Audiovector R 3 Arreté loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system, a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone, and an Earthworks microphone preamplifier to measure the quasi-anechoic frequency- and time-domain behavior of one of the Audiovector R 3 Arretés—serial number 202084—in the farfield. I used an Earthworks QTC-40 microphone, which has a ¼" capsule, for the nearfield responses, examined the loudspeaker's impedance with Dayton Audio's DATS V2 system, and investigated the enclosure's resonant modes with a plastic-tape accelerometer.

Audiovector specifies the sensitivity of the R 3 Arreté as 90.5dB/W/m. My B-weighted estimate of the R 3 Arreté's voltage sensitivity was lower than that, at 87.2dB(B)/2.83V/m. A possible reason for this discrepancy is examined later in this report.


Fig.1 Audiovector R 3 Arreté, electrical impedance (solid) and phase (dashed) (2 ohms/vertical div.).

The Audiovector R 3 Arreté's nominal impedance is specified as 8 ohms. The impedance magnitude (fig.1, solid trace) remains above 6 ohms from the upper midrange through the mid-treble region, with a minimum value of 3.925 ohms at 190Hz. The electrical phase angle (fig.1, dotted trace) is occasionally high, which means that the effective resistance, or EPDR (footnote 1), drops below 3 ohms over most of the audioband. The minimum EPDR values are 2.03 ohms at 47Hz, 1.96 ohms at 101Hz, 2.58 ohms at 430Hz, and 1.4 ohms at 20kHz. Other than the last value, recorded music can have high energy at the frequencies of these minima. The R 3 Arreté is a demanding load for the partnering amplifier.


Fig.2 Audiovector R 3 Arreté, cumulative spectral-decay plot calculated from output of accelerometer fastened to sidewall level with the upper woofer (MLS driving voltage to speaker, 7.55V; measurement bandwidth, 2kHz).

There is a very slight wrinkle just above 300Hz in the impedance traces in fig.1, which might be due to a resonant mode of some kind. Most of the enclosure's panels seemed relatively inert when I rapped them with my knuckles, but I found a strong resonance at 320Hz on the sidewalls level with the upper woofer (fig.2). The affected area of the sidewall was relatively small, and the mode has a high Q (Quality Factor), both of which will work against there being audible consequences. However, 320Hz is close to the frequency of the note E above Middle C in the well-tempered scale, so this mode may well be excited a lot of the time.


Fig.3 Audiovector R 3 Arreté, nearfield responses of the lower woofer (blue) and the upper woofer (red).

Audiovector describes the R 3 Arreté as a "2.5-way" design, which means that while the speaker has two woofers, only one extends sufficiently high in frequency to cross over to the tweeter. This can be seen in fig.3, which shows the responses of the lower woofer (blue trace) and the upper woofer (red trace), measured in the nearfield. The lower woofer slowly rolls off above 300Hz, while the upper woofer's output is flat to the 900Hz limit of these measurements. The blue trace has the usual rise in the upper bass, which will be due to the nearfield measurement technique. This suggests that the lower woofer's reflex alignment is what is called maximally flat, which optimizes low-frequency extension and control. There is no upper-bass boost in the blue trace, which implies that the upper woofer's alignment is overdamped. Note that the minimum-motion notch in the woofers' outputs, which is when the cones are held stationary by the back pressure from the port resonance, lies at slightly different frequencies between 30Hz and 40Hz.


Fig.4 Audiovector R 3 Arreté, acoustic crossover on tweeter axis at 50", corrected for microphone response, with the summed nearfield responses of the woofers (blue) and the downward-firing port (red), respectively plotted below 350Hz and 500Hz.

