|
Flat Panels
Video Projectors Rear-Projection TV Receivers Speakers Disc Players Surround Pre/Pros Amplifiers Accessories Recently Added
Video Displays
Speakers
Sources
Electronics
Accessories Scott Wilkinson Thomas Norton Fred Manteghian Kim Wilson How To Features Audio/Video News Past eNewsletters CEDIA 2008 CES 2008 CEDIA 2007 HE 2007 CES 2007 CEDIA 2006 HE 2006 CES 2006 Thomas J. Norton Michael Fremer Joel Brinkley Scott Wilkinson Dealer Locator AV Links Contact Us Flatscreen TVs LCD TVs Plasma TVs HDTV AV Receivers Home Theater in a Box Digital Projectors DLP Projectors Video Projectors Surround Sound Dolby 5.1 |
Aperion Audio Intimus 633-T Surround Speaker System:
The same plusses remained as before. If anything, the midrange sounded just a little more forward than before, but still in a good way. Coloration remained very low. The highs, while still not as airy as the treble in the Revel F32 system that the Aperions replaced, were sweet, clean, and as detailed as I could wish for. Cymbals and other subtle percussive details came through clearly, but without any artificial edginess. But the 633-Ts were not overly forgiving. Crank the volume just a little too much (and we're talking very loud here) and even slightly marginal material could bite back at you. Whether this was a power handling limitation of the small tweeters or just the speakers telling it like it is wasn't always easy to discern, but at any sane playback level the issue was a small one at worst.
That slight brightness was a bit more evident on film soundtracks, as you might imagine. I was also aware of a somewhat leaner quality through the midbass of the 633-T system than I had heard from the Revels. More on those film soundtracks in a heartbeat. But first, how did the system fare when I changed out the Revel sub for the far cheaper (by a factor of more than five) Aperion Intimus S-12? Surprisingly well. I did hear some boominess in the midbass, somewhere just north of an estimated 50Hz, that was not evident with the equalized Revel sub. But a later comparison with the more competitively-priced Hsu VTF-3 ($699) in the same position, playing the same material, confirmed that the problem was a room mode, not the Aperion subwoofer. I did notice, however, that when driven full-range without the sub the 633-Ts overloaded in the bass on the most difficult music cuts in my collection in the big system. On most material this was not a problem, but it suggests that if you have a moderately large room, like mine, you'll want a subwoofer if you're a fan of loud organ music or blockbuster soundtracks played back at near-reference level. The 633-T does go respectably deep on its own, but those two 6.5-inch woofers can only move so much air before shouting uncle. The S-12 subwoofer is also limited in its deep bass extension—in my room at my seating position it started to roll off below 40Hz. It was still producing useful output below that, but at a noticeably lower level. You aren't likely to notice this without comparison to a sub that dredges deeper into the bass, but the Hsu VTF-3 mentioned above goes audibly deeper, and sounds just a little cleaner in the bargain. The difference isn't profound, but when you hear it, you'll know it.
Fun With Films Nevertheless, the Intimus S-12 subwoofer was no shrinking violet. Soundtracks had an appropriately gutsy grumble, from the doomsday destruction on The Day After Tomorrow to the pounding drums in the music from the new Battlestar Gallactica television series. On Polar Express, most notably in the train sequences, it produced a powerful and convincingly deep bottom end. And from the ambience in the toy factory to the sweet music recording, the rest of the sound from the Aperions did nothing obviously wrong and a lot right. The soundstage was wide and deep, the midrange clean, and the top—despite my previous observations with two-channel playback—was open, airy, and detailed in full 5.1-channel operation. On a wide range of other soundtrack material the Aperions showed no serious shortcomings in my system that would be obvious to listeners unfamiliar with more refined—and more expensive—speakers. At times I did sense a tendency to brightness, but it was so program dependent that it would rash to blame it entirely on the speakers. It did occur mainly at very high playback levels, so it's possible that a little distortion was starting to creep in, or perhaps some dynamic compression in the woofers. The latter would reduce their output just enough to give the treble more prominence. And compared to the Revel F32 system, the Aperions, as noted earlier, sounded a little lean through the lower midrange, a quality that may not just have contributed to that occasional sense of brightness, but also made them a bit less less full-throated and majestic on those complex action scenes and sweeping music cues. Nevertheless, these minor shortcomings are in comparison to a speaker system that costs four times as much. What is most impressive is not how the Aperion system falls short in comparison, but how close it comes for such a relatively small investment.
Conclusion I've had surround speaker systems in my studio that cost as much as $25,000. They've all had their strengths—and weaknesses. But apart from the deepest bass—I prefer a little more grunt in the sub 30Hz region than Aperion's Intimus S-12 could provide in my room—I could happily live with the Aperion system over the long haul. And the opportunity Aperion provides for auditioning their speakers in your own space and at your own pace is icing on the cake. If you're shopping in this price range—or even if your budget is two or three times higher—I highly recommend checking them out. Highs and Lows
Highs
Lows
Article Continues: Main Review System »
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
