Tweet
A3rx-c Initial impressions
Hey folks. It's been a while. Been busy with work and personal stuff.
I have been listening to the A3rx-c's for about a month now. As you all know, I'm a pretty big fan of the A5's :D and was excited to get a chance to really get a taste for the revised A3 design. Jon warned me it would sound very different from the outgoing A3's.
Different indeed.
My first impression during setup was that the midrange has a completely different character than the previous A3's. Whereas those could be described as having a recessed midrange presentation, these do not at all share that. The A3rx-c's share the A5's midrange character, if not the A5's presentation. The rx-c's are smooth, reveal more detail, and throw a wider, yet better defined soundstage than their predecessors.
First thing I notice during unboxing and set up was that they like a LOT of toe-in...and that this helps widen the soundstage while simultaneously anchoring the center image most strongly. So, they differ from the A5's in this regard, which I have found to want some toe-in, but not preferring the tweeters aimed directly at your ears as the rx-c's do.
When I employed too little toe-in, I found that the soundstage collapsed and was clearly confined to the outside edges of the cabinets and that the center image, while well defined, wasn't very crisp (no "phantom center" effect like I've known the A5's to provide). Adding toe-in as stated above fixed all these problems and transformed how they sounded in my room. Listening to old blues recordings went from sounding like I'm listening through a window to actually being in the room. Jon would later tell me that he spent quite a long time getting these right....and it shows.
Properly set-up, it was time for break in. Man, do these need break in time. I know that Jon has told you guys about the Arx midwoofer having an extremely long travel motor and suspension......please don't ignore his advice for break in. The rx-c's didn't really start to resolve those finer things in the midrange (like directional and spatial cues) very well until I had almost 50 hours of play time on them. As a refresher, I did NOTHING special for break in. Nothing. I just had the wife watch TV/Netflix/Amazon through them as much as possible, in addition to my usual music listening sessions. I just prefer to not abuse them at high volumes until this time has passed. I feel the same way about car engines. It's my OCD and I don't have much of any science to back that up....just personal preference.
As for the change in tuning, the new tweeter isn't what you're hearing (it sounds nearly indistinguishable from the previous gen planar driver...which is a VERY good thing). You'[re actually hearing the crossover tuning and the same-ole Arx midwoofer being allowed to stretch its vocal chords. This really cemented my observation and belief that the Arx midwoofer is one of the best MIDRANGES available for anywhere near it's price point. It's just incredible. No changes to it whatsoever, yet it sounds like a different driver altogether. This is partially due tot he fact that the new tweeter allows Jon to use more of the tweeter's natural low-end roll-off in the driver summing....and also allowed him to eliminate some components in the crossover (simpler is better). So, electrically, there are fewer components between the sound and the drivers and, mechanically, the drivers in the A3rx-c actually play better together with their own native responses.
So, after about 50-ish hours, what am I hearing?
Well, these have a very similar sonic character to the A5's now. Very similar midrange...which is where the improvements lie. Having the two speakers side by side (and also switching them out so they occupy identical positions in the listening room), the tweeters sound so nearly identical that most listeners couldn't tell the difference. The new tweeters have even lower distortion and even better power handling (and a different native frequency response roll-off), but they are damn near twins. Again, this is an excellent thing.
The rx-c's now have a very clearly represented midrange that is both less-harsh and more detailed than the outgoing A3, especially at higher volume levels. The imaging is also much better. Much like the A5's you can listen to a violin all day with no listener fatigue, but now with added detail (you don't feel like you're missing anything, either). The image is not quite as big as the A5's (which are more expensive and have a dedicated midrange driver...they SHOULD be better)...but the performance gap has closed. The imaging greatly improves, as with every Arx model, when you get the loudspeaker out INTO the room. The rearmost top-corner of the A3rx-c's are 28.75" from the rear wall and even further from side walls. They are almost 9ft apart and I am just over 10ft away at my listening position.They really light up he room now and, with proper toe-in, the phantom center effect is there. Even watching movies or TV in 5/6/7.1 downmixed to stereo, vocals remain clearly defined in the mix, yet anchored on the screen. Always intelligible, but never crowded out. The old A3's couldn't do that....that used to be a 'trick' relegated to speakers of the A5's ilk (or better). You could call the A3rx-c's an A5-lite when comparing them to the first-gen A5.
In fact, I'm going to say something that most won't expect: if you don't listen to music critically (i.e. you are mostly TV/movies/videogames/background music), save yourself the money and grab a pair of A3rx-c's. They're that good. Holy crap are they good!
Now the caveat: are the A5's "better"? IMHO, yes. But, unless you have a large room to fill or are a critical music listener, the additional money that WOULD have been spent over the A3rx-c's might be wasted. Not quite as much fine detail. Not quite the holographic imaging. Not quite the enormous soundstage (though still with some stereo effects wrapping themselves around you.....just not as enveloping and not as often as with the A5's). But close. Damn close. And for less money.
Now, the A5rx-c's are still gestational...and will have to be better than the A5's or Jon just won't release them. But they will also move up in price for both the base model (and for the possible upgraded finish model). There is simply no other compact tower that I have yet heard for under $850 that can compare to the A3rx-c's. None.
The A3rx-c's ARE the new value leader for compact towers under $850 (and possibly for much more than that). Period.
