$1200 vs $200 cd players [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

DMK

10-24-2004, 08:31 AM

I own the Arcam CD72, excellent player, I also own a very mid-fi Yamaha player I paid $200 for. I can barely here a difference on my a/v receiver when using the digital outputs...on my Rotel integrated in my main stereo, the differences are a bit more noticeable...for whatever reason, the Yamaha seems to come through a bit louder at first, but when volume compensated, the Arcam is a tad bit better. It's not a huge difference though. The clash of symbals is the biggest improvement I can tell...not much added in the way of soundstage depth, imaging etc...I have some very competent Vifa/Scan-Speak rull range towers connected to the Rotel, and the Yamaha sounds great in this system too.
Since I got the Arcam used at less than 50% of the new price, it was worth it for me...I don't think at full retail it would be "better enough" to justify the added cost though. Hence, I'm not completely sold on the merits of "high-end" CD players. I think that $1000 difference might account for 5-10% sound improvement tops, and this might be very generous. You might be better off to consider upgrading another component, speakers, amp/pre-amp first to get a bigger improvement.

For music like rock, blues, techno/electronic, I don't think it's really worth it at all. For Jazz and classical, with more demanding dynamics there's a few subtleties that will come through in the Arcam. If this sounds "elitist", well, it probably is.

I agree with some other assessments...I'd put the money towards a better amp before putting that money towards a CD player...the improvement would be more noticeable. Worth $1000??? Only you can decide that.

Interesting story, and one that confirms my experiences. I've owned, heard and set up for others untold numbers of systems. I've never once found a system where the CDP was the limiting factor. In fact, often when setting a system up for someone, I'm given very severe budget restraints. I ALWAYS cut corners on the CDP and end up with a much better sounding system than if I cut corners on another component. I've heard all the arguments about "garbage in, garbage out" and that you should put the bulk of money into the digital front end because you'll never fix at the end what was wrong in the front. While correct in theory, the fact is that digital components have reached a point where there are only very very minor improvements available. In other words, CDP's have the lowest point of diminishing returns of all audio components. Spend 6000% more, get a 2% improvement if you're lucky. I would every single time recommend that the bulk of the audio budget go elsewhere unless the CDP simply doesn't function properly. So far, I've had no complaints.

kexodusc

10-24-2004, 09:10 AM

I. Spend 6000% more, get a 2% improvement if you're lucky. I would every single time recommend that the bulk of the audio budget go elsewhere unless the CDP simply doesn't function properly. So far, I've had no complaints.

1) Speakers
2) Amp & Pre-amp...I give equal weighting to both at the start, but depending on your speakers, the amp could be a bit more important - like if you've got really low sensitivity speakers or something.
3) Room Acoustics (and setup) - rugs, wall hangings, plants etc, every bit helps and it can be cheap
4) Source - Important, but don't get carried away
5) Cables - I find allocating resources to one of the above will always yield more audible results than allocating the same resources to just cables, but once a year or so I find Monster, Acoustic Research, etc on a clearance sale and I dive in.

Funny thing is, I've met people who would REVERSE my priority list in the exact OPPOSITE order and swear it's the right way to go...I don't have the money to test that method against mine.

DMK

10-24-2004, 11:04 AM

Funny thing is, I've met people who would REVERSE my priority list in the exact OPPOSITE order and swear it's the right way to go.

So have I. And their systems tend to be compromised to the point where they're unlistenable unless they've spent a very high amount of money on all their stuff. Even so, they could spend much less on the CDP and have excellent sound. There just isn't that much difference between them to make the "garbage in, garbage out" theory anything but just that... a theory.

Geoffcin

10-24-2004, 12:42 PM

hi, i am new to 2 ch audio.

i have borrowed a $1200 arcam cd82 and comparing it to a $200 sony dvd/cd player. switching between audioquest & highwire (brand) digital coax into my sony es2000 amp. speakers are proac tablettes. i cant hear a major difference playing cd's....is it the amp? music style? or is the difference not that big? i'm just trying to justify the purchase of the cd players....are the differences in equipment/sound mainly personal preference? what should i be looking for to jusitfy the cost?
i listen to jazz and electronic music.

thanks

In decent players for a modest cost. Only a few years ago it was really easy to hear the difference between a budget player, and a high end model. Now it's gotten a lot closer, and as others have already stated there could be other places that your $$$ can get you more bang. With that being said; The best source is always the best choice. Your speakers driven with good amplification WILL be able to tell the difference between a good source, and a GREAT source. The choice is up to you.

RGA

10-24-2004, 01:28 PM

"Spend 6000% more, get a 2% improvement if you're lucky. I would every single time recommend that the bulk of the audio budget go elsewhere unless the CDP simply doesn't function properly. So far, I've had no complaints"

Well this is not correlational to every piece of gear. Just because you spend more certainly doesn't mean you'll get more. I have only really noticed a startling improvement - one that was significant enough to make me say yeah that obscene amopunt of money is worth spending for sonic improvement on a cd player. And is FAR from the most expensive cd player. I have compared $200.00 Sony's to $2000.00 Sonys and heard no idfference even through level matched headphones. I have differences that made the sound worse that cost a lot of money like the original Rega Planet. Recently i was listening to a good budget Teac player - I switched it out for an Audio Note 3.1 cd player that goes for about $4,000.00. IMO - it's worth it - it's worth it on $2k AN K speakers and i'd rather this set up than the Teac at ~$400.00 and a set of B&W N802's.

