anodization.
Last edited:
Luvchampagne
Active Member
You're still applying your utopian version of cost plus pricing. Good luck with that in a luxury market.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 1,429
- Likes
- 2,835
Cashed in? Wow... did we get spoiled by unprecedented reasonably priced SOTA that quickly, if we're questioning a $110 bump? The buyer has a choice to weigh value, visually or whatever pushes their dopamine button, with this level of transparency. No claims outside of the measurements are being made as far as I've seen. Considering the amazingly fast delivery buyers are reporting here... you can rationalize the $110 as payment for instant gratification... one of my personal favorites as dopamine buttons go... lol.
Luvchampagne
Active Member
There's a good reason for the ignore feature. Just used it.
Read, comprehend, then post. I am totally ok with the $110 bump from the F6S to the F6B (extra PR + countersinking + mounting). It is the $310 bump from the F6B to the C6B (extra anodization on the cones and domes, no extra routing or mounting work) that cannot be explained by the same kind of math. That is why I asked whether I overlooked a major change or they just capitalized on perceived value.
Engineering to cost as well as cost engineering (i.e. reverse engineering a supplier's or competitor's pricing) is a large and legitmate part of engineering that I am very familar with in my day job. I think it is appropriate to discuss that here, especially since the F6 series seems to present excellent value.
I expect that this price difference is from the woofer cost from SB Acoustics * margin multiplier from AsciLab, suppose all else is equal (tweeter, WG, chassis, XO, connectors and wiring).
Similar threads
- Poll