-Collin
EDIT: All listening was done with grilles off on both the A3rx-c and the A5.
I have been listening to the A3rx-c's for about a month now. As you all know, I'm a pretty big fan of the A5's :D and was excited to get a chance to really get a taste for the revised A3 design. Jon warned me it would sound very different from the outgoing A3's.
Different indeed.
My first impression during setup was that the midrange has a completely different character than the previous A3's. Whereas those could be described as having a recessed midrange presentation, these do not at all share that. The A3rx-c's share the A5's midrange character, if not the A5's presentation. The rx-c's are smooth, reveal more detail, and throw a wider, yet better defined soundstage than their predecessors.
First thing I notice during unboxing and set up was that they like a LOT of toe-in...and that this helps widen the soundstage while simultaneously anchoring the center image most strongly. So, they differ from the A5's in this regard, which I have found to want some toe-in, but not preferring the tweeters aimed directly at your ears as the rx-c's do.
When I employed too little toe-in, I found that the soundstage collapsed and was clearly confined to the outside edges of the cabinets and that the center image, while well defined, wasn't very crisp (no "phantom center" effect like I've known the A5's to provide). Adding toe-in as stated above fixed all these problems and transformed how they sounded in my room. Listening to old blues recordings went from sounding like I'm listening through a window to actually being in the room. Jon would later tell me that he spent quite a long time getting these right....and it shows.
Properly set-up, it was time for break in. Man, do these need break in time. I know that Jon has told you guys about the Arx midwoofer having an extremely long travel motor and suspension......please don't ignore his advice for break in. The rx-c's didn't really start to resolve those finer things in the midrange (like directional and spatial cues) very well until I had almost 50 hours of play time on them. As a refresher, I did NOTHING special for break in. Nothing. I just had the wife watch TV/Netflix/Amazon through them as much as possible, in addition to my usual music listening sessions. I just prefer to not abuse them at high volumes until this time has passed. I feel the same way about car engines. It's my OCD and I don't have much of any science to back that up....just personal preference.
As for the change in tuning, the new tweeter isn't what you're hearing (it sounds nearly indistinguishable from the previous gen planar driver...which is a VERY good thing). You'[re actually hearing the crossover tuning and the same-ole Arx midwoofer being allowed to stretch its vocal chords. This really cemented my observation and belief that the Arx midwoofer is one of the best MIDRANGES available for anywhere near it's price point. It's just incredible. No changes to it whatsoever, yet it sounds like a different driver altogether. This is partially due tot he fact that the new tweeter allows Jon to use more of the tweeter's natural low-end roll-off in the driver summing....and also allowed him to eliminate some components in the crossover (simpler is better). So, electrically, there are fewer components between the sound and the drivers and, mechanically, the drivers in the A3rx-c actually play better together with their own native responses.
So, after about 50-ish hours, what am I hearing?
Well, these have a very similar sonic character to the A5's now. Very similar midrange...which is where the improvements lie. Having the two speakers side by side (and also switching them out so they occupy identical positions in the listening room), the tweeters sound so nearly identical that most listeners couldn't tell the difference. The new tweeters have even lower distortion and even better power handling (and a different native frequency response roll-off), but they are damn near twins. Again, this is an excellent thing.
The rx-c's now have a very clearly represented midrange that is both less-harsh and more detailed than the outgoing A3, especially at higher volume levels. The imaging is also much better. Much like the A5's you can listen to a violin all day with no listener fatigue, but now with added detail (you don't feel like you're missing anything, either). The image is not quite as big as the A5's (which are more expensive and have a dedicated midrange driver...they SHOULD be better)...but the performance gap has closed. The imaging greatly improves, as with every Arx model, when you get the loudspeaker out INTO the room. The rearmost top-corner of the A3rx-c's are 28.75" from the rear wall and even further from side walls. They are almost 9ft apart and I am just over 10ft away at my listening position.They really light up he room now and, with proper toe-in, the phantom center effect is there. Even watching movies or TV in 5/6/7.1 downmixed to stereo, vocals remain clearly defined in the mix, yet anchored on the screen. Always intelligible, but never crowded out. The old A3's couldn't do that....that used to be a 'trick' relegated to speakers of the A5's ilk (or better). You could call the A3rx-c's an A5-lite when comparing them to the first-gen A5.
In fact, I'm going to say something that most won't expect: if you don't listen to music critically (i.e. you are mostly TV/movies/videogames/background music), save yourself the money and grab a pair of A3rx-c's. They're that good. Holy crap are they good!
Now the caveat: are the A5's "better"? IMHO, yes. But, unless you have a large room to fill or are a critical music listener, the additional money that WOULD have been spent over the A3rx-c's might be wasted. Not quite as much fine detail. Not quite the holographic imaging. Not quite the enormous soundstage (though still with some stereo effects wrapping themselves around you.....just not as enveloping and not as often as with the A5's). But close. Damn close. And for less money.
Now, the A5rx-c's are still gestational...and will have to be better than the A5's or Jon just won't release them. But they will also move up in price for both the base model (and for the possible upgraded finish model). There is simply no other compact tower that I have yet heard for under $850 that can compare to the A3rx-c's. None.
The A3rx-c's ARE the new value leader for compact towers under $850 (and possibly for much more than that). Period.
-Collin
EDIT: All listening was done with grilles off on both the A3rx-c and the A5.
Comment