Abd yes I'm an AN fanboy - but the cd player has a different design topology than almost all other cd players on the market without a digital filter and a direct play no times oversampling system - it should be worse - it no doubt measures worse - but it sounds one helluva lot better than any other cd playing digital system - simply because it captures the high frequency resoplution better and doesn't sound sheeny etchy or bright - but still extended - no warm and fuzzy but transparent without the grain I get from all the cd players in my house.

Ny Cambridge Audio is "marginally" better than my 300 disc mega changer - but the price difference wasn'tt marginal so yes if these are the cd players you have heard the I wholeheartedly agee with anyone of this opinion that the differences are very very small - but the Cambridge is better more easy to listen to in the long wrong - but had I to do it over again I would have started with the 300 disc changer and saved the money spent on the Cambridge for something else. Notice I didn't say I would buy the AN 3.1 - at $4k I may think highly of it and if i were rich sure - but realistically it's out of my price range - and that price is for a discontinued demo model.

I also know that there are some who have not heard the Audio Note's won't listen to them based off this design approach due to its higher THD levels. But like i always say - for something to sound substantially superior to the homogenious stuff on the market - it has to be different in order to do it. With high THD I was expecting a real world impact on the sound like a buzz or hiss or distorted voices or screechy cymbals - SO- so much for THD

theaudiohobby

10-24-2004, 03:23 PM

Abd yes I'm an AN fanboy - but the cd player has a different design topology than almost all other cd players on the market without a digital filter and a direct play no times oversampling system - it should be worse - it no doubt measures worse - but it sounds one helluva lot better than any other cd playing digital system - simply because it captures the high frequency resoplution better and doesn't sound sheeny etchy or bright - but still extended - no warm and fuzzy but transparent without the grain I get from all the cd players in my house.

The AN fanboy quoting the party line as usual, I think you should read the recent posts on AA about the AN DAC. And before you start quoting Martin Colloms I think you should read his comments on Naim CDS3 which has a more conventional implementation. Fuzzy is exactly the word that describes the AN DAC/players, <a href='http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hirez&n=151166&highlight=alex+KB&r=&session='>transparent they are not</A> and paradoxically it is one of their major selling points since it is excused as having an 'analog' sound, which is funny since their lack of transparency is an artifact of their implementation. Any person that feels that any of the Cambridge Audio CDP models even begin to compete with the USD6000 price bracket is simply living in cookoo land. The last time I looked the Cambridge Audio were vying for a place amongst the midrange NAD CDPs.

Back to the thread topic, I do not know the American market very well, but IMHO, the more expensive players do have that something that sound very right. Secondly, tubed outputs are no panacea, as I have heard a few that were totally outclassed by their SS brethen in back to back comparisons. If you spend your USD6000 wisely, you will have player that no sub USD1000 CDP can touch.

theaudiohobby

10-24-2004, 03:50 PM

For music like rock, blues, techno/electronic, I don't think it's really worth it at all. For Jazz and classical, with more demanding dynamics there's a few subtleties that will come through in the Arcam. If this sounds "elitist", well, it probably is.

I agree with some other assessments...I'd put the money towards a better amp before putting that money towards a CD player...the improvement would be more noticeable. Worth $1000??? Only you can decide that.

In many systems, the amplifier is a big bottleneck as I discovered while back, I changed my preamplifier to the Rotel RHC05, and from that time on I was on the road to audio paradise. I have since moved from that beautiful preamplifier, but it taught me one thing, the greatest source and speakers in the world will sound crap when hamstrung by indifferent amplification. Even modestly priced speakers sound excellent when powered by decent amplification. A great source is important, but its sonic superiority may be totally inaudible if hamstrung by indifferent amplification and speakers.

As much as I like Classical and Jazz, I listen to both genres about 80% of the time, I think that jazz and rock music and such like expose the high frequency performance of players much more than classical music, whereas classical music exposes the dynamics limitations of players.

kexodusc

10-24-2004, 03:56 PM

Dear god, RGA, did you just recommend a $4000 CD player because it's capable of making improvements WORTH the $4000 allocation?

Are you nuts? For $4000, surely the An E's and an Arcam would acheive greater results than just the 3.1 and the K's?
You could sell your K's (probably trade up at fair value) and be way further ahead.

Tell me again...is this CD player that good?

I'm not poking fun at you here...I've not heard this unit, but if you come back and tell me that this $4000 player is, in your estimation, worth allocating $4000 on a system with $2000 speakers (which I'm quite familiar with), then I promise you, next weekend when I make a visit to a certain AN fanboy I know, listen to the 3.1 and submit a review here at AR.com of this player.

As for THD...I don't know the specs, I've never seen this unit yet, but IMO if the cumulative THD of a system is below 1%, maybe 2%, it's doubtful any human alive can hear it. This gives a lot of room. I don't doubt a higher THD CD player could sound better than a lower one.

I've heard plenty tube amps with high THD's sound better than low THD Kenwood receivers.

theaudiohobby

10-24-2004, 04:05 PM

Are you nuts? For $4000, surely the An E's and an Arcam would acheive greater results than just the 3.1 and the K's?
You could sell your K's (probably trade up at fair value) and be way further ahead.

Tell me again...is this CD player that good?

IMHO, the more balanced sound will come from the

$4000 CDP
AN K
and a decent subwoofer

rather than

AN-E
and the Arcam..

kexodusc

10-24-2004, 04:08 PM

In many systems, the amplifier is a big bottleneck as I discovered while back, I changed my preamplifier to the Rotel RHC05, and from that time on I was on the road to audio paradise. I have since moved from that beautiful preamplifier, but it taught me one thing, the greatest source and speakers in the world will sound crap when hamstrung by indifferent amplification. Even modestly priced speakers sound excellent when powered by decent amplification. A great source is important, but its sonic superiority may be totally inaudible if hamstrung by indifferent amplification and speakers.

