I’m posting some spectral plots related to some hearing testing that has come out of Heidelberg University. For more information, see this thread on the AV123 forum www.av123forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18122

Do not view the following spectral charts until after you have taken the test! Viewing them beforehand will bias your results.

tone_pair_1.JPG

tone_pair_2.JPG

tone_pair_3.JPG

tone_pair_4.JPG

tone_pair_5.JPG

tone_pair_6.JPG

tone_pair_7.JPG

tone_pair_8.JPG

tone_pair_9.JPG

tone_pair_10.JPG

tone_pair_11.JPG

tone_pair_12.JPG

---

SV Subwoofers has announced details of their first line of non-subwoofer speakers (see SVS News). The line contains a bookshelf speaker (SBS-01 - $210/pair pre-order, $225/pair normally) and a center channel (SCS-01 - no individual pricing given) with 5.0, 5.1 and 7.1 package pricing that puts a 5.1 system at $899 pre-order, $999 normally). While only package pricing with a PB-10ISD is given, I would expect that one could get a package price with any of the SVS subs.

SBS-01 bookshelf speaker:

This product release pits SVS against Aperion Audio’s 422 based systems, Ascend Acoustics’ HTM-200/CBM-170 based systems, Home Theater Direct’s Level Three system, and AV123’s upcoming XLS based system (while the XLS will be released around the same type as SVS’s offering, the matching center channel will lag behind). The sub $1,000 5.1 system market gets another competitor and this one will certainly stir up the issue of which offering brings the best sub to the game.

Ron Stimpson has hinted that the future will bring more, higher-end speakers from SVS. It should be interesting to see where the lines progress and to hear them.

---

Yet another speaker company (this time Axiom) is jumping into the ’speaker to accompany plasma TVs’ market with their new architectural series which appears to both recess into the wall and stick out of it. While they claim it is the best of both worlds, it seems to be the worst of both as well. It requires that you punch holes in your walls (one of the big problems with in-walls for renters or the DIY declined) and still have something sticking out of the wall (appearing like a thinner speaker had been hung on the wall). To me, the major benefit of on-walls is that you don’t have to punch holes in the wall and the major benefit of in-walls is near invisibility - these new entries into the field have neither, so I don’t understand the product benefit. I suppose the idea is that by giving up both of these benefits, you’ll get better sound, but there are good sounding in-walls and on-walls out there.

In-wall speakers are certainly nothing new, but many companies have ventured into the slim on-wall speaker market recently, banking on the popularity of plasma and LCD TVs. Many of the mainstream companies (Sony, Polk, Yamaha, etc) have products in this space and more audiophile oriented companies like Magnepan, Vienna Acoustics and B&W have also released plasma-friendly speaker lines. It has become a competitive niche of the speaker market, so any new entrants better bring it.

---

Some conversation about asthetics stirred up after various people looked through the pictures I took at the RMAF. While asthetics are certainly a personal thing and I’m not here to tell people what they should think is pretty, the core question seemed to be: how important should asthetics be in audio?

If we take a look at equipment at the show, we’ll see that in most cases, asthetics plays an important role. Almost every company gives some thought to how visually attractive their products are, although they take it to varying degrees and in different directions. From industrial aluminum enclosures (plenty of those to be seen - no shortage of CNC hours on products at the show) to organic woodwork (again, plenty to be seen, although mostly on speakers) there seemed to be something for almost anyone. One notable exception is in size - there were few small speakers at the show since most companies brought flagship products.

While some folks will tell you that the appearance doesn’t matter at all, it’s only about the sound, I would disagree to an extent. When you spend a good deal of money on any product, you want to feel good about the product. For something that sits in a living space, part of feeling good about it is feeling good about how it looks. Now, if you have a dedicated listening room that no one else enters and is kept dark, then who cares (although it makes me a bit sad to have music not being shared).

I was happy to see a combination of asthetics in speakers at the show including nicely done paint jobs like Eben and Hansen:

And attractive wood including Salk and AV123:

Electronics offered less variety, seeming to be a combination of various flavors of aluminum:

And a few different designs like the gloss black, round Thor equipment and wood-clad Red Rock amps:

So, good asthetic variety in speakers, but less so in electronics. I should point out that you definitely pay for the asthetics much of the time. For many products, I expect that the highly custom enclosures add far more to the price than the high-end contents. Naturally, some of the cost comes from greater build quality in addition to asthetic work.

BTW: I think my personal favorite for most attractive speakers is the Usher Dancer series, but it’s a bit pricey for me. Unfortunately, I don’t have any pictures of the Usher room at the show.

---

Recently, Mark Schifter announced details of the new X-series of electronics from AV123. While these products were already known to be coming, the announcement contained new details of interest (in addition to renders of what the products are expected to look like). The series contains an integrated amp (x-empower), preamp/DAC (x-hub), monoblock amp (x-amp), headphone amp (x-head) and tone control box (x-tone).

The interesting points about these products are not in the ’speeds and feeds’ as we say in the computer industry, but in some of the other details. Most notably that they will be “Made in the USA (at least for the first 6 months)”, breaking from the AV123/Onix model of production based in China. It certainly raises the question ‘Who is making these?’ along with ‘How do you hit those price points with American labor costs?’. Neither question has an answer at the moment.

