A few words about the design
At a glance it might seem that Argon1 is a little bit smaller, scaled-down version of the Argon3S, yet there are two things that may suggest that this is actually quite a different speaker. Different in the sense that it’s not only about the dimensions, but also about the way they work and may have a differently distributed their virtues. First things first, in Argon1s we have the bass-reflex enclosure, while the bigger 3S version had the passive radiator at the back. Additionally, in Argon1s we can put the plugs that are attached with the speakers into the bass-reflex ports. Thus, effectively making them a closed-cabinet designs with all the resulting outcomes. In theory, such a solution would be the best one, since it should provide the best bass quality (but the least of quantity) – but it’s not actually that simple, so we will get back to this one.
The other thing here is that we also have a midwoofer with a metal (more precisely: aluminium) membrane with the diameter of 5 and ¼ of an inch. In the case of an Argon 3S it was an entire inch more (6 and ¼). That means lower surface area of the diaphragm, yet – at least in theory – better behaviour of the membrane in the midrange. At the same time the crossover point didn’t change and that’s still 1600 Hz, which is another common denominator of the entire Argon series. But let’s get back to those lower registers for a while. What has changed and what may be of importance is the way Argons3S and Argons1 differ in the way they deliver their bass performance. In the bigger model what we have is an “always-on” passive radiator, whereas in “ones” what we actually get is a choice between ported and closed enclosure.
This is actually important in the wider scope of things. Because, paradoxically, its the Argons1 that may be a more elastic speakers when it comes to their bass delivery. Also when we assume that we would like to upgrade our system with a good (not necessarily expensive) subwoofer. And that last one – because of many reasons – would be best if it had a closed enclosure. And in such an interesting case I would see the possibility of using Argons1 with the closed bass-reflex port as very useful. Because in that particular configuration the crossover point between the speakers and the subwoofer would still be low enough, while the bass quality itself – should be much better. I mean impulse response here especially, but not only, since in the case of a closed cabinet (and I mean both the speakers themselves and the subwoofer or subwoofers as well) such an enclosure configuration would better work with what’s known as a room-lift.
So much for the lower registers. Now let’s take a closer look at this uncommonly low crossover point that located at 1600 Hz. And also at no so often-found tweeter membrane material. Because in the latter we will find a titanium, which was previously more popular, whereas nowadays we can more commonly find aluminium or even different magnesium alloys (and also beryllium which is because of many reasons replaced by TPCD). When I asked “why titanium and not aluminium nor magnesium” Anssi Hyvonen of Amphion gets us such an answer:
“When one gets to these kind of decisions, where measured differences are can be minuscule or insignificant towards the human ear the only way to choose the best company is to listen. We listened to all alternatives like aluminum, titanium, magnesium etc. Titanium worked sonically best for our application. When it comes to measurements vs listening our philosophy is similar to legendary Rupert Neve, who once said that excellence in measurements does not automatically mean excellence in performance. This does not mean that measurements are not important. If the product does not measure correctly it will not work well with all kind of materials. But great looking measurements do not mean that it will sound right.”