As much as I like Classical and Jazz, I listen to both genres about 80% of the time, I think that jazz and rock music and such like expose the high frequency performance of players much more than classical music, whereas classical music exposes the dynamics limitations of players.

I never cease to be amazed by the difference of opinions. I sympathize with your point of view. Amplification is pretty darn important, more important than a source player.

I once performed my own limited experiment. I started this experiment initially to test out an infamous AR.com poster's statements that A/V receivers and more "hi-fi" integrateds should sound the same if used within design limitations, then I started to play around I have a very modest Rotel RA-1070, the best integrated amp I've ever owned, and an older 2-channel Onkyo receiver that wouldn't have sold for $200 brand new. I connected my Axiom M3 Ti's (which are about $275 and very average IMO for that price) to the Rotel, and my Vifa/Scan-speak full range towers (price withheld, but they outperform most $2000 $2500 speakers I've heard, certainly the best I've ever owned) to the Onkyo receiver.

The better speakers still made the music sound better, even with the receiver. But this example was very extreme. Perhaps it's not as apparent when you pick equipment closer in price and performance?

In your estimation, would you say a Pre-Amp is more important than an Amp, about equal, or less important?

DMK

10-24-2004, 04:21 PM

[QUOTE=RGA
Abd yes I'm an AN fanboy - but the cd player has a different design topology than almost all other cd players on the market without a digital filter and a direct play no times oversampling system - it should be worse - it no doubt measures worse - but it sounds one helluva lot better than any other cd playing digital system - simply because it captures the high frequency resoplution better and doesn't sound sheeny etchy or bright - but still extended - no warm and fuzzy but transparent without the grain I get from all the cd players in my house.[/QUOTE]

Have to agree the AN CDP's sound different, and actually better, than the oversampled, digital filter messes that are out there. But I tend to be careful about using words such as "transparent" because transparency (to me) means true to the source - the source in this case being the source disc. I have no doubt the AN players distort the source disc, the same as LP's are not as faithful to the master tape as are CD's. However, I'm a poor excuse for an audiophile in that I don't worry too much about transparency. Rather, I concern myself with the system's faithfulness to the live event, or at least my idea of what the live event sounds like. The fact that AN players and LP's sound more like live violins, saxes, guitars, etc makes them more "correct".

Regardless of this, I still cannot recommend spending a disproportionate amount of money on the front end. On the other hand, once your system is in place and you've taken care of the room acoustics, the speakers and the amplification, if you can get a 2% improvement (as an example) for 6000% more money and it's worth it to you, by all means you should go with it. No one is saying that by spending 6000% more (again, just an example) that one is getting anything approaching that much improvement. But if you've got the scratch, that 2% might be worth it.

DMK

10-24-2004, 04:33 PM

the greatest speakers in the world will sound crap when hamstrung by indifferent amplification. .

Agreed that this is often possible. But it's not as bad a sound as having great amplification powering crappy speakers. Amplification differences are rarely as night and day as speakers. Compare a Krell pre/power combo vs a cheap Pioneer receiver and then compare Krell speakers vs cheap Pioneers and you'll see what I mean. The Pioneer receiver will sound noticeably worse but not nearly as bad as those speakers! Certain speakers have night and day differences in sound.

Well, I can think of more to write but I think I'm going to bow out here as this topic has been done to death here at A/R! All I can say is that my experience in every single case has been to take care of the speakers first when dealing with a limited budget and then fold the amp and source budget in to the remainder. The few times I've been dictated to otherwise led to horribly dissatisfying sound or at least compromised sound... so I have to continue to recommend that route until my experience changes.

kexodusc

10-25-2004, 03:40 AM

That does it...I've gots to hear me this AN CD player...

On a side note, I did some thinking last night about diminishing returns as it applies to audio purchases.
I concluded that eventually it would have to come back to the CD player. Let's say your system for extreme example sake is comprised of some fancy high end $12000 Focus Audio speakers, a top of the line Bryston amp/preamp combo, Nordost cables, solid room treatments, the whole works, and you run a basic quality Denon or Rotel CD player. If you've got $4000 to allocate chances are the biggest difference you could make at this point WOULD be the CD player.

But, for those of us that own $2500 speakers, $2000 electronics, I just can't (yet) justify spending $4000 on the source. Stay tuned for a review of the 3.1 sometime in the next 10 days.

If you have $4000 to spend, c

jfish

10-25-2004, 06:04 AM

i have no idea what you guys are talking about...lol

BillB

10-25-2004, 08:42 AM

If I had to rank what had the biggest effect on your sound it would go something like this:

1. Software
2. Room Acoustics (taking into consideration speaker/listener placement as well)
3. Speakers
4. Amplification
5. Source (in this case a CD Player)
6. Accessories

My software is quite often not the best (mainly modern rock). I took my then 2-ch system in a direction I thought would make those sub-standard recordings a little more listenable. I put away my NAD Integrated Amp and bought a Musical Fidelity. When my second NAD CD player in three months bit the bullet, I bought a Rega Planet 2000. I boxed up my NHT SuperTwos and brought in a pair of Vienna Acoustics Mozarts. I then moved that whole system out of a cramped bedroom at my parents house into a spare bedroom in my first house.

I began searching for "audiophile" quality recordings to show off my system. I thought it was the best I'd ever had.

Then one day I noticed my favorite CDs collecting dust. I found myself not listening to the system as much. I didn't want to listen to those audiophile recordings because the music itself was ****e. I wasn't sure why I didn't want to listen to my fav rock albums.

The time came to finish the basement, turn it into a dedicated music/movie room, and I sold off the MF Integrated for Rotel MCH separates. The Viennas and Rega stayed for nearly two years and I found myself listening less and less to music.

The Viennas and Rega both leaned towards the sweet/warm side of the sound spectrum. This made them lack the rawness/emotion that the rock music needed.

Gone first were the Viennas for a full Paradigm Reference setup (no comments from RGA please...we all know where you stand). Something was still missing. The only thing remaining from the original system was the Rega. Brought home an Arcam CD73 to demo. Back was the energy and emotion my favorite recordings had been missing! Sure it was more of a neutral sound that exposed the less-than-ideal recording quality but I was listing to the MUSIC again, whole albums at a time, forgetting about the gear for once.

The point of my story is that it's up to you to decide whether or not any difference you can hear between a $2000 & $200 CD player is worth your hard-earned money. It's great that you've got them both there to demo side-by-side. As has already been mentioned, stop using the digital connections and use the analog instead. Listen to your favorite CDs and see what sound you like better.

The difference in CD players is subtle IMO. The biggest impact on the sound of a CD player seems to have to do with the DAC. If you're not hearing a big enough difference to justify the purchase, be glad you saved some money and treat yourself to a few new CDs!

Good Luck!
Bill

theaudiohobby

10-25-2004, 09:30 AM

I never cease to be amazed by the difference of opinions. I sympathize with your point of view. Amplification is pretty darn important, more important than a source player.
...
The better speakers still made the music sound better, even with the receiver. But this example was very extreme. Perhaps it's not as apparent when you pick equipment closer in price and performance?

In your estimation, would you say a preamp is more important than an amp, about equal, or less important?

In the world of SS, I will pick the preamplifier, however in the tubed world, I will pick the amplifier.

I agree with your comments on good speakers, but there are some fabulous sounding but inefficient speakers that require capable amplification if one is to avoid the hifi 'upgrade' merry go round. I agree with you that a limited budget may favour putting speakers first but there is a cutoff where the amplification must be considered in order to improve speaker performance.

Feanor

10-25-2004, 09:38 AM

...
2) Amp & Pre-amp......
4) Source - Important, but don't get carried away.....
My recent experience confirms this. I was considering a CDP upgrade but then I swapped my NAD C270 for a better amp. There was much more improvement with the latter. I ended up postponing the source upgrade in order to by a Bel Canto eVo2i integrated amp.

I.e. upgrading from a entry-level to high(er)-end amp made far more difference than doing the same for source.

RGA

10-25-2004, 01:33 PM

I want to stress that my listening audition was between a $400.00Cdn TEAC and a $4000.00 AN 3.1one box CD player. I have heard top cd players from NAIM, Wadia. Enlightened Audio Designs, Mark Levinson, LINN, Krell, Arcam, Cal Labs, YBA, over the years. I have heard those against cheaper units and IMO the demo at Soundhounds was the most noticable improvement going from a lesser priced to a more expensive cd player. This does not mean I would not prefer the Linn etc if i heard that unit up against the AN. I made a basic assumption that because of it's design approach it may be getting at more of what is there - the Audio Hobby provides a link where those following up say nothing about a lack of transparency - he's on his usual anti all things Peter Qvortrup(who didn't design the DAC's but an industry respected fellow by the name of Andy Grove). And Martin Colloms - well he rated the Dac 5 the highest rating of ANY stereo componant ever created - and the DAC 5 has been improved twice since that review? The fact that the Naim or Linns are good I don;t dispute that because they were when I auditioned them - but the improvements of the Linn $30,000.00 cd player versus my lowly Cambridge CD 6 (which just as a refresher is higher grade than any of the current Cambridge units), at about $850 - yes the Linn was better but on a lesser system not as noticeable IMO to warrant the added money. Ditto for the $3k Arcam Alpha 9 ring dac at the time.

System synergy Audio Note stresses almost more than anything else - and it is ridiculous to argue the importance when you can plainly hear it. I listened to the AN E/L (the chipboard copper wired model with a Rotel RA1 and TEAC cd player. The dealer was tryying to create a good budget stereo which as a package would sell for $3100.00Cdn (not including cables or stands) but still a very good sounding system to be sure. Tanking the AN E out for the AN K/SPE(SIlver wired Birch ply) and the sound became discordant in the treble - even bright which is something a bit surprising for the speaker - the overall presentation lacked weight scale and sounded considerably more cojested on complex music with the 2001 a Space Oddyssy Also Sprach... track I often use. Switching the cd player out for the 3.1 and things got much better - switching the amp to the OTO and there was now a proper 3dimensional stage which was startling on horns that leaped forward as they should on crescendos. The treble was more extended without the grain of the SS gear and the bass hit deeper and lower and far more tunefull separating different bass lines rather than the usual subwoofer one note bass line where everything is just the same. Now out of system - and I want to be extremely CLEAR on this that out of system I can offer you no information - I know that if I owned that Rotel amp and that TEAC player I would not be overly thrilled with the AN K -- in fact the AX Two sounded better and so dod the basic E/L.

On the higher end system with SET the K opened up and got significantly better - This is why you will see my upgrade path - my system is being held back and I know it because it's one of the few companies I have heard where when something gets cheanged out the difference is immediately and VERY noticable - my Sugden isn't nearly as open as the AN amps sounding shut in and veiled in comparison - The Sugden isn;t the most transparent amp nor des it throw a particular big soundstage - but it had to compliment the system I had at the time - the Sugden "saves" lesser cd players by coveringt he grain by smoothing the treble - This is good thing for budget systems becuase it can TRICK you into believing your system is better than it is and in a way it is better than it really is since this about creating the illusion of the event. The double edged sword of this is that when you have an UPSCALE highly resoplving set-up the Sugden's weakness which were strengths on lesser gear are now veiling the good stuff you want to hear - if the cd player is open and grain free you want an amp to tell it like it is - but if your cd player is a bit screechy and your speakers are open and extended then you don't want the amp that will veil that screechy treble.

So I would like the AN E/L with the Teac/Rotel but if I were going to spend my money and had the choice ONLY to have the AN E/SPE(the more transparent speaker) with the TEAC and Rotel OR the AN K/SPE and the CD 3.1 and OTO/Soro I'll take the latter - Preferably I'd take the J/Spe because in a smaller room the E is too much bass. Ideally of course I would want the AN E/Spe and CD 3.1 and OTO over the AN K/spe. So it's bass versus refinement.

I go by what I hear - and that's the way I heard it. But to bring up reviews is puzzling but since everyone loves reviews and the GOAL of a repoduction system is to give the impression that the musical event is being captured then well:

Bob Neill did a review in Positive Feedbalc AGAINST Naim's upmarket cd player(which he owned and felt was one of the best on the market) and he claimed that the Naim has a STAMP on the sound which is terrific but the AN DAC 4.1 was more truthful to the event. Incidentally he was impressed so much that he picked up the entire Audio Note line. http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue8/audionote.htm The one box 3.1 is the same approach with lower grade parts

There is an issue with AN DAC's you HAVE to have the correct input to output impedence - AN DAC's are designed for a certain impedence - if it's not right it's a disaster.
http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=439

Hmm
"The DAC5 has received unanimous praise from the reviewing press, Stereophile's Peter van Willenswaard said in an article in April/May 1999, that the DAC5's "return to its roots" vision and originality was remarkable, Peter also praised its sound quality as truly outstanding. Martin Colloms wrote in Hifi News & Record Review in February 2000 how the circuit despite its obvious technical short comings shone beautifully sonically, "it is like you have to strain less to listen to what goes on in the performance with the DAC5" and graded it with the highest level for sound quality with 53 points! Paul Messenger in Hifi Choice gave the DAC5 the best rating ever for a DAC with 9 stars, and Hifi Review in HK, Mr. Robert Ray pronounced the DAC5 the finest DAC he had ever heard"

BTW I trust Martim Colloms expertise since he is a world authority on audio having started up Monitor Audio and wroiting several books and chairing the AES than some guynamed The Audiohobby who tries to twist everything against AN. http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_audio_design/tweakpage_dac.htm

How about the basic DAC 1 from enjoythemusic.com VERSUS the beloved WAY more expensive MSB Link DAC http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0200/anmeetsmsb.htm
DAC 5 http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0401/andac5special.htm
And even UHF's panel reviewers who didn't review the DAC in an all AN system claimed the Basic Dac1 and transport one(no longer made) were superior in many ways to their reference room cd player - they commented that the DAC was bright in spots - which is even more interesting to me because that is the exact opposite of some of the comments from others who call it dark(ie less transparent) - umm yeah it's call contrasting the source discs.

BTW I stress a few things - I did not A/B the 3.1 against anything really good like the Naims or LINNs - so i may have noticed a VAST improvement with one of those - maybe because I was using the AN Es and not B&W's and Paradigms etc i used in the past when judging cd player differences :D

Also, Audio Note works best in all Audio Note systems and it is noticable(not any old thing will do and my dealer's first question to anyone looking t get the system is what are you going to run them with) - how it works outside of that system is something else and your results may vary. But Andy Grove and Peter work on these DACs and amplifiers by ear and by computer THROUGH the rest of their gear not in a vacum or from a text book. They have an entire chain in mind - take soemthing from here and you lose resolution there so that speaker will work better with that amp add something here then you will need that cd player. As ridiculously over the top and anal as it sounds to the one stop magazine shopping approach - I heard it in action in person and I doft my cap.

theaudiohobby

10-26-2004, 04:45 AM

RGA,

Please try to write more concisely, these tedious long posts are no good. You never seem to give up on any viewpoint no matter how discredited it is sounding like a broken record a lot of the time :rolleyes: . It was just a few weeks ago that some of the guys took you to task on subwoofers and yet I still read comments like 'one-note bass from subwoofers' in your posts betraying dogmatic ignorance on the subject. I will suggest that you go back and listen to a well integrated subwoofer/bookshelf speaker combo before you offer any more comments on this topic. A good subwoofer will transform not just the bass but the lower midrange of many bookshelf speakers that have little (or rolled off) output below < 50Hz increasing perceived midrange transparency. A well integrated AN -K/subwoofer will sound more agile than the AN-E though it may still fall short in the area Max SPL depending on preferred integration technique.

No amount of superlatives you quote about the AN digital products can really shift the fundamentals, they are not transparent and the objective measurements clearly show that. Transperency and good sounding are not synonymous terms and I said that they are not transparent and none of the quotes that you have provided offers anything more than subjective preference for the DAC which is okay in itself but is an insufficient basis upon which to build an argument about the transparency of any component.

You talk about dark, bright and transparency in the same breath, a component may be dark or bright and not be transparent ( faithful to the source signal) more often thy are neutral. Go back and go and read Martin Colloms <a href='http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=439' >assessment of the DAC 5</a>, it was not transparent, read the other reviews of the lesser DACs that have accompanying measurements, absolutely none of them refers to any of the AN DACs as transparent, the universal opinion is that they are colored, no bad thing, since a lot of folks including reviewers love them that way, so the package obviously works, but that doesn't make them transparent.

musicoverall

10-26-2004, 05:19 AM

theaudiohobby

10-26-2004, 05:41 AM

kexodusc

10-26-2004, 06:06 AM

Oh, god, I hate it when people use "musical" as an adjective to describe components...it so much easier to say "sounds better", than "sounds musical". :rolleyes:

Without using other vague references, could someone explain to me what "sounds like music" vs. "sounds digital" means so I understand the message being conveyed here.

theaudiohobby

10-26-2004, 06:14 AM

Without using other vague references, could someone explain to me what "sounds like music" vs. "sounds digital" means so I understand the message being conveyed here.

'sound musical' is a pet hate of mine, I notice it is always used to justify a personal preference. Digital sounding to the best of my knowledge means that the digital component and does not suffer from ringing and jitter in any audibly perceptible degree.

Feanor

10-26-2004, 03:30 PM

'sounds musical' is a pet hate of mine, I notice it is always used to justify a personal preference...
"Musical" is a contemptable adjective when applied to hifi components.

theaudiohobby

10-27-2004, 03:11 AM

hi, i am new to 2 ch audio.

i have borrowed a $1200 arcam cd82 and comparing it to a $200 sony dvd/cd player. switching between audioquest & highwire (brand) digital coax into my sony es2000 amp. speakers are proac tablettes. i cant hear a major difference playing cd's....is it the amp? music style? or is the difference not that big? i'm just trying to justify the purchase of the cd players....are the differences in equipment/sound mainly personal preference? what should i be looking for to jusitfy the cost?
i listen to jazz and electronic music.

thanks

Compare the arcam to the Sony through the RCA outputs and see which one you prefer, I cannot see the Sony sounding better than Arcam through the analog (RCA outputs) but stranger things have happened. However a good test is to see if the Sony sounds better through the digital outputs than the Arcam through the RCA outputs. You should only keep it if it is better than the Sony under both circumstances. Pay attention to the high frequencies and the instrument separation.

jfish

10-27-2004, 04:49 AM

Compare the arcam to the Sony through the RCA outputs and see which one you prefer, I cannot see the Sony sounding better than Arcam through the analog (RCA outputs) but stranger things have happened. However a good test is to see if the Sony sounds better through the digital outputs than the Arcam through the RCA outputs. You should only keep it if it is better than the Sony under both circumstances. Pay attention to the high frequencies and the instrument separation.

only slightly differnet, i think my sony es digital amp is so "sterile" sounding, any change in imaging is lost....the amp makes everything really clear and sharp, nothing warm or tube-like about it....still sounds good w/ the small proacs & sub. i sent the cd player back.....i was expecting the sky to open up and golden notes for shoot frrom the speakers..

musicoverall

10-27-2004, 04:55 AM

. A digital component does not have to measure atrociously to sound good and vice versa. Comments like 'believeable reproduction of actual instruments vs. believable reproduction of a processed signal' have absolutely no merit when analysed very closely because if they did, the quality of a recording will cease to be an issue and arguments about analog/digital recordings etc would have very little merit.

Yes, and also a digital component doesn't have to measure well to sound good. And I disagree that my comment you quoted has no merit. You're talking about two separate issues as though they were the same. They aren't.

musicoverall

10-27-2004, 04:58 AM

"Musical" is a contemptable adjective when applied to hifi components.

It's perhaps a poor term but I know what it means. If a component sounds "musical", it makes the signal coming through the speaker sound like music rather than a bunch of 1's and 0's. I use it to refer to the opposite of sounding digital... harsh, brittle, sterile, etc. Live music doesn't sound like that and hence, an audio product that also doesn't is "musical". I agree there should be a better term, though.

theaudiohobby

10-27-2004, 05:17 AM

Yes, and also a digital component doesn't have to measure well to sound good.

I said that in my post..

And I disagree that my comment you quoted has no merit. You're talking about two separate issues as though they were the same. They aren't.

what are the two separate issues?

theaudiohobby

10-27-2004, 05:23 AM

...i was expecting the sky to open up and golden notes to shoot from the speakers..
:cool: ;)

Feanor

10-27-2004, 07:19 AM

It's perhaps a poor term but I know what it means. ....
That's the problem. If it's "not harsh, brittle, sterile", then say that. Or say it's "sweet, clear, grain-free". Maybe you can also say, "it accurately reproduces instrument timbres and conveys spatial information convincingly".

"Musical" is a subjective, vague, and mealy-mouthed. Also, it is term often used by vinyl addicts and tube-heads to describe the benign -- but not uncertain -- filtering and distortion that these provide.

kexodusc

10-27-2004, 07:44 AM

That's the problem. If it's "not harsh, brittle, sterile", then say that. Or say it's "sweet, clear, grain-free". Maybe you can also say, "it accurately reproduces instrument timbres and conveys spatial information convincingly".

"Musical" is a subjective, vague, and mealy-mouthed. Also, it is term often used by vinyl addicts and tube-heads to describe the benign -- but not uncertain -- filtering and distortion that these provide.

I'm with Feanor on this one..."musical" is often used by brand-fanboys and vinyl addicts to justify why they like what they have...

I'm gonna start using phrases like "that sounds too much like analog and not music"...meaning congested, lacking spatial detail, low on dynamics, and full of distortion and unwanted noise artifacts...
I'd piss off half the people at ar.com pretty quick I ever do... :D

theaudiohobby

10-27-2004, 08:01 AM

I'm with Feanor on this one..."musical" is often used by brand-fanboys and vinyl addicts to justify why they like what they have...

ya ;)

SRO

10-27-2004, 08:24 AM

Yeah, I guess it is a bit vague. However, is this not the goal of a good audio system? To play music? Hence, "musical". I do think the recording has to be musical, or it does not matter what you play it back on.

I can't really comment on the tubes, as I don't really have great experience with them. But I would agree in general with the vinyl guys. I have many recordings on both vinyl and cd ( as well as some SACD and DVD-A ), and in general I like the vinyl better. On newer recording, say 90's and newer, it's pretty close. I would say I prefer records maybe 60% to 40%. Older recordings are not even close. Records, hands down. This does not include the newest remasters.I refuse to pay for another copy of Back in Black, Kind of Blue, etc. for perhaps a marginal improvement.

Before I get lumped in with the anti-digital crowd, SACD and DVD-A is a whole new ball game. Overall, I really enjoy the new formats. With very few exceptions, I have been blown away by the new formats. I plan to make the move to multi-channel soon, and this should increase my enjoyment even more. My main complaints are lack of software, and a couple of my DVD-A's are smarter than I am. I can't seem to find the 2 channel mix. Hence, the move to multi-channel.

theaudiohobby

10-27-2004, 08:43 AM

SRO

10-27-2004, 08:48 AM

What do the other audio systems play, baseball? ;)

Some of the systems I've heard would probably do a better job at baseball. Have you ever heard music at a Circuit City?

theaudiohobby

10-27-2004, 09:01 AM

Some of the systems I've heard would probably do a better job at baseball. Have you ever heard music at a Circuit City?

I assure that a vinyl rig will fare worse than CD at circuit city, no TLC to make it shine ;)

SRO

10-27-2004, 09:17 AM

I assure that a vinyl rig will fare worse than CD at circuit city, no TLC to make it shine ;)

Are you saying a turntable that would be sold at CC will lose to a CD? If so, I agree completely. Vinyl is a total pain in the a** to sound it's best. Most will not go through what it takes for this. It is much easier and convenient to just drop a disc in a player and go. It's what I do 95% of the time, and I generally prefer records. Vinyl REQUIRES TLC, CD's do not.

One reason I still have a turntable is that I can buy 5 or 6 records for the price 1 CD. 3 to 4 if I compared to a used CD.

musicoverall

10-27-2004, 11:01 AM

That's the problem. If it's "not harsh, brittle, sterile", then say that. Or say it's "sweet, clear, grain-free". Maybe you can also say, "it accurately reproduces instrument timbres and conveys spatial information convincingly".

"Musical" is a subjective, vague, and mealy-mouthed. Also, it is term often used by vinyl addicts and tube-heads to describe the benign -- but not uncertain -- filtering and distortion that these provide.

Or you could say "musical" or "not musical" sounding. Just about everything on this board is subjective, at least when it comes to sound. Why are you balking at a term? When "vinyl addicts and tube-heads" use musical to describe what they hear, what's the problem? It means it sounds like music. What's vague or mealy-mouthed about that?

musicoverall

10-27-2004, 11:08 AM

I'm with Feanor on this one..."musical" is often used by brand-fanboys and vinyl addicts to justify why they like what they have...

I'm gonna start using phrases like "that sounds too much like analog and not music"...meaning congested, lacking spatial detail, low on dynamics, and full of distortion and unwanted noise artifacts...
I'd piss off half the people at ar.com pretty quick I ever do... :D

Nah, we wouldn't get pissed off - we'd give you 5 paragraphs about record care! :)
And I like what I have. So does that place me into an elite group that's allowed to use the term "musical" without having to justify it? :D

DMK

10-28-2004, 06:25 PM

Nah, we wouldn't get pissed off - we'd give you 5 paragraphs about record care! :)

Or we might do neither. We might instead scratch our heads in consternation and ask if he's ever heard an analog master tape.

It would be nice indeed if the media we buy sounded "too much like analog".

Garrardman

10-29-2004, 01:55 AM

I have to say that i disagree and i think that "musicality" can be a valid term (although it's certianly not measurable or quantifiable!!)

I can think of many occasions where i have been sat in front of speakers listening to something and thinking that the bass i am listening to is very good, the midrange nice and open and the treble very clear and not harsh. So, then, why do i find myself not liking the overall sound? It seems more and more common to find speakers (especially) that are very sterile and lacking in "emotion", whilst seeming to do nothing wrong (i would suspect they would also measure well). This is where i think the term musicality can be used.

Going back to the original topic of this thread, and the difference between £200 and £1200 CD players, it's hardly surprising that there isn't much difference - after all, both players only have to turn a stream of 1's and 0's back into an analogue signal!

A £200 and a £1200 turntable, however - now that's a whole different ball game!!

Adam.

theaudiohobby

10-29-2004, 02:18 AM

Going back to the original topic of this thread, and the difference between Â£200 and Â£1200 CD players, it's hardly surprising that there isn't much difference - after all, both players only have to turn a stream of 1's and 0's back into an analogue signal!