Getting into the speeds and feeds, there are a couple of items of interest. First, the x-empower, a 2×50W integrated amp at $99, seems to be sitting directly across from the new Sonic Impact $139 upgraded 2×15W integrated amp, but with more power, two inputs and an optional remote. The amplification tech used in the x-empower hasn’t been made public, but prior statements said that it was not tri-path based and that the amplification differs from prototypes that had a lower power output rating.

Another interesting spec is that the x-amp is no longer the x-ice and no longer based on the ICE module as prototypes had been. It isn’t clear what it is based on, but with a rating of 125W into 8ohm, it will be interesting to learn what it might be.

Physically, they will have aluminum cases with optional color baseplates and accessories to allow stacking of the curved-top boxes.

There aren’t many other details on the products at this point (even the branding is unclear), and inferring information from renders is not productive (although the use of push-buttons for volume controls could lead to some conjecture).

---

I want to start by thanking Al and the other organizers of the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. From my point of view, the show was a big success - of course, the true success of a show is economic: was the attendance high enough to make it a viable event to continue. I hope that it is, but I don’t know the numbers. There are a number of local vendors and retailers to drive the event and the show is already drawing companies from all over.

I was happy to be able to see some familiar faces again and to finally meet some people face-to-face that I have only communicated with online. There are a lot of interesting characters in this industry.

It’s worth mentioning that companies should take some time considering the space they have available and how to make it work. Pick an appropriate room for what you want to do, setup that room properly and make the whole package appealing. Overall, I think the rooms were set up better this year, but there were several cases of too much stuff in a room or speakers overpowering a small room. Most of the rooms are smaller just because of availability, but that just means you don’t bring the big guns with you. Static displays were nice when there was room, but that wasn’t always the case.

The vast majority of hosts were very nice and welcoming, but not all were in my experience. If you only have one host, it’s hard to deal with people asking questions and listening at once. At least two hosts at any given time is a must in my opinion. If there are questions at the same time as listening, taking it around the corner or into the hall will prevent your listeners from being annoyed or distracted.

While I have heard people harping on the lack of room treatments, their presence did not directly correlate to the best sounding rooms. I think a lot came from just plain good positioning, which was better than last year. Last year, my joke was that I always had to squat in front of a chair because half the rooms had their hot seat about a foot or two too far back.

My one disappointment with the show is the focus on super-bucks setups. While I’m sure a lot of people visit the show to check out the systems they could never afford, and there are probably attendees who actually could afford to drop $100k on their audio system, I would like to see some more affordable systems shown.

Since I’m local, I know that many of the local retailers were showcasing their flagship systems and they carry much more reasonably priced setups which probably make for the bulk of their sales.

I have been using a car show analogy a lot when talking with people about the show. Every year, Denver has an auto show just like many other large cities. The vast majority of models on display are standard fare from each company. Most companies highlight either their latest model or an unreleased model. There are a couple small exhibits of high-end autos (Ferrari, Bently, Aston Martin) which certainly attract attention. But, the reason people attend the show are either because they are car buffs or because they want a chance to compare vehicles for their next purchase. While they can’t test drive them, they can walk back and forth between candidates without having to drive from dealer to dealer. They aren’t there to compare a Ferrari to a Porsche, but to compare a Toyota to a Honda or a Ford to a Pontiac.

The RMAF gives people a chance to actually test drive systems that they can’t hear without driving all over, or that they can’t hear locally at all. It brings together more rooms than can be test driven in a single day which is fantastic, but it seemed like most rooms contained systems that cost tens of thousands of dollars (and I’m only counting one source in each room).

On average, Stereophile readers have ~$11k invested in their systems (the number is getting a bit old, but I haven’t heard a newer one - we could call it $15k if we want). I would like to make a bit of a leap and assume that a good number of Stereophile readers are insane (yes, I read it) and that most of us spend, or would like to spend, less than that for a single system.

At the show, there were very few systems (for the purposes of this discussion, a system includes the speakers, amplification, preamplification, source, and cables for two-channel listening) under $10k and only a handful under $5k.

I understand that it’s business and it’s competitive (and it’s personally competitive for many), so I wouldn’t expect companies to bring their less expensive equipment to be compared to the more expensive products from others (important exceptions here that I’ll mention in a moment), so I propose a friendly challenge: the Budget Build-off.

The idea of the Budget Build-off is simple - a system (speakers, amplification, preamplification, single source and all cables required for the included items) for no more than $5k. The costs must be actual current retail costs without discounts (negotiating, return customer, show special, etc) and all products must be available for order at those prices at the time of the show (no increasing the costs later). To make it interesting, attendees could vote on their favorite $5k systems and the winner could have an award and bragging rights for the year.

Personally, I don’t think $5k qualifies for the term ‘budget’, but I doubt any interest would be generated with a lower number than that. I expect, if anything, there would be interest in having the price point set at $10k instead of $5k.

Now, I want to commend companies that, in my opinion, are bringing real value proposition to the show and aren’t afraid to have their less expensive products shown next to big bucks items. A lot of them are direct sales companies like AV123, Aperion, GR Research, Odyssey and RAW Acoustics. I think there are brick and mortar retailers who demonstrate value as well, but they weren’t bringing it to the show (from what I saw).

So, if there seems to be interest in the idea of a Budget build-off from exhibitors, I’ll try to work with the event organizers about making a formal part of the event. I’d be willing to put in time to make it happen.

---

I just finished the last of my four pages of RMAF coverage. I’ll be posting my conclusions from the show in a regular post here sometime soon.

Comments (0) - Posted in Audio by Brad