Aurousal VS launched
After alot of further refinement since the show last April (and fully licensing with MJK) the Aurousal VS has finally been launched and reviewed - there is a picture on MJK's site.
The result is 5-star Best Buy in Hi-Fi Choice and 4-star (but stunning review) in What Hi-Fi.
We agree with all the positive comments (namely faultless imaging & timing, micro-dynamics, detail resolution, superb bass & treble, smooth impedance curve, wonderful coherence and clarity) but there are a few discrepancies in the reviews (which actually says alot):
Paul Messenger (Choice) measured a tonally even response (as do we) while What Hi-Fi said there were some frequency dips (but did not elaborate or give any measurements). Paul did comment on a bright sounding mid-range issue and a slight lack of dynamics but we contacted him and put this down to lack of toe-in (he had them directly on ear) and used a relatively low power valve amp.
We find the macro-dynamic to be stunning (indeed deafening if needs be, without sounding distorted - distortion can easily be equated to loud). But we do use a 60W amp with good peak delivery (actually just a Cambridge Audio A5). It is our opinion that What Hi-Fi picked up on the previous review, saw the relatively small Jordans and also mentioned this as their major bug-bear compared with the opposition. Actually this is the one area (max volume) where there is no 'right' answer as the sky is literally the limit (but with massive tradeoffs in quality).
In my opinion, one of the amazing things about the Jordan is the punchy dynamics available, despite the small cone area - probably due to the ability to turn available power into transient reponse by virtue of the massive magnet assembly and lightweight, responsive cone. They also play loud but are a bit deceptive in this respect as it is not a boomy, room-filling loud but a clean sharp and snappy loud. You really don't appreciate how loud they go without actually measuring or trying to talk over performance as the usual loudness cues (distortion, reverberence, lack of detail etc) are largely missing.
Also, although the lower bass will play reasonably loud, especially in a loaded design, the loudness capability of the rest of the spectrum ventures into the 'extremely', so it is at these extreme volumes that the bass may be a bit swamped.
All considered we think the twin driver arrangement works exceedingly well and really does minimise the above 'character'. This design is a bit wasted in a small room, however - you need a bit of space to appreciate it fully (the performance is totally out of proportion to what you would expect by the visual look of the speaker!)
I am of course pleased to give DIY hints (short of publishing the complete design) and we have ouselves found this site very useful (amongst many other resources).
After alot of further refinement since the show last April (and fully licensing with MJK) the Aurousal VS has finally been launched and reviewed - there is a picture on MJK's site.
The result is 5-star Best Buy in Hi-Fi Choice and 4-star (but stunning review) in What Hi-Fi.
We agree with all the positive comments (namely faultless imaging & timing, micro-dynamics, detail resolution, superb bass & treble, smooth impedance curve, wonderful coherence and clarity) but there are a few discrepancies in the reviews (which actually says alot):
Paul Messenger (Choice) measured a tonally even response (as do we) while What Hi-Fi said there were some frequency dips (but did not elaborate or give any measurements). Paul did comment on a bright sounding mid-range issue and a slight lack of dynamics but we contacted him and put this down to lack of toe-in (he had them directly on ear) and used a relatively low power valve amp.
We find the macro-dynamic to be stunning (indeed deafening if needs be, without sounding distorted - distortion can easily be equated to loud). But we do use a 60W amp with good peak delivery (actually just a Cambridge Audio A5). It is our opinion that What Hi-Fi picked up on the previous review, saw the relatively small Jordans and also mentioned this as their major bug-bear compared with the opposition. Actually this is the one area (max volume) where there is no 'right' answer as the sky is literally the limit (but with massive tradeoffs in quality).
In my opinion, one of the amazing things about the Jordan is the punchy dynamics available, despite the small cone area - probably due to the ability to turn available power into transient reponse by virtue of the massive magnet assembly and lightweight, responsive cone. They also play loud but are a bit deceptive in this respect as it is not a boomy, room-filling loud but a clean sharp and snappy loud. You really don't appreciate how loud they go without actually measuring or trying to talk over performance as the usual loudness cues (distortion, reverberence, lack of detail etc) are largely missing.
Also, although the lower bass will play reasonably loud, especially in a loaded design, the loudness capability of the rest of the spectrum ventures into the 'extremely', so it is at these extreme volumes that the bass may be a bit swamped.
All considered we think the twin driver arrangement works exceedingly well and really does minimise the above 'character'. This design is a bit wasted in a small room, however - you need a bit of space to appreciate it fully (the performance is totally out of proportion to what you would expect by the visual look of the speaker!)
I am of course pleased to give DIY hints (short of publishing the complete design) and we have ouselves found this site very useful (amongst many other resources).
Re: Aurousal VS launched
"......it uses two in parallel (effectively rather more than doubling the radiating area)......"
I wish!
"Actually this is the one area (max volume) where there is no 'right' answer as the sky is literally the limit (but with massive tradeoffs in quality)."
"......a slight lack of dynamics but we contacted him and put this down to lack of toe-in (he had them directly on ear)......"
I disagree, from a marketing POV the manufacturer should IMO spec a product's limits based on an average SPL with 90 dB @ 'x' average listening position being the upper limit for probably 99.9% of HIFI apps and add 30 dB for sufficient dynamic headroom at low distortion to handle the least compressed CDs.
I imagine the VS's average will be too low for some CDs without excessive thermal power compression creating some 'congestion' through the mids/lower HF and no amount of toe-in will improve it enough, but then this is true of all but one of the small driver based systems I've auditioned since such wide dynamic range recordings have been available to the general public, so not the damning shortcoming it appears.
As for 'massive tradeoffs in quality' with increasing average/peak SPL, this is too general a statement to be even remotely correct once you move away from point source driver to properly loaded compression driver systems.
Regardless, glad you got good reviews and hope it correlates into a profitable business eventually. Having a functioning/informative website might help though.
GM
"......it uses two in parallel (effectively rather more than doubling the radiating area)......"
I wish!
"Actually this is the one area (max volume) where there is no 'right' answer as the sky is literally the limit (but with massive tradeoffs in quality)."
"......a slight lack of dynamics but we contacted him and put this down to lack of toe-in (he had them directly on ear)......"
I disagree, from a marketing POV the manufacturer should IMO spec a product's limits based on an average SPL with 90 dB @ 'x' average listening position being the upper limit for probably 99.9% of HIFI apps and add 30 dB for sufficient dynamic headroom at low distortion to handle the least compressed CDs.
I imagine the VS's average will be too low for some CDs without excessive thermal power compression creating some 'congestion' through the mids/lower HF and no amount of toe-in will improve it enough, but then this is true of all but one of the small driver based systems I've auditioned since such wide dynamic range recordings have been available to the general public, so not the damning shortcoming it appears.
As for 'massive tradeoffs in quality' with increasing average/peak SPL, this is too general a statement to be even remotely correct once you move away from point source driver to properly loaded compression driver systems.
Regardless, glad you got good reviews and hope it correlates into a profitable business eventually. Having a functioning/informative website might help though.
GM
Oh Dear!
Please try http://www.aurousal.com
It is redirected to:
http://websites.uk-plc.net/Aurousal_Definitive_HD_Loudspeakers/
though, which may be the problem
Please try http://www.aurousal.com
It is redirected to:
http://websites.uk-plc.net/Aurousal_Definitive_HD_Loudspeakers/
though, which may be the problem
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/au...o/hi-fi-av-speakers/aurousal-vs-479149/review
that is a review done by techradar.
Aurosal VS (dual 5" jordans + tweet)
Looks like a mltl (33hz tuning) composed of dual jx92s with level adjustable tweet (super?).
"The sound could be sweeter through the voice band and has a thin, edgy and bright character, though it does have good clarity and very good coherence........."
"Although there are no serious or obvious weaknesses here, the real strength of the Aurousal VS lies in its exceptional overall coherence and superb stereo imaging and while the latter shows a worthwhile degree of transparency, dynamic expression and tension are both a little weak and the speaker seemed rather happier when dealing with acoustic sources rather than heavy rock or dance material."
"Against : Could have better dynamic expression and tension and some 'edgy' coloration is audible in the voice-band"
Why do reviewers expect a bunch of bass from a pair of 5.5" ?
Perhaps they were price comparing the dual 5.5" bass response to others with larger cones that have worse phase integrity such as most any 2 or 3 way loudspeakers..........
9mm peak to peak xmax of a jx92s is what ?
4.5mm 1 way ?
so coil height minus gap height is 4.5mm ?
so xmax is really 2.25mm ?
Is this right ?
norman
that is a review done by techradar.
Aurosal VS (dual 5" jordans + tweet)
Looks like a mltl (33hz tuning) composed of dual jx92s with level adjustable tweet (super?).
"The sound could be sweeter through the voice band and has a thin, edgy and bright character, though it does have good clarity and very good coherence........."
"Although there are no serious or obvious weaknesses here, the real strength of the Aurousal VS lies in its exceptional overall coherence and superb stereo imaging and while the latter shows a worthwhile degree of transparency, dynamic expression and tension are both a little weak and the speaker seemed rather happier when dealing with acoustic sources rather than heavy rock or dance material."
"Against : Could have better dynamic expression and tension and some 'edgy' coloration is audible in the voice-band"
Why do reviewers expect a bunch of bass from a pair of 5.5" ?
Perhaps they were price comparing the dual 5.5" bass response to others with larger cones that have worse phase integrity such as most any 2 or 3 way loudspeakers..........
9mm peak to peak xmax of a jx92s is what ?
4.5mm 1 way ?
so coil height minus gap height is 4.5mm ?
so xmax is really 2.25mm ?
Is this right ?
norman
Yes, Actually review was done by Paul Messenger of Hi-Fi Choice. TechRadar is just another internet site that displays their reviews.
Actually it seems a bit strange that there is not much extra info here available ontop of what you would get by buying the magazine. They said it was a different audience.
These points discussed in my previous post - he had them direct to ear and used relatively low power valve amp. The Jordans eat up power (especially in the bass). This is due to the fact they respond so well to cabinet loading and have a high transient response capability, given a sensible amp.
Had a word with What Hi-Fi about the response dips they were taking about and it was apparently just an impression - no measurements taken. They must have been just comparing with the other speakers in the batch, which perhaps sounded smoother (due to time smear and exciting more room nodes)
Actually it seems a bit strange that there is not much extra info here available ontop of what you would get by buying the magazine. They said it was a different audience.
These points discussed in my previous post - he had them direct to ear and used relatively low power valve amp. The Jordans eat up power (especially in the bass). This is due to the fact they respond so well to cabinet loading and have a high transient response capability, given a sensible amp.
Had a word with What Hi-Fi about the response dips they were taking about and it was apparently just an impression - no measurements taken. They must have been just comparing with the other speakers in the batch, which perhaps sounded smoother (due to time smear and exciting more room nodes)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.