• 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 speakers are about to launch

sigbergaudio said:
But you claimed that a well designed speaker didn't sound good, it often sounded bright and harsh.

As a speaker designer, the desirable outcome for any speaker I design, is that it sounds good. If it measures well and also sounds good, great! If it measures well but doesn't sound good, then the outcome is not achieved. From my perspective it is then not a well designed speaker.
Click to expand...
Missed this post before.

Speakers are a tool for music. You design the tool, and then whoever is using it prepares it for use in a particular circumstance (through measurement and EQ).

Andrew Jones has said, if you design a speaker assuming it will sit nearly flush against the front wall next to a television, and the listener will hear the direct sound sound off-axis, then invariably you will have listeners who toe in the speakers so they face the on-axis. CD speakers, to some extent, don't have this problem and so his latest efforts have CD characteristics.

Designing speakers with too narrow of a use case, or imagining listeners to have the same taste in sound as you do, limits what and who the speaker will fit.

The best guides we have about the characteristics possessed by the most flexible kind of speaker produce, for some like me, a slightly bright signature. In all other aspects such speakers are as perfect as current skill, technology and effort allow. I don't see a contradiction here. Speakers can't anticipate the kind of room they will be in. The density or strength of reflections will impact the average tonal balance just as much as the speaker itself does. Outside of treatment, EQ is the best answer at the moment. And remember we are talking about very minor EQ. The complicated work of the speaker designer in integrating drivers and shaping directivity is not in question here.

We see the similar, but more severe problems in headphones. The best research suggests that the Harman curve is the best starting point. However, every individual's HRTF is produces fairly significant differences above 1kHz and leakage is not predictable, impacting bass. I bought the classic HD800S, which is free of resonance other than in the HF and therefore will respond well to EQ. Once I learned to measure and EQ speakers to taste, I simply could not listen to headphones. They sounded wrong, and I could not fix them satisfactorily by ear or when following, for example, Oratory's measurements. Not until I bought in-ear microphones and created individual LR curves for my ears. I would just note that many other people like the stock sound of the HD800s with their HRTFs. I don't think this is an issue of varying preference. It is more a question of uncontrollable circumstantial factors, HRTFs, and whether or not the result when combined with the headphone in question is subjectively objectionable or not.

Speaker designers have an easier time in that sense, since you don't have to wonder about individual humans so much as individual rooms.
 
TheHighContemplator said:
Wow. Hopefully, they create a sub $10k option for production.

Thanks for responding.
Click to expand...
I spent over 3 hours listening to the various speakers. All are excellent just different for different use cases. Their R&D and engineering are excellent and the speakers all look very good.
The speaker you're referring to is a one off over 12 months in production and tweaking. Full dsp. No cost spared. The speaker is so big and heavy they had not yet tested it with their Klippel.

If you're looking for a all in fully active cardioid speaker with attached bass module that plays 105db+ spl and flat 20 to 20khz, I wouldn't hold my breath. Just the parts are close to or more than $10k. Even without the Purifi drivers.

I'm guessing you might get close with a passive tower but they haven't released the design and cost yet.
 
Luvchampagne said:
I spent over 3 hours listening to the various speakers. All are excellent just different for different use cases. Their R&D and engineering are excellent and the speakers all look very good.
The speaker you're referring to is a one off over 12 months in production and tweaking. Full dsp. No cost spared.
If you're looking for a all in fully active cardioid speaker that plays 105db+ spl and flat 20 to 20khz, I wouldn't hold my breath. Just the parts are close to or more than that. Even without the Purifi drivers. I'm guessing you might get close with a passive tower but they haven't released the design and cost yet.
Click to expand...
Until then we have the C6C, S6C and F6C. Whenever the smaller D&D model comes out, that will be an interesting competition.
 
Looking forward to see the 3-way design ... hopefully IMD in the midrange (higher SPL) can be much lower than the C6B.
Saving up for future upgrade spend :)



mton-80.png


.
 
Can someone upload sound samples on youtube for the F6B and the C6B speakers with a good mic?
I know you can not hear the real sound on a YT recording.
But i want to hear if there is a difference noticable between the 2 speakers with some good headphones.
 
BossBunos said:
I'm lucky enough to own a pair of salon2's and whenever I put a (good measuring) speaker next to it, the salon sounds so much more open. I'm not sure if this is the result of the very wide (almost constant up to 8khz) directivity. I do have a very reflective room.
Click to expand...
Probably it’s simply that good measuring floor standers sound more open and clear.
I have a similar experience in comparing the Ascend Sierra 1v2 (very good measured directivity) with my Revels F228be. The latter sound way more “realistic”.
I also wonder how that can be explained in physical terms.
 
Mike_Trueman said:
Can someone upload sound samples on youtube for the F6B and the C6B speakers with a good mic?
I know you can not hear the real sound on a YT recording.
But i want to hear if there is a difference noticable between the 2 speakers with some good headphones.
Click to expand...

Probably not. Doubt you'll find someone that has both. Trying to compare from 2 different setups, I doubt it.
 
Mike_Trueman said:
Can someone upload sound samples on youtube for the F6B and the C6B speakers with a good mic?
I know you can not hear the real sound on a YT recording.
But i want to hear if there is a difference noticable between the 2 speakers with some good headphones.
Click to expand...
I have both here, tonally they sound very similar as you would expect, unfortunately due to Eversolo amp failure ( brand new amp, one channel dead) I wasn’t able to switch quickly between, I have another Boxem delivery this week which are simply superb amps and utterly reliable so I will try again.
Also just received notification that the A6B’s are on their way!
Keith
 
Curvature said:
Missed this post before.

Speakers are a tool for music. You design the tool, and then whoever is using it prepares it for use in a particular circumstance (through measurement and EQ).

Andrew Jones has said, if you design a speaker assuming it will sit nearly flush against the front wall next to a television, and the listener will hear the direct sound sound off-axis, then invariably you will have listeners who toe in the speakers so they face the on-axis. CD speakers, to some extent, don't have this problem and so his latest efforts have CD characteristics.

Designing speakers with too narrow of a use case, or imagining listeners to have the same taste in sound as you do, limits what and who the speaker will fit.

The best guides we have about the characteristics possessed by the most flexible kind of speaker produce, for some like me, a slightly bright signature. In all other aspects such speakers are as perfect as current skill, technology and effort allow. I don't see a contradiction here. Speakers can't anticipate the kind of room they will be in. The density or strength of reflections will impact the average tonal balance just as much as the speaker itself does. Outside of treatment, EQ is the best answer at the moment. And remember we are talking about very minor EQ. The complicated work of the speaker designer in integrating drivers and shaping directivity is not in question here.

We see the similar, but more severe problems in headphones. The best research suggests that the Harman curve is the best starting point. However, every individual's HRTF is produces fairly significant differences above 1kHz and leakage is not predictable, impacting bass. I bought the classic HD800S, which is free of resonance other than in the HF and therefore will respond well to EQ. Once I learned to measure and EQ speakers to taste, I simply could not listen to headphones. They sounded wrong, and I could not fix them satisfactorily by ear or when following, for example, Oratory's measurements. Not until I bought in-ear microphones and created individual LR curves for my ears. I would just note that many other people like the stock sound of the HD800s with their HRTFs. I don't think this is an issue of varying preference. It is more a question of uncontrollable circumstantial factors, HRTFs, and whether or not the result when combined with the headphone in question is subjectively objectionable or not.

Speaker designers have an easier time in that sense, since you don't have to wonder about individual humans so much as individual rooms.
Click to expand...

"whoever is using it prepares it for use in a particular circumstance (through measurement and EQ)."

I think there's a fallacy in your reasoning here, as you expect all customers to use EQ. What if I told you that most customers don't use EQ or measure their room? For most the amount of "EQ" done is probably limited to placement and toe-in (which will affect top end brightness to an extent, depending on the design).

Beyond that I'm not sure if we are in agreement or not. I personally never use EQ above around 100-200hz on our systems, because it's simply not needed. But we provide simple means to adjust the top-end and/or low-end to adjust for preference or room, which I guess perhaps address what you are talking about. I however still don't agree that the default sound would typically be perceived as bright.

Since we're in the Ascilab thread after all; judging by the measurements of their speakers, I wouldn't expect them to sound bright or harsh for most listeners / rooms either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ENG
Regarding the preference score, what really jumps out to me on Spinorama, is that the score usually goes up 2 points from 5 to 7 or 6 to 8 when adding a subwoofer to 2 way speakers (!)

That is really significant and aligns with my personal experience too.
 
AsciLab said:
Audiophonics will be our designated dealer for the EU region.For detailed information regarding sales in Europe, please contact Audiophonics directly.
Click to expand...
You guys react quickly and take the right decisions!

Merci et bonne chance a tous!
 
Esprit said:
This is just a step, AsciLab is already thinking about a 3-way speaker, so the question remains... ;)
Click to expand...
Well, then you question will have no answer until AsciLab decides to cease development on any future products. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom