Video Interview with peter Qvortrup of Audio Note...

[RGA]

I am not trying to start a controversial thread but many of the old long time members of this board who remember those old debates LOL - will remember our conversations on this little left field company.

Anyway - Peter Qvortrup was interviewed at the Serbia high end show discussing the state of the high end, less is more, and plans to get more involved than they are currently in the recording studio side of things. They've been pressing LP's and have developed their own cutting lathes and AD converters etc.

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx1YXCaOhr8&feature=related

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iba70UN5biY&feature=related

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UAbI-8mAzg&feature=related

[atomicAdam]

Thanks RGA - awesome info - speakers for me? When? WHEN? WHEN?

But I digress into myself.

SACD homogenizes music? Interesting.

What are the right things to listen to?

OMG - He mentioned Slipknot? WTF?

What is the footprint of my system at home? Interesting question. What do ALL recordings I play at home have in common. I'll have to think on that one.

Wait, he just said 3 surfaces to work with? Hello, ceiling? walls walls walls, everywhere walls?

Current is the secret ingredient of good music?

Does music really matter what it sounds like? or really if you like the sound?

Isn't it amazing that some guys made some **** that other guys spend hours and hours and life times trying to figure out how to reproduce it an best as possible?

Big mics are coming back! WOHOOO! Those are sexy like a fox!

And a lot of words have been said about all this, so I dare you to say more!

[RGA]

yeah well English is his fourth or fifth or sixth language - so some thing are a little lost in translation.

I think I can address some - the ceiling is not as controlled because they're at different heights and dimensions - they factor in the corner and the floor because those can be factored readily.

Peter is a huge classical guy but he has kids who listen to it and introduced it to him and he likes it. He usually brings very hard metal to audio shows and I know he likes Slipnot and Rammstein kind of stuff. Way the hell too hard for me. But then I've not heard it on my system - maybe I'll like it more :)

With the music comment is to judge gear - doesn't matter what the music is - the system that homogenizes the differences the least (or maximizes the differences most) is the one that is being more truthful to the recordings. And the stereo should not care what is played - whether it is Slipnott or violin. I have always agreed with that. If a speaker is weak at one - in all likelyhood it is weak at the thing you think it is doing well. Many products stamp a heavy signature on the sound over a wide number of recordings - very popular big name high end ones IMO do just that. But don't get me wrong they often stamp a sound on things that are very appealing.

Yeah he is not a proponent of SACD - quite the reverse.

[atomicAdam]

RGA -

Don't get me wrong. Slipknot ROCKS, and I mean ROCKS. HAHA.

Well, I'm just kidding. Anyways, those are my notes in case no one wants to watch. I've had a couple beers, a bottle of wine, a shot of something, and am just taking notes but don't mean much by them.

I actually love what Audio Note is trying to do. Though I am fearful of spending a lot of time listening to awesome music on a system that makes it sound bad!

[Ajani]

With the music comment is to judge gear - doesn't matter what the music is - the system that homogenizes the differences the least (or maximizes the differences most) is the one that is being more truthful to the recordings. And the stereo should not care what is played - whether it is Slipnott or violin. I have always agreed with that. If a speaker is weak at one - in all likelyhood it is weak at the thing you think it is doing well. Many products stamp a heavy signature on the sound over a wide number of recordings - very popular big name high end ones IMO do just that. But don't get me wrong they often stamp a sound on things that are very appealing.

That reminds me of when I went to audition a pair of Magnepan MG12s a few years ago... I was all excited to audition my first Maggies (based on the generous heaping of praise I read about the brand)... So I put on some of my favorite Songs: Billie Jean, Hotel California, Here and Now... and frankly it was the only time I've ever thought that a hifi product sounded truly awful (I've heard lots of bland and disappointing gear, but nothing else that left me scratching my head)... The Salesman was quick to point out that I had the "wrong type of music" and ushered me towards some Revel Performa M22s... Now those speakers did the trick... They sounded good with everything I threw at them...

Despite the claim made by many audiophiles, I really doubt that the aim is always to "recreate the live performance"... Most gear is colored (often in a pleasant way) but clearly colored.... If not, then there would be no such thing as a "house sound" for any specific brand... and all Brands would sound essentially the same...

Also, a speaker that only sounds good with specific types of music cannot really be accurate... If it was accurate, it would be honest to all recordings.... not flattering to a specific genre, but nasty to others...

While I admire the goals at AudioNote to have real accuracy... I don't think it's necessary for many persons... Many Audiophiles listen to only one genre of music (classical being a common example) and hence would be far happier with an "inaccurate" speaker that flatters all their classical recordings, than an "accurate" one that would be equally honest with all genres...

Since I have a wide taste in music, I tend to avoid brands that are too genre specific...

[RGA]

I listen to practically every genre - if I can't enjoy Beethoven, Delerium, Guns and Roses, Ray Charles, Miles Davis in equal measure without fatigue for 6 straight hours+ then what the heck is the point of the stereo?

Yes the recordings are differentiated greatly but the trick is also to still have value when listening. Too many systems make me want to shut it off or change the disc - that's not a good thing. I don't want to be forced into just listening to a well recorded Dianna Krall album.

[Feanor]

...

While I admire the goals at AudioNote to have real accuracy { :sosp: Audio Note, you say?? }... I don't think it's necessary for many persons... Many Audiophiles listen to only one genre of music (classical being a common example) and hence would be far happier with an "inaccurate" speaker that flatters all their classical {bad example} recordings, than an "accurate" one that would be equally honest with all genres...

Since I have a wide taste in music, I tend to avoid brands that are too genre specific...
NO FURTHER COMMENT!!!! :ciappa:

[Ajani]

NO FURTHER COMMENT!!!! :ciappa:

HEHEHEHE... Yeah I was kinda taking a few cheap shots at you for the fun of it... Though the main point remains.... I don't think accuracy to the recording is a necessary goal to everyone... and worse yet, try defining accuracy... AN, defines it one way (which seems sensible enough to me) but many others are concerned with making it sound like you're in a Concert Hall (regardless of whether the music was recorded and heavily processed in a Soundlab, rather than at a live performance)....

Another point I've seen made, is our focus on pinpoint soundstaging... At live events, the soundstage is far more diffused than many of these pinpoint monitors that we enjoy... The reason we can readily determine the position of individual band members is more because we can SEE them than what we Hear... I tried that test, about a week ago listening to a church choir... once I closed my eyes, I realized that it was not all that easy to pinpoint individual singers....

[RGA]

I don't necessarily agree with Audio Note wholly on this - what Peter is doing is creating a system (and believes a system) should have the highest level of contrast to determine accuracy. But that is not the same as overall accuracy (which we can never know). So while his view of acuracy is not absolute in any real sense - from a logical perspective it's about as good as we can attain in my view.

Many systems have a signature sound that people immensely enjoy (so do I) that will score less points in the contrast criteria that you may end up liking more. The Quad 2905 which is one of my 5 favorite loudspeakers (so far) has a nature that on classical acoustic instruments is highly appealing. That strength on rock music and pop and amplified music is homogenized creating a kind of similar structure especially in the lower registers and treble creating a limited dynamic envelope. So I find the speaker to have incredible transients and speed - perhaps due the lightness of the membrane and timing tends to be first rate but tonal decay and dynamic pressure of instruments (front to back) is not really there. So it's more of a philosophical rather than visceral presentation - and it's noticeable across genres. But it never sounds "bad" - it's all day listenable and those transients are "state of the art" in the hairs on the back of the neck goosebump realism.

I know several people who prefer a speaker to be state of the art in a particular are even if they're very poor at something else. I prefer more balance. I will take a speaker that scores 8.5 to 9 out of ten across the board than a speaker that gets a 10/10 in 3-4 areas and a 3/10 in a few other areas. Largely this is because I listen to a lot of classical, jazz, rock, pop, trance, dance, some hard rock/metal, country, new age, folk, Latin, instrumental and vocals. Some people only listen to light strings and coral works at low volumes - in which case there are speakers that excel at that.

[Jimmy C]

...I mean, that where it starts in a live performance. How many times have you clicked on a YouTube live music vid only to find out it sounds like crap? Yes, most of those are taken from a cell phone, but there's yer mike.

A few of the Dead shows I have on DVD are AWESOME... I should look into who recorded them... super-clear video as well... and thats from the 80s, early 90s...

I'm with Peter so far... haven't heard an Audio Note rig, but ALL the super-expensive, high-powered stuff I have was disappointing...

I'll have to stick with Bob Neill... once you get someone whos ears you trust... and that goes for Spendor (some of them) as well...

[Ajani]

More and More, I wish I had the opportunity to audition some Audio Note Gear... probably next time I travel, I'll seek out an AN dealer....

On a side note, since the Quad Electrostats were brought up.... I find it interesting that I had such a bad experience with Maggies, yet I love the Electrostats I've heard.... I always got the impression that Planar fans Love both....

[JoeE SP9]

I'm a planar fan. I've been using since 1976. I switched to the hard stuff (ESL's) in 1983. I'm an addict. Guess what? I'm not ashamed.
Like others here I listen to a wide variety of music. Sometimes the levels are very loud. Other times the level is so low street sounds can drown it out. I couldn't live with any gear speakers or otherwise that I could only use on one or two types of music.
What I have is not perfect. What is? It's good enough to satisfy me and my lady friends. In fact, if women like the sound of your system you're doing good. If they ask you to turn it up, puff up your chest because it sounds good.

BTW:
I still like Maggy's and recommend them to anyone who wants good sound. ESL's just sound better to me. Either type benefits greatly from having one or more sub woofers. If you're E-Stat, subs need not apply. His ESL's are the "fashizzle".

[E-Stat]

Also, a speaker that only sounds good with specific types of music cannot really be accurate... If it was accurate, it would be honest to all recordings.... not flattering to a specific genre, but nasty to others...
I believe that any speaker that sounds anything like the *live* source for a rock concert will NEVER sound realistic with acoustic music. Acoustic music never possesses the thick midbass that punches you in the solar plexus. A concert drum can hurl a first octave bass wave at you that you feel and a pipe organ can flutter your pants legs, but neither will punch you like an equalized woofer.


On a side note, since the Quad Electrostats were brought up.... I find it interesting that I had such a bad experience with Maggies, yet I love the Electrostats I've heard.... I always got the impression that Planar fans Love both....
There are similarities among planar dipoles, but differences do exist between Maggies and stats. Both are capable of creating a large acoustical space (when given the room to breathe), but I find full range electrostats superior in two respects: low level resolution and coherency. Consequently, I find myself listening at lower levels with them vs. Maggies to get a certain sense of dynamic contrasts.

rw

[RGA]

More and More, I wish I had the opportunity to audition some Audio Note Gear... probably next time I travel, I'll seek out an AN dealer....

On a side note, since the Quad Electrostats were brought up.... I find it interesting that I had such a bad experience with Maggies, yet I love the Electrostats I've heard.... I always got the impression that Planar fans Love both....

I directly compared the 20.1 and the Quad 2905 - to me the 2905 wins hands down in every conceivable way. I think you coul dbuy a pair of 1.6s and spend $4k on subs - you'd probably be way further ahead of the 20.1 IMO.

[RGA]

This one is for you Adam - check out the bizarre stuff Peter auditions for people

Fred Crowder of Dagogo recently did a factory tour of AN UK and noted the new Audio Note recordings in there somewhere and what he thought of them

"My host's taste in music is quite eclectic and the CD's which we played reflected that, ranging from a Grieg piano concerto to Puscifier's (no, I am not making this up) '' V is for Vagina''."

And The next cut was ''MUD” from the album We Can't All Be Zingers by Primus and “Slipknot” from Subliminal Verses using a track called “Pulse of the Maggots”, both of which could be characterized as very aggressive rock. Drums were very taut with excellent impact. Again, the top seemed extended and detailed without any bite or harshness. Most noticeable was the ability of the 8'' driver to create pressure gradients within the listening room which were noted as momentary density changes in the air of the room. I have heard few large systems capable of doing this as effectively as these drivers when corner loaded."

We next listened to a series of male vocals and acoustic instruments including cuts by Michel Jones, Jacques Brel and Nils Lofgren. Male voice was excellent, particularly in capturing the expression of the singer. The vibrato on the soprano voice on parts of the Jacques Brel was absolutely superb, as was the acoustic guitar on the Nils Lofgren. We concluded the session with the track “Du Hast” from the Ramstein album Sehnsucht, which translates as longing, Nirvana’s Unplugged and Alice in Chains’ Unplugged."



http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=581

[atomicAdam]

This one is for you Adam - check out the bizarre stuff Peter auditions for people

"My host's taste in music is quite eclectic and the CD's which we played reflected that, ranging from a Grieg piano concerto to Puscifier's (no, I am not making this up) '' V is for Vagina''."



That is pretty funny. Glad to know he likes a lot of different music. Just like me.

[Ajani]

I believe that any speaker that sounds anything like the *live* source for a rock concert will NEVER sound realistic with acoustic music. Acoustic music never possesses the thick midbass that punches you in the solar plexus. A concert drum can hurl a first octave bass wave at you that you feel and a pipe organ can flutter your pants legs, but neither will punch you like an equalized woofer.

Possibly because I enjoy using headphones (though I was always like this), I don't regard the physical impact (A wicked kick in the chest or windows vibrating and shattering) as being "sound"... I don't look for that when I audition equipment (and frankly I usually don't like it, if I find it)... So when I talk about accuracy, I am referring to whether for example: A pair of Soundlabs can sound like a rock concert, and not whether it can produce the same physical impact of a kick in the ribs...

I regard the search for physical impact, to be moving past accurately reproducing music and towards recreating a Live 3D experience.... So just as I don't attempt to recreate the smell of Cigarettes, Weed and Sweat from a local club, I don't care about recreating the sense of touch (the aforementioned kick)...

[E-Stat]

So when I talk about accuracy, I am referring to whether for example: A pair of Soundlabs can sound like a rock concert, and not whether it can produce the same physical impact of a kick in the ribs...
Then we agree, but others reasonably would not.


So just as I don't attempt to recreate the smell of Cigarettes, Weed and Sweat from a local club, I don't care about recreating the sense of touch (the aforementioned kick)...
Or the sounds of the drunks! :)

rw

[hifitommy]

the maggies need to be set up correctly just as any other speaker, to maximize its potential. estat is correct in stating that planars need a fair amount of space to allow proper performance.

MOST speakers need space around them to allow them to develop optimum tonal and and spatial accuracy.

stuffing speakers back against the rear wall or too near the sides can grossly compromise their ability to perform at or anywhere near their best.

in my room, i am able to allow either my maggie MMGs or spendor s3/5s to do a great job.

[Ajani]

the maggies need to be set up correctly just as any other speaker, to maximize its potential. estat is correct in stating that planars need a fair amount of space to allow proper performance.

MOST speakers need space around them to allow them to develop optimum tonal and and spatial accuracy.

stuffing speakers back against the rear wall or too near the sides can grossly compromise their ability to perform at or anywhere near their best.

in my room, i am able to allow either my maggie MMGs or spendor s3/5s to do a great job.

I'm sure the 12s were properly setup... The dealer has been handling Maggies for a very long time, and the room was clearly setup for them... I won't post a link (so as not to do a disservice to the dealer), but I can find a pic of the room on their website now...

[RGA]

Ajani

Granted the following is the pot calling the kettle...
The bottom line is that if you don't like a panel loudspeaker it is because of one of or all of the following: They were nto set-up right, you didn't use enough power, you used enough power but it was not the right amp, you don't appreciate the type of bass (correct bass) that panels put out.

Magnepan has a signature sound - if you perceive that to be the right sound then you're in luck and there will be no converting you (well almost) - if you don't like them then no amount of excuses or amps or room set-ups will help.

But you will agree they sound unique and that is at least more interesting to listen to than most things out there - even if they're not you're cup of tea. I actually prefer the 12 and the 1.6 to the 3.6 and the 20.1 - I have heard the 20.1 several times and have been roundly wholly unimpressed. The 1.6 is the ace in the line-up IMO and for the money is probably the best loudspeaker around - let's face it everything at 2k is a bit of a compromise. The 1.6 has them too but has some strengths few possess. A 1.6 or 12 with a couple of well executed subs could work very well.

[Ajani]

Ajani

Granted the following is the pot calling the kettle...
The bottom line is that if you don't like a panel loudspeaker it is because of one of or all of the following: They were nto set-up right, you didn't use enough power, you used enough power but it was not the right amp, you don't appreciate the type of bass (correct bass) that panels put out.

Magnepan has a signature sound - if you perceive that to be the right sound then you're in luck and there will be no converting you (well almost) - if you don't like them then no amount of excuses or amps or room set-ups will help.

But you will agree they sound unique and that is at least more interesting to listen to than most things out there - even if they're not you're cup of tea. I actually prefer the 12 and the 1.6 to the 3.6 and the 20.1 - I have heard the 20.1 several times and have been roundly wholly unimpressed. The 1.6 is the ace in the line-up IMO and for the money is probably the best loudspeaker around - let's face it everything at 2k is a bit of a compromise. The 1.6 has them too but has some strengths few possess. A 1.6 or 12 with a couple of well executed subs could work very well.

The Maggies certainly sounded unique... but they just sounded totally wrong to me... Though I'm still perplexed, since I heard a pair of Final Sound 400i Electrostats and thought they sounded brilliant... I preferred them with the subwoofers off, as I much preferred the stat's bass to the boom from the subs... I've heard Martin Logan's previous generation of hybrid stats and for the most part liked them (minus the cone bass - which didn't sound all the well integrated to me)...

As I'm not a thunderous bass fanatic, planars should float my boat, but somehow those MG12s just did nothing right for me... I'd certainly audition another pair of Maggies in a different room just to see if my impressions might change... but nothing in the original room indicates that the room placement or that the All McIntosh gear being used to drive the Maggies were deficient..

[hifitommy]

my friend has had all three-MMGs, 12s, and 1.6s in his room (also various cone/dome spks including gallo ref 3s) with varying results. he rejected the 1.6s and MMGs in favor of the 12s.

perhaps its room interface or personal preference. thats why having the luxury of in home audition is important and living in the LA area is conducive to that. full rangesoundlabs ES speakers seem like they may br preferable to you over any of the hybrid units. i stll plainly remember my incounter with A1s long ago.

as for the visceral factor, usually missing from headphones, i feel that it adds to the feeling of reality but isnt necessary for enjoyment. having heard electrostatic headphones, i would someday lie to have a pair. you can discern the stretch of a drumhead skin on tympan i for instance.

one speculation i have made is using a subwoofer with a set of headphones. it may not gel but i would like once to try it.

[RGA]

The Maggies certainly sounded unique... but they just sounded totally wrong to me... Though I'm still perplexed, since I heard a pair of Final Sound 400i Electrostats and thought they sounded brilliant... I preferred them with the subwoofers off, as I much preferred the stat's bass to the boom from the subs... I've heard Martin Logan's previous generation of hybrid stats and for the most part liked them (minus the cone bass - which didn't sound all the well integrated to me)...

As I'm not a thunderous bass fanatic, planars should float my boat, but somehow those MG12s just did nothing right for me... I'd certainly audition another pair of Maggies in a different room just to see if my impressions might change... but nothing in the original room indicates that the room placement or that the All McIntosh gear being used to drive the Maggies were deficient..

You should not feel bad - I would not want a pair of Maggies either and I think I know what you're hearing. But the bottom line is people like em. That said like you I've had wildly different results with electrostats - to me the midrange and treble are just better than ribbon counterparts. And like you my biggest complaint about ML is the woofer integration - or IMO gross lack of integration. Listening to a speaker sound like a speaker is not my cup of tea. But they're sold at big box chain Future Shop - I always felt they were a style over substance product and charging at least 3 times what they were actually worth sonically.

So I keep coming back to the Quad 2905 which is a lot better than the 63. Trouble is at $14,000.00 I have heard better boxed speakers for under $7k that take up a lot less space and allow for 5 watt amps. Still if price is not a factor the 2905's do a lot right if rock at level is not a factor.

[E-Stat]

I have heard the 20.1 several times and have been roundly wholly unimpressed.
What was the setup in the best arrangement? While I prefer my stats, I confess the 20.1s I heard in Harry's Room 2 two channel system (before they were moved to Room 1 as MC/HT) sounded pretty darn impressive! He used a Burmester 001 CD front end through a CJ ART with Joule Electra Rite-of-Passage amps and Valhalla throughout (naturally).

rw

[RGA]

Both Set-ups the room was not an issue on a third you might make the case because Soundhounds main listening room is big and filled with other gear - though it sounded good enough to get the gist.

The three set-ups were using top of the line Krell/Levinson and Class and Sim Audio. I've heard the 3.6 with McIntosh and Bryston and the 1.6 with Audio Note M3 preamp and Rotel power amp.

I have heard Quad 2905 positioned with a couch between them and in a worse room and they still sounded much better in the midrange.

The 20.1 for me is tonally off. Soundhounds' poor room also had the other speakers suffer the same issues. I would take the SF Cremona, AN E or J(not in corners) and the Quad 2905 in a second. The 20.1 for me didn't win in a single sonic area. I just don't buy the supposed advantages - the AN E J and Sonus Faber and to a degree even the Meridian's and B&W Diamond speakers were to one degree or another faster on transients - actually have decay - a better treble band, deeper more textured differentiated bass, dynamics, impact, speed inner resolution - the 20.1 the ear is continuously drawnt to issues - treble, head in a vice, lack of clarity, dynamics, screwing around with the positioning. They're a headache and the sound isn't good enough IMO to put up with all of that. I think I get their appeal but at the price I don't really see anyone listening to the 2905 and walking away more impressed with the 20.1 (except for the cool looks and being that most audiophiles are males that coule be an issue - people are seduced by conversation points and massive amplifiers and sheer weight. The 20.1 to me is not a very good loudspeaker for $14k.

When I auditioned the Jackson Browne Acoustic Volume 2 album - which is quite well recorded I looked over at the sales guy - who used to own Magnepan's top of the line speakers in the mid 1970s and he just looked at me and smiled and said "We Know." The initial wow factor I first had with panels - the ML Odyssy and Prodigy with the holographic imaging and left to right and up and down stage is the one big trick in the stable and it's a wholly impressive one to be sure. But after that, for me there is little else left and IMO anyway, some great boxes and HE horn designs match the speed well enough and bring a lot more to the table. You can't please all of the people all of the time - and Magnepan pleases enough people not to worry about the odd dissenter.

[blackraven]

You just need to have the right room and equipment for the MG20's too shine. My brother;s father inlaw is a millionare and lives in a mansion in Tustin CA. He has a pair of MG20's with a pair of 500wpc mono blocks driving them in a huge room, it must be at least 25' wide and 35' long with over 10' ceilings and those babies sound sweet. The weak part of his system is a Rega Apollo or Saturn CD player.

Also, Maggies will sound like crap with crap recordings while less accurate and revealing speakers will sound better. Thats why a play a large portion of my poorly recorded music on my Monitor Audio S1's.