|
Specifications:
System Type: Tower
Frequency Response: 50 Hz - 20 kHz ± 3 dB
Sensitivity: 87dB (2.83V @ 1 Meter)
Power Handling: 150 Watts
Drive Units: Tri 5 1/4" Polypropylene Woofer
1" Fabric Dome Tweeter
Tweeter Protection: Yes
Crossover Frequency: 200 Hz, 3500 Hz
Crossover: 12dB/Octave
Impedance: 6 Ohms
Colors: Black, Silver
Dimensions: 8"W x 39 3/4"H x 10 1/2"D
Weight: 35 Pounds (each)
$699/Pair | |
Introduction
I guess this would be classified as a follow-up review.
Follow up means two things. One, it's addressing a topic pretty much already
covered. Secondly, it gives me a pretense to offer up a
slipshod account of the topic, and keep it short. Considering I tend to
have a real problem keeping it short, maybe this is a good exercise for
me.
The Towers
I can start out with the obvious. The AC-5T tower is an extremely handsome
figure. The soft dome tweeter and 5 ¼” polymer woofers look nice, but the
finish, build, and curves are impeccable. Aside from the additional
woofers on the bottom and the tower enclosure, the only difference
compared to the AC-51 is that the port is on the front, as opposed to the
rear port on the AC-51. I will say that the AC-5T's tower form looks a
little more majestic, complementing the tall, slim profile with a tactful
rounded base. My parents longingly commented on how attractive they were,
careful to imply that my other speakers were, in comparison, utilitarian
and ugly. Thanks.
The
AC series I had reviewed before was a heck of a setup for very little
money. Four small AC-51 ‘bookshelf' type speakers for left and right
channels in the rear and front, an AC-525
center channel, and an AS-10 downward-firing subwoofer filled out a very
complete, well-rounded loudspeaker system. While it is certainly possible
to do better, the performance/dollar ratio was, in my opinion,
exceptional. The original review set was to include the AC-5T tower
speakers for the front, but that changed at the last minute.
I don't know how it happened, but somewhere and sometime Joe Hageman, who
represents RBH's PR firm, convinced me that a ‘follow up' review with the
towers might be a good idea. After receiving the review samples, it popped
into my mind that even my overly verbose habits might not be up to task
when it came to providing any kind of useful comment. After all, the AC-5T
towers are pretty much the AC-51 ‘bookshelf' speakers with a taller
cabinet and a couple extra woofers, meaning pretty much the same voicing,
dispersion characteristics, and general character of sound. In this case,
that's a very good thing, particularly if you intended to integrate a pair
of these towers into a 5.1 or 7.1 setup, but it doesn't leave room for a
whole lot of additional comment. However will I make myself sound like an
expert without a whole bunch to say?
Sure, the towers will give you more bass extension and potentially greater
power handling if used in a full-range capacity, but who in their right
mind uses loudspeakers in a full-range capacity anymore when they've
likely got, or should have, a very good subwoofer?
I then remembered, me.
Prior to signing onto the sub/sat philosophy, I had owned several
full-range loudspeaker systems, used primarily for two-channel music
listening, but also adapted into my system for movies, both with Pro Logic
and 5.1 playback. As much as sub/sat systems make a lot of sense for
multi-channel, and even two-channel playback designed from the ground up,
the ‘full-range' pair of loudspeakers are often a staple ingredient in
many audio systems. In my case, the last iteration of towers were really
good, in terms of quality of deep bass, and while a good subwoofer would
handle bass better, the reason I converted to sub/sat was because Infinity
didn't make a matching center channel for the Renaissance line, or for
that matter any of the very similar IRS products, which are of exclusively
two-channel stereo heritage. Also, I didn't have the time to make one out of
the replacement driver/crossover components I had acquired. Prior to my
M&K S-150, and later my S-150P setups, I opted to do without a center
channel rather than use the closest alternative, the Kappa Video Center.
The antique system I assembled for my parents had quasi full-range
speakers as well, without a subwoofer, and even with archaic Pro Logic
decoding could whip the pants off of any ‘Home Theater In a Box' solution,
or high-priced acousticube/bass module (wannabe sub) systems.
The truth is, although a subwoofer/satellite approach is probably the most
cost-effective and practical way to get high-performance sound for the
dollar spent, if the budget doesn't include a line item for a really
competent/fantastic subwoofer, the reality is that you're better off without
one. Poor subwoofers, whether expensive or cheap, call attention to
themselves and their boom, detracting from both the musical and cinematic
experience. They may provide more bass, but not better bass, and while
having a sub is a nice novelty in itself for the short term, a subwoofer
below par
becomes more of an irritation than an asset as time goes on.
Following that line of thinking, an economical pair of ‘tower'
loudspeakers began to make more sense, particularly for those building a
system on a budget. Start with a pair of towers to get most of your foot
in the door to outstanding sound quality, and then add
center/surround/subwoofer as finances/fiancée allow. The sensible task to
pursue, then, was how well these speakers worked by themselves, and
whether they were a viable solution for discriminating listeners who
required the whole package in a single pair.
I'm happy to say, they did quite well.
The Listening
Piano, even when not using the lowest notes, is a very demanding
instrument. While listening to Arthur Rubinstein playing Polonaises No.4,
Op40, No.2 in C minor, I got a pretty good feel for the speaker's range
and balance.
On the side, while I'm not really supposed to get measurement insight
prior to the listening evaluation, I did get a peek at JJ's quasi-anechoic
measurements before the wedding. In fact, I witnessed JJ repeating the
process for my benefit. If one were to look exclusively at the on-axis
quasi-anechoic frequency response, you'd think that these speakers would
sound a bit bright, with a tilted up slant towards the top-end of the
spectrum. Having seen this before I actually listened to the speakers, it
might be tempting to save face and suggest that my listening coincided
with that version of reality (because of course my hearing is indeed that
darn good) and that the speakers were overall a little bright-sounding.
Well, that wasn't my experience. On the surface, these conflicts might
imply either that I have broad high-frequency hearing loss, I have a bias
towards thinking that bright is neutral, or that the measurements are
bogus. I don't subscribe to any of that. So, how can I consolidate my
belief in the validity of measurements and my own listening experience?
A single quasi-anechoic frequency response measurement can give us a very
good idea about the on-axis frequency response of a loudspeaker. However,
while a single on-axis measurement may tell us quite a bit about any
really nasty peaks or dips originating from driver/crossover/baffle
problems, a single measurement cannot tell us much about the total power
response of the loudspeaker, one of the best indicators of a loudspeaker's
overall tonality in a listening room. With direct-radiating type
loudspeakers, such as these, where the majority of the sound is directed
forward, even if the dispersion is extremely smooth, wide, and even,
eventually there comes a point where the higher frequencies become
directional, radiating exclusively forward, if not pretty much straight
ahead, and the lower frequencies do not.
That means with a direct-radiating speaker, if the power response is
actually balanced, the on-axis anechoic (or quasi-anechoic) response will
be tilted to look bright. Were we to listen to these loudspeakers with a
well-balanced power response without the benefit of a room boundary, for
instance, in a parking lot, they may indeed sound bright. However, put
into a real room, it might work out just right, and in fact probably much
better than a similar design balanced in reference to only the direct,
on-axis response, which in comparison would be ridiculously bass heavy
unless in the middle of a very large room with lots of bass absorption.
And so, with the qualification that I was not listening in a very immense
room, albeit on the large side, I stand by my assessment, and JJ's
measurements as well.
But back to Rubinstein. The Piano's wide range and dynamic content are a
terrific test for listening to full-range reproduction. The typical go to
test is often synthetic explosions, pedal notes on obscure organ fugues,
or what not. The piano, being a physically immense and resonant
instrument, creates low-frequency ambient content just by virtue of
mechanical operation inside a large resonant cavity. Some of the most
ridiculous bass I've heard in recorded music has been when Tori Amos pumps
her piano pedals during her more intimate single recordings. Because of
the way the microphones were placed, some of the tracks have low bass so
exaggerated that it makes the room shudder, not that these AC towers were
ever going to make the room shudder, but you get my point. Low frequency
content not only pertains to music, but the sense of spaciousness in which
that music was created. Piano is a very spacious instrument, by virtue of
sheer dimensions, and so I shall proceed with feeling justified.
Rubinstein's piano sounded very natural overall - by far the most critical
element in sound reproduction. If the speakers are voiced so as to add
commentary for the sake of excitement and interest, they often call
attention to the sound reproduction, not the content. It's a great way to
make your products stand out for customers in a chain store who often have
yet to decide what they really want in a loudspeaker, let alone have a
vague idea what they're listening for. It's also a great way to get that
customer to buy a different loudspeaker a few years down the road. Good
economics, arguably a successful business model, not a good loudspeaker,
questionable ethics. Perhaps I should stress that this did not apply in
this instance. The AC-5T towers seemed neither overly emphasized nor
withdrawn in overall presentation, a feature that makes for a great
long-term relationship.
I might have liked a little more openness on the very top end, though I
wouldn't trade the smoothness in that range to accomplish it, a common
swap many designs make while cheating their way to the perception of
high-frequency extension, using treble drivers with a peaky response at
the very limits, most often of the cheap metal-dome variety, and sometimes
of the expensive metal-dome variety. Don't get me wrong, you can get a
smooth-sounding metal dome tweeter, but the less natural-sounding variety
are often deliberately selected for their coloration. On the other hand,
you can also get an atrocious-sounding soft dome or ribbon tweeter,
showing that no design method has a monopoly on sonic deviance. But I
digress.
The very bottom region of the AC-5T Towers' bass reproduction wasn't
capable of the infrasonic expansiveness that conveys much of the size of
large instruments, or even the very limits of the audible range, nor did
it ever threaten to pump the room in any manner appropriate for a rave
party. On the other hand, it was suitably full-sounding, without booming
or otherwise coming across as congested, chesty, or over-dramatically
kicking its way around. And, the limits in extension that caused the
AC-5T tower to fall short of the awesome experience that is true
full-range reproduction weren't obvious. If you knew what to listen for at
the very bottom octave and below, these speakers wouldn't pull the wool
over your eyes with any kind of parlor tricks, but I never thought to
myself that the bass performance was ever any kind of impediment. As I
don't tend to like the bass quality of many speakers designed to obtain
bass extension by use of a port, this is saying something substantial
about the abilities of RBH's engineering team.
I popped over to Stan Getz and Kenny Barron with "Stablemates", offering not
only piano but also saxophone to taste. I noticed that with Getz's
saxophone, the AC towers did have a hint of emphasis in the upper
midrange, but that emphasis seemed marginal, if not downright subtle, and
for speakers in this price range, entirely acceptable. While, like their
smaller cousins, the AC-5T towers didn't have quite the level of
refinement in the middle of the spectrum as far more expensive, ‘reference
caliber' loudspeakers, they did quite well, and with Getz's saxophone laid
out a whole bunch of texture, imparting an almost tactile feel of the
instrument.
When it comes to their application for movies, in respect to bass
extension and pounding capability, the AC-5Ts aren't going to give you
anywhere near the frightening, entirely seismic sensation of an M&K
MX-5000 mkII playing the bombing run in "Pearl Harbor", or for that
matter match the RBH's own AC series subwoofer at bringing the entirety of
heavy machinery into the home, such as during the beginning of "Fly Away
Home". However, the bass reproduction can certainly provide a bit of rumble
in the gut, and limitations in reproduction aren't blatant. For those who
aren't hard-core infrasonic connoisseurs, the bass quality and quantity
might be more than they'll ever need.
Click here to go to Part II
- On the Bench and Conclusions
Terms and Conditions of Use
|