Another of the old school 'high end multimedia speaker' favorites, the Aego 2 / Aego M 2.1 from Acoustic Energy has the very recognisable tilted tiny satellites and upright rectagular sub. This results in a smaller footprint compared to most 2.1 speakers (at least, the more 'serious' computer speakers above the $150 mark). Note that I have a sort of 'frankenstein' speaker setup, with the newer Aego M 2.1 sub married to the older Aego 2 'metal body' satellites. So might not be 100% representative of the current Aego systems.
Getting right into the measurements, we see that the lonely single satellite driver only really wakes up at ~400Hz and then goes roller coaster beyond 6kHz. Measured nearfield with mic just touching the speaker grille, rear wall roughly a metre away. Volume knob and Windows volume both at 50%.
Distortion looks fine.
The subwoofer is measured at listening position (because my mic can't take the high SPL of the sub in nearfield), about ~70cm away from my seat, rear wall roughly a metre away. Windows volume at 50%, while speaker volume knob at both 50% and 100%. Distortion for 100% vol in 2nd graph below.
Generally good, nothing much below 40Hz (similar to other 'multimedia' speakers). Note also that this is at the 3rd bass level. To compensate for the tiny satellites though, it has to play a lot higher frequencies, so there's a lot more energy down to 1kHz.
Now if we compare the frequency response of the Aego (brown and green graphs) to the JBL A130 + sub (blue graph), once we reduced the Aego's volume to match the JBL, we can see that the gradient (and hence tonality) is pretty similar. That is, except for the drop off below 40Hz, the dip in the 150 - 400Hz region, and that we can comparing the smoothed graphs rather than the individual frequencies. Who would've thought that AE and JBL are copying each other's homework (smooth descending frequency slope)?!
The dip does make the Aego sound somewhat thinner, and is a result of the sub not having a good crossover with the satellites. Did a quick eq to boost the region (orange graph), with a corresponding cut in pre amp gain. The audio now definitely sounded fuller, and closer to the JBLs. Although I'd still attribute the slope as more of a factor in their matching tonality than the eq.
The increased distortion doesn't look too serious either, at least from the listening position.
Getting right into the measurements, we see that the lonely single satellite driver only really wakes up at ~400Hz and then goes roller coaster beyond 6kHz. Measured nearfield with mic just touching the speaker grille, rear wall roughly a metre away. Volume knob and Windows volume both at 50%.
Distortion looks fine.
The subwoofer is measured at listening position (because my mic can't take the high SPL of the sub in nearfield), about ~70cm away from my seat, rear wall roughly a metre away. Windows volume at 50%, while speaker volume knob at both 50% and 100%. Distortion for 100% vol in 2nd graph below.
Generally good, nothing much below 40Hz (similar to other 'multimedia' speakers). Note also that this is at the 3rd bass level. To compensate for the tiny satellites though, it has to play a lot higher frequencies, so there's a lot more energy down to 1kHz.
Now if we compare the frequency response of the Aego (brown and green graphs) to the JBL A130 + sub (blue graph), once we reduced the Aego's volume to match the JBL, we can see that the gradient (and hence tonality) is pretty similar. That is, except for the drop off below 40Hz, the dip in the 150 - 400Hz region, and that we can comparing the smoothed graphs rather than the individual frequencies. Who would've thought that AE and JBL are copying each other's homework (smooth descending frequency slope)?!
The dip does make the Aego sound somewhat thinner, and is a result of the sub not having a good crossover with the satellites. Did a quick eq to boost the region (orange graph), with a corresponding cut in pre amp gain. The audio now definitely sounded fuller, and closer to the JBLs. Although I'd still attribute the slope as more of a factor in their matching tonality than the eq.
The increased distortion doesn't look too serious either, at least from the listening position.
Last edited:
