Review of Audio Note Turntable.

[RGA]

Yeah I'm the Audio Note fan but I read a review from this fellow on AA and thought that some in the market here might be interested in something a little outside the mainstream. I was also impressed by the level of detail from an amateur reviewer in that the info is well laid out and quite informative. This is also one of the turntables I will be looking at when the time comes. http://www.mostlyaudio.com/tt2review.html

[SlumpBuster]

Yeah I'm the Audio Note fan

No shame in being a fanboy, as long as your honest about it. :P

Nice read actually.

AN offers a complete line of products. How do you think AN rectifies the old maxim "Jack of all trades, master of none" in a world that seems to be becoming more specialized and compartmentalized? Do you think they are spread too thin or do they balance quality through the line. The only other manufacturer I can think of off the top of my head that does the same is McIntosh, and I don't even know if that is true anymore. Come to think of it, I don't think they ever made turntables. Mind you, I think its kind of cool that you could but together an all AN system.

[RGA]

Well the notion of the jack of all trades master of none is true if makers let it be true. Plus Audio note does not re-invent the wheel - they took a number of top flight platforms in a number of products and simply revamped them and made them better which is less onerous than designing everything from the ground up. The turntable is based off of SystemDek II transports, the Arms are improved Regas and improved carts from Goldring. Speakers were designed by Leo Beranek and improved by Peter Snell and then AN. All of these makers have made great stuff so in many ways AN is saving themselves from a large part of the work The TT3 for example is a Voyd player. Audio Note bought Voyd. Unfortunately Voyd had a certain contractor for power supplies who closed so Audio Note does not have a supplier for the motors anymore. So AN is stuck. can't make Voyd players. They have recently built their own uber player but the guy in town here has been waiting over a year for his to be made.

This is why I like their level system (though it is painfully unclear to most) because the system should not have a weak link but a system works together. That means that perhaps a given stand alone unit may actually not be as good as someone elses stand alone product for the same money -- but if it works to serve the system better then it is better to buy that unit to get a better result. (not sure if that makes sense). My amp for instance works for my system but objectively speaking the OTO has a lot of issues starting with low power that would make it completely unnacceptable in many set-ups but having said that may beat a Krell at 10 times the price when connected up to an AN system.

Lastly, Peter is the owner and gets the most talk and does the most talking -- but it's the guys behind the scenes, the actual engineers, who are doing the designing. Andy Grove has designed amps for Quad most notably -- they also have or had one of the big guys from Sonic Frontiers and a fellow who is now at Sugden.

But hey they state in plain view everything they got from others. Even going further by saying that if Snell had lived he would have been making better speakers than AN could make. Unfortunately Snell was replaced by Kevin Voecks and so the proof is in the pudding. Listen to an AN E versus a Snell B-Minor (around the same price) and tell me who knows how to build good sounding speakers. The difference is Snell obviously listened to his products - while Voecks no doubt knows how to use a computer.

[theaudiohobby]

... Listen to an AN E versus a Snell B-Minor (around the same price) and tell me who knows how to build good sounding speakers. The difference is Snell obviously listened to his products - while Voecks no doubt knows how to use a computer.

You never cease to amaze me with your disparaging and often incorrect comments about various products, How did you know that Voecks does not listen to his products, on what basis did you arrive at this conclusion? He and his colleagues run a facility for that very purpose, listening, neither is there any consensus about the superiority of either designs, so your comments are preposterous in the extreme.

[RGA]

"He and his colleagues run a facility for that very purpose, listening"

If he had confidence in his own ears and listened for himself then why would he need to bring in average Joe's off the street to help him be the arbiter of what good sound is?

Consensus? No there is no consensus there is opinion...my opinion is that the B-Minor is a terrible loudspeaker compared to the E. What is your opinion after having listened extensively to both of these loudspeakers?

Of course I wonder why the E has been selling in one formn or another since 1980 or so with more orders than they can keep up with and the B-Minor ran for a few years and soon got replaced by a completely different design despite being aided with adverts/review in Stereophile. I'm sure the excuse for the replacement is this week's new revolutionary superior improvement in computer modelling and aerospace materials that make the new better. After all that argument is valid -- why did you buy a pre 1970's design again? Ahh.

[theaudiohobby]

Please, please RGA, I do not want this to degenerate into a free for all, but here goes

"He and his colleagues run a facility for that very purpose, listening"

If he had confidence in his own ears and listened for himself then why would he need to bring in average Joe's off the street to help him be the arbiter of what good sound is?

Ever heard of the term, "Field testing"?

Consensus? No there is no consensus there is opinion...my opinion is that the B-Minor is a terrible loudspeaker compared to the E. What is your opinion after having listened extensively to both of these loudspeakers?

Better go and re-read your original comments, your singular opinion is insufficient premise to arrive at your original conclusion, all you can deduce from your opinion is that you do not like Kevin Voecks designs, nothing more.

Of course I wonder why the E has been selling in one formn or another since 1980 or so with more orders than they can keep up with and the B-Minor ran for a few years and soon got replaced by a completely different design despite being aided with adverts/review in Stereophile.

The E and indeed most Audio Note speakers are very much like Toyota Corolla and such like, it has maintained the same name, but has changed enormously over it's production lifetime, probably the only the thing that remains intact from the original design is the basic cabinet dimension and the driver sizes. The crossover, drivers, etc have all changed considerably over the years.

I'm sure the excuse for the replacement is this week's new revolutionary superior improvement in computer modelling and aerospace materials that make the new better.After all that argument is valid -- why did you buy a pre 1970's design again? Ahh.

A copout..the AN's may have kept the same basic dimensions and name over the years but as mentioned previously, a lot has changed and is still changing, hence the gobblekook naming nomenclature to differentiate various iterations of the speaker. Your comments about my choice of speaker are a copout that has no relevance to your original comments which disparaged Kevin Voecks work.