A Â£200 and a Â£1200 turntable, however - now that's a whole different ball game!!

Adam.

This is so naive :eek:

kexodusc

10-29-2004, 03:31 AM

Actually I have heard master tapes, and I believe analog to be just as good as digital...and vice-versa. I do own a turntable and frequently enjoy some classic records.
I can't stress enough that it isn't the digital format that's flawed, it's the corner cutting by manufacturers, IMO.

For every bad piece of digital gear, there's some horrible analog stuff out there too...as bad as a $60 cd player might sound, I'd be just as frightened of a $60 turntable. I try not to get involved in the digital vs. analog debate because I like both and I find it stupid. So much for that.

With regards to $200 vs $1200 CD players, I do find that the sound improvements are rather subtle, but the build quality, and features available improve substantially. This isn't a bad thing, after all, a CD player is a toy, have fun with it. Plus, desite my "anti-elitist" talk, I do have a certain sense of satisfaction in owning a nice Arcam player, guess I'm guilty too...

DMK

10-29-2004, 12:35 PM

I can't stress enough that it isn't the digital format that's flawed, it's the corner cutting by manufacturers,

I think that's a valid opinion, mostly because I share it myself! As much as it might seem otherwise and as much as I might fail at this, I try not to blame the digital medium. Instead of saying that analog (vinyl) is better than digital, I make the subtle distinction of saying that LP's sound better than CD's. That's only because, as a collector and owner of several thousand pieces of both types of discs, the vinyl sounds superior the vast, vast majority of the time... for whatever that's worth.

It's particularly disquieting when I attend a live show that is being recorded and then buy the CD and find such obvious sonic anomalies that make the CD almost unlistenable. If the live show had sounded that bad, I would have remembered it as it would have been physically painful. This in a small jazz club that is close in dimensions to my own listening room. Still, I do believe it's the recording rather than the medium.

Unlike you, I only occasionally find the poorly recorded LP or, at least, an LP that sounds as bad as most CD's. I do sometimes buy an LP that has so much noise due to poor care but that's avoidable. As much as the digital crowds bark otherwise, a well cared for LP doesn't exhibit the noise problems. I have LP's from the 1950's that sound very quiet, not to mention incredibly dynamic.

I'll post it again for those who feel CD's sound better than vinyl - try some 45 RPM LP's. Absolutely stunning and better than any SACD I've ever heard. As you stated about digital, the analog medium also is not the problem.

'Nuff said on the tired old debate. It is what it is but it also pales in comparison to the fact that I own nearly as many CD's as I do LP's and I play them almost as often and I love them almost as much. To find let alone afford each and every Bill Evans LP on Riverside would be daunting but voila! A couple hundred bucks and I can own every note on CD! How cool is THAT??? :)

Oh, shoot! The original post! I split the difference between $200 and $1200 and bought a $700 CDP. It's a Sony XA20-ES and if you want to talk about sonic differences between players, try this: It will track just about any CD regardless of the condition. I've never encountered a player except the Sony that will navigate a few of the defective CD's I own. Beyond that, I don't hear many differences among CDP's that measure similarly. I used to own Theta and I've heard many of the newer players such as Gamut, Meridian, Simaudio, etc. For the poster that disagreed with a comment regarding naivete, I'm anything but inexperienced in this, having done blind testing as well as sighted A/B's. If diffs are there, they are so subtle that they're difficult if not impossible for me to make out, once you check your biases at the door. Plus, as someone who has searched far and wide for ANYTHING to make CD's sound like music, I've tried every tweak as well as practically every CDP. Perhaps my own biases are at work! :) Your mileage may vary. But as you said, sonic diffs aren't everything - there's also pride of ownership, build quality, etc. This Sony is built like a tank! Looks like your basic cheapo, though! :D

theaudiohobby

10-29-2004, 03:35 PM

Oh, shoot! The original post! I split the difference between $200 and $1200 and bought a $700 CDP. It's a Sony XA20-ES and if you want to talk about sonic differences between players, try this: It will track just about any CD regardless of the condition. I've never encountered a player except the Sony that will navigate a few of the defective CD's I own. Beyond that, I don't hear many differences among CDP's that measure similarly.

The issue here is that quite a few of the top CDPs measure differently, so where does leave your original statement, to get an idea of what I am saying get the measurements of the Sony SCD1, Naim CDX2 and the Moon Eclipse they measure differently and sound different as a consequence. On the corollary, If two turntables measure the same, guess what, they will sound the same, no prizes there, one of my biggest beefs with Stereophile, that they do not measure turntables, which leaves turntables reviews as guilty of the largest amount of hyperbole in the industry. If you can, get hold of the Hi-fi World where they measured a number of catridges, it was quite interesting, certainly shattered a lot of myths. I gathered that when a blind test was carried out between MC and MM catridges that MM catridges carried the day to consternation of many MC fans who under controlled conditions voted MM instead MC. Recently a 20 year old blind test was published by Hi-fi News ,where LP analog output was recorded directly to CD and played back under controlled test conditions, guess what the sworn audio enthusiasts could not distinguish between the CD and the vinyl rig, so much for vinyl sonic superiority, even way back then under controlled conditions, the humble CD was found to match vinyl for sound quality.

DMK

10-29-2004, 04:36 PM

The issue here is that quite a few of the top CDPs measure differently, so where does leave your original statement, to get an idea of what I am saying get the measurements of the Sony SCD1, Naim CDX2 and the Moