Eikon: Active X-crossovers, built in amps, with DSP control

[TitaniumTroy]

https://eikonaudio.com

I just remembered this speaker I heard at AXPONA, it seem to espouse most of the things Flint has been talking about to make a state of the art speaker using todays latest technology. The room acoustics kind of left a lot to be desired, some kind of giant black drape enveloped all the walls. Also the room was pretty small. So I didn't feel I got a good enough demo to give a real opinion, other than it sounded good and did not suck.

Gayle Sanders Eikon Image 1
MartinLogan co-founder Gayle Sanders, who was on-hand and extremely affable, unveiled the Eikon Image 1loudspeaker system ($25k)—the inaugural release from his new Eikon company—consisting of a pair of Image 1 active digital floorstanders and an Eikontrol “command center” containing a DAC/preamp and DSP processor that enables wavelet room analysis and custom configuration and EQ; eight channels of output and six inputs are on tap. Remote control is via a mobile app for iOS and Android wherein the sound can be further fine-tuned. Each speaker contains four dedicated monoblocks that are directly coupled and power each driver individually—an AMT Kapton ribbon tweeter, a treated-paper cone midrange with a half-roll NBR (Nitrile Butadiene Rubber) surround, and two opposing, time-aligned woofers. For now you can select any color so long as it’s piano-gloss black, but more finish options will be available later. Also forthcoming are user-programmable profile maps for various music styles and sonic preferences. The system is expected in market within “three or four months” after AXPONA.

 

[Flint]

I've heard a demo of their speakers and found them very impressive, but for the stated price I've heard better. But I do question their baffle and driver mounting decisions.

I like it that they decided to add a ton of features to the active components to make it easier to accept, but you must still need amps or something? I am not sure what it means.

 

[Flint]

By the way, my opinion is based on relative value, not absolute performance. They sounded amazing, no doubt. I would not turn them away and if I got a gift card to buy them for Chirstmas I'd get a tent in my pants. But if I had cash in my pocket and access to every retail speaker in that price range, they wouldn't be at the top of my list.

That's kinda how I felt about Wilson Audio. Wilson's speakers were fabulous and often blew me away when I got to audition them. But when I saw the prices and how they were marketed and manufactured, I was sorely disappointed. They spent money doing simple things the most expensive ways possible to justify their prices, not to improve performance. I am not a huge fan of that approach - at least not when taken that far.

 

[TitaniumTroy]

Anything you feel comfortable adding about or expanding on, regarding Wilson's I would be interested in? Not to pick on Wilson Audio, but they are still the king of the hill in the High End Audiophile market, IMHO. Or you could just add what other people you respect say about them that you agree with.

I did watch all of Dave Wilson's youtube videos and he seemed very knowledgeable, and said all the right things. However I don't agree with his very wide placement of his speakers to simulate a large symphony hall. Or at least not at the large hotel conference rooms at AXPONA they sometimes set up in. Even when sitting in the sitting in sweet spot.

So far as the large Transformer models sound, Zing and I remain unconvinced.

 

[Flint]

I am a fan, in general, of the overall Wilson Audio product lines. They follow solid physics and incorporate critical principles for getting the best performance from the transducers available at the time.

That said, there are aspects I don't agree with at all. For instance, I see absolute zero benefit from taking a billet of aluminum and milling it with a CNC machine to make a port for an enclosure. The cost of one unprocessed billet of aluminum before the process starts is work 100x what a perfect performing plastic or paper (cardboard) port could provide. To me, adding $2,000 to the price of a set of speaker merely because it is sexy is an egregious waste of resources on all sides.

Likewise, I am not a fan of acoustically separating driver enclosures from each other where there is a decent sized gap between each enclosure. This design concept is acoustically very messy and introduces reflective components to the radiating sound which inherently muddy the sound. In the uber high end speakers you can see he reduced that negative impact by placing small board shelfs between the separate enclosures to create much narrower gaps between the enclosure modules, but that is a lame band-aid to the problem created by the original concept. I prefer what Focal did with their high end utopia products where the front baffles of the enclosures remained touching, ensuring the baffle is unbroken and solid, while still allowing for tuning the angle of the driver modules to align for perfect directionality and time alignment.

I could go on, but it seems that after the WATT and the Puppies, Wilson went insane with over the top appearance of technical perfection at the cost of actual acoustical perfection. Like with guitars with thick gold coated metal hardware which look gorgeous but sound dead and lifeless because gold is a soft metal which reduces harmonics and sustain. Sure, the products look over the top fancy, for the rich guy who can brag that only 10 speakers like his were sold last year, but the same product could be made with the same or even better performance for 75% of the selling price.

 

[TitaniumTroy]

Thanks for the reply Flint, I never thought or have heard about the gaps between enclosures issue before. Regarding their ports, isn't another problem that the are not flared? That is supposed to reduce chuffing and port noise, I believe. IMO, compared to Focal's they look chunky and unrefined.

I see a lot of the audiophile press own Wilsons, like Michael Fremer the anointed guru of vinyl. Johnathan Valin is notable exception, but then he has lots of different speakers in his home.

While Wilsons automotive level of finish is admirable if you like that look, I think they seem out classed in looks and sound by my Italian cousins from across the pond Sonus Faber.

 

[Flint]

Thanks for the reply Flint, I never thought or have heard about the gaps between enclosures issue before. Regarding their ports, isn't another problem that the are not flared? That is supposed to reduce chuffing and port noise, I believe. IMO, compared to Focal's they look chunky and unrefined.

I see a lot of the audiophile press own Wilsons, like Michael Fremer the anointed guru of vinyl. Johnathan Valin is notable exception, but then he has lots of different speakers in his home.

While Wilsons automotive level of finish is admirable if you like that look, I think they seem out classed in looks and sound by my Italian cousins from across the pond Sonus Faber.

Yes, flaring the inside and outside of the port will reduce turbulence which can give the resonance a breathy sound if it gets loud enough. However, that only really happens if there is enough airflow to make the turbulence so great as to cause audible noise. So, using a larger port reduces turbulence significantly. However, using a larger diameter port requires using a longer port, and a port can get long enough as a ratio of length to diameter to cause strange ringing at the tuning frequency and cause a secondary higher frequency resonance inside the tube. So, there is a limit as to the maximum diameter of a port to achieve a resonant frequency for a given cabinet volume. A smaller cabinet needs a longer port for a given frequency than the same resonant frequency in a larger enclosure. So, a designer has to balance out all these characteristics to get as wide a diameter as is possible with the limitation on length versus diameter.

Another way to reduce some negative impacts of larger ports is to use hundreds of smaller ports to get the same effect as one large port. I will sometimes stuff a large port tight with straws cut to the effective length of the port to basically create dozens of 0.25" diameter ports crammed together inside what would have been a single large diameter port. That not only reduces the turbulence by about 50%, but it also forces all the air moving as a piston in the port tube to move linearly and not build up internal cross angle resonances. I really only consider doing that (stuffing with straws) when I know the port will be pushed rather hard at nominal listening levels and the tuning frequency is above 40Hz. Also, as with my current midrange speaker enclosures for the Rocketman speakers, since I plan on plugging those ports for typical use, I didn't bother with straws.

But there are many companies manufacturing good examples of flared ports, both inside and outside the port. They are common enough and so inexpensive to manufacture that any company could either buy them wholesale or have a plastics fabricator make them in volume for less. You could argue that thicker or stiffer plastic might have slight advantages over the common retail versions, but that wouldn't cost much to make. You could also use paper tubes, like shipping tubes, for the main body of the port then shape the wood on the cabinet with a flare and put a small plastic or wood endcap on the inside of the paper port which flared the inside. All of those processes work with virtually zero negative effects, but Wilson Audio chose to take a 15lb billet of aluminum and have a CNC machining tool shape it into a port. I think that is completely wasteful and only serves as a bragging right for owners.

As for the separate enclosure thing, if every speaker is in its own enclosure there are some amazing benefits, but separating the enclosures by as much as 6 inches from the nearest next enclosure adds some pretty unnecessary acoustical issues which have to be addressed. If you look at the last great statement speaker from Wilson Audio, those issues were apparently addressed by placing a flat panel between the tweeter and midrange units to reduce the size of the physical gaps between the cabinets, which seems like more unnecessary complications which could be handled better and more elegantly by continuing baffle above and below the tweeter in order to eliminate or minimize the gap. That speaker's design, to me, screams unnecessary complications which enable other excellent principles. It also looks like a dust trap for any home. No male owner would dare let a maid dust their speakers, so the owner would have to hand dust all those complicated surfaces weekly to keep that slick and shiny surface clean and attractive.