The sum of the two woofers' nearfield responses is shown as the blue trace in fig.4. The combined minimum-motion notch lies at 36Hz, and the response of the downward-firing port, again measured in the nearfield (red trace), peaks broadly between 22Hz and 90Hz. The port's output will be reinforced by its proximity to the floor, which means that the R 3 Arreté will offer extended low frequencies in-room. Audiovector refers to the twin ports at the top of the rear panel as the "Soundstage Enhancement Concept." These ports allow the tweeter's backwave to be radiated into the room. I found the nearfield output from these ports to be very low in level, averaging around 24dB below the nearfield, forward-firing output of the tweeter.


Fig.5 Audiovector R 3 Arreté, anechoic response on tweeter axis at 50", averaged across 30° horizontal window and corrected for microphone response, with the complex sum of the nearfield woofer and port responses plotted below 310Hz.

According to the specifications, the crossover frequency between the upper woofer and tweeter is set at 2.9kHz. However, it appears from fig.4 that the woofers' farfield output (blue trace above 350Hz) doesn't extend sufficiently high in frequency and the tweeter's farfield output (green trace) doesn't extend sufficiently low in frequency to allow a flat frequency response in the crossover region. This gives rise to an 8dB suckout centered on 3.3kHz in the R 3 Arreté's quasi-anechoic farfield response on the tweeter axis (black trace above 310Hz in fig.5), which is otherwise impressively even. (This lack of presence-region energy will be the reason for the shortfall in my estimated sensitivity. I did try connecting the "Freedom Grounding Concept" binding post, but this didn't affect the measured sensitivity or response.)

I initially thought that this suckout might be due to one of the drive units being connected in the incorrect polarity, leading to destructive interference in the crossover region. However, the response with the tweeter connected in inverted polarity was identical to that with it correctly connected.

If this behavior affected only the sample I measured and not the other sample JCA auditioned, the stereo image with a dual-mono signal would pull to one side in the low treble. (It wasn't possible for me to measure both samples.) However, when I asked JCA about this, he replied that, listening to correlated pink noise, he hadn't noticed any imbalance. This suggests that both samples were behaving identically. Audiovector uses what they call an "S-stop filter" to reduce sibilance, so perhaps the suckout in the presence region is due to the action of that filter (footnote 2).


Fig.6 Audiovector R 3 Arreté, lateral response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 90–5° off axis, reference response, differences in response 5–90° off axis.


Fig.7 Audiovector R 3 Arreté, vertical response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 15–5° above axis, reference response, differences in response 5–15° below axis.

The Audiovector's horizontal radiation pattern, normalized to the response on the tweeter axis, which therefore appears as a straight line, is shown in fig.6. The on-axis suckout deepens to the speaker's sides, though the dispersion in the region covered by the AMT tweeter is wide up to 15kHz or so. Fig.7 shows the R 3 Arreté's dispersion in the vertical plane, again normalized to the response on the tweeter axis, which is 38" from the floor, indicating that the suckout tends to fill in slightly 15° above the tweeter axis and 5°–10° below, though the latter will be an impractically low ear height.


Fig.8 Audiovector R 3 Arreté, step response on tweeter axis at 50" (5ms time window, 30kHz bandwidth).


Fig.9 Audiovector R 3 Arreté, cumulative spectral-decay plot on tweeter axis at 50" (0.15ms risetime).

In the time domain, the R 3 Arreté's step response (fig.8) indicates that all three drive units are connected in positive acoustic polarity. The output of the tweeter arrives first at the microphone, followed by that of the two woofers. The Audiovector's cumulative spectral-decay (waterfall) plot (fig.9) is very clean, especially in the region covered by the tweeter.

Putting to one side that current-hungry impedance, if it wasn't for that presence-region suckout the Audiovector R 3 Arreté would offer excellent measured performance, with an otherwise even balance, extended low frequencies in-room, and a clean spectral decay. With the suckout, however, I would expect this loudspeaker's treble to sound polite or laid back.—John Atkinson


Footnote 1: EPDR is the resistive load that gives rise to the same peak dissipation in an amplifier's output devices as the loudspeaker. See "Audio Power Amplifiers for Loudspeaker Loads," JAES, Vol.42 No.9, September 1994, and stereophile.com/reference/707heavy/index.html.

Footnote 2: According to Audiovector's Mads Kliforth, the Arreté tweeter's "S-stop filter (gold mesh) . . . controls sibilance and at the same time it works like an 'integrator,' so the cooperation with the midrange below improves."

COMPANY INFO
F3/Audiovector ApS
Mileparken 22 A
DK-2740 Skovlunde
Denmark
anthony@ssvreps.com
+45 3539 6060
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
supamark's picture

that huge (~8dB) suckout near the crossover point. It has to be audible since it gets worse off axis, and should not exist in a speaker at this price point.

PMC are the same way, always have a huge suckout, and cost too much to have it.

Mark Phillips,
no longer writing for any publication, nor working in the audio industry.

DaveinSM's picture

Yes, and that FGC AC grounding plug sure seems gimmicky to me. I kinda doubt I’m the only skeptic here…

Glotz's picture

God bless you in whatever endeavor you engage in.

supamark's picture

First, like when I was a recording engineer I spent most of my time listening to sounds and equipment instead of the music. Then after work I didn't want to listen to music. That's no good.

My last review (about 90% written, because it required two versions) was about one of the many THX AAA headphone amps out there, and that circuit doesn't sound good to me at all (and has I believe a fatal flaw, but I don't have the AP-555 receipts to publicly say what the flaw is - SoundStage does though which is why I wrote two versions, I might be wrong about the flaw) but they were not interested in it. It took me over a year to figure out why I hated listening to that amp so much. What I *can* say is it sounds terrible with Sennheiser HD600 headphones because the cone's distortion is way higher than the amp's distortion and it's annoying. I mostly use planars so that wasn't my issue. My issue was, if you're familiar with Heinlein, TANSTAAFL and I didn't like the price.

I will never intentionally listen to another amp that uses the THX AAA circuit, it's as bad as class D just in an entirely different way. With the caveat that I've never heard any of the GanFET amps, all class D amps I've heard (IcePower, NCore, Eigentakt) sound bad to me with high frequency phase issues, they sound grey/hard like bad 80's digital - synesthesia for the win. Writing a quality critical review of something one doesn't like is f'ing hard work. Slagging is fun and easy, but not professional. This is probably why you seldom see negative reviews from the major publications, they're very hard to write well. In the same time you could review 2 or more enjoyable products. Which makes more financial sense?

On top of that my mom died a few years ago which messed me up for a while, but left me in a very different tax bracket meaning my niche at SoundStage would have to change because I am far less constrained in the equipment I can afford (at retail price). They don't need that niche filled - the stuff I reviewed tended to top out around $1k and I have no interest in the budget stuff any more. There's been a fair bit of churn there the past year or so and I may have been the only "subjectivist" there as well... although my review of a power cable would probably be 1 sentence - I plugged it in to the wall outlet and it worked, good job guys. YMMV but I think that would be hilarious to print. I do have a hard science degree (biochem) so I got some objectivist in me.

Now I have time to persue what I *really* want to do, produce. More looking at the big picture with musicians - performance, arrangement, telling the engineer how I want it to sound so they get to listen to sounds instead of music lol, and of course corralling the cats and helping bring their artistic vision to life. If you're curious what a Mark Phillips engineered co-production sounds like listen to The FuckEmos albums "Can Kill You" or "Tape II". Strong artistic vision and guidance to get them there. It's on all the streaming svcs though I think the current mastering is not, uh, optimal. It's 16 track digital (ADAT) recorded and mixed in 2 days in my house at the time. It's also the only mix I ever used a compressor on the main mix (2 track) bus. It's funny, or offensive, depending on your sense of humor. I also personally remastered Tape II because I hated my own mix so much that I didn't listen to it for almost 30 years (not publicly available).

Indydan's picture

I have seen (but not heard) these speakers in person. The build quality is outstanding.
All the more surprising that the Audiovector engineers left in that huge 8db suckout. It baffles the mind.

hb72's picture

we are probably not as sensitive, hearing wise, to such rel. narrow band dips, as we are able to spot a flaw on a frequency response plot.

Having said that, I see one good reason to chose a proper 3-way concept over a 2 or 2.5way type, which is the possibility for a dedicated midband chassis: rel. low excursions permitting optimization potential not available to bass/mid Jack-of-all-trade chassis, resulting in lower mass and often a bit smaller dimensions & enhanced spatial radiation pattern. Using such high-excursion capable chassis that shall also cover high frequency at high quality (see price of a pair) is quite a stretch, and an earlier roll off perhaps the compromise to take..?? Not sure what the gains are though ..??

Of course, it would be interesting to compare the R3s against speakers of B&W, Triangle, ATC, Focal, .. which put lots of efforts in their midband chassis - but may have their own compromises where the R3s shine?

DaveinSM's picture

Yeah, but 8 db is a LOT, and 3khz is in the range in which human hearing is supposedly most sensitive. It may be a relatively narrow and deep dip, but it’s not a notch either, significantly suppressing the 2khz to 5khz regions up to 3db or more, according to the quasi anechoic response graph, fig. 5. There isn’t an in-room response test, and they even tried reversing polarity on the tweeter unit to fix it, with no success.

Considering many much less expensive designs don’t have this irregularity at all and are objectively much more neutral in frequency response, this is troubling at best.

The test sample was given more than generous leeway in accounting for this flaw, but at least this speaker’s colorations were acknowledged in the listening notes. Kudos to Stereophile for providing this test data anyway, despite what I can imagine is some trepidation about how some prospective buyers could interpret the results. That 8db dip would frankly scare me away.

supamark's picture

-8dB and over an octave wide is not a relatively narrow dip, especially when it's in the area to which human hearing is most sensitive. It does not fill in to the sides. It's audible and JCA said as much when he said the R3 sounded relaxed. It will literally suppress the vocals in most music. The R8 also has a weird frequency response but nothing so bad as the R3.

It's a flawed design, whether that flaw bothers you is a different question; but it's flawed none the less and at a price point where it is not acceptable to me. YMMV.

Kal Rubinson's picture

The gains are in the increased bass capabilities due to the manufacturer's decision to stick to 3 drivers. Their choice was to offer more extended and/or potent bass using two woofers versus the option to optimize the midrange with a dedicated driver. Potential buyers have that same choice.

hb72's picture

..quite obvious, actually :) and JA describes the R3s as a well rounded product with meat on the bones.

Trondi's picture

… that is exactly my experience with these Audiovectors. The extended bass is wonderful, not bloated or exaggerated but just there, right down deep, without the need for a sub imo. The top end is a delight too.

Okay, now to that notch. It is a gentle listen at those frequencies, giving you a wide but ‘rear stalls’ audio experience. This is not a bad sound at all, but one that I like to improve with DSP.

I use a NAD M33 with Dirac Live - full range - and I am able to incrementally lift the notch. As I do this my audio listening position changes and I appear to get ‘closer and closer to the stage’. With a near flattened target curve I appear to end up in the middle of the musicians. Astonishing.

My hifi buddy prefers DL switched off in my listening room. He is a classical music enthusiast and enjoys being ‘rear stalls’. I prefer to adjust DL to get to the ‘conductors podium audio experience’. For me this is the sweet spot with all types of music that I listen to.

Other than that these were the only speakers I demoed that my wife didn’t roll her eyes and grit her teeth on first appraisal. They are easy on the eye.

monkeybouie's picture

Sibilance, a side effect of close miking a vocalist, will generally be centered around 6-8kHz. That being the case, their filter is way off the mark.

Also, instantiating a filter like that will globally effect all the music that will be played by that loudspeaker seems a very strange choice.

As Pee-wee Herman once said, “I meant to do that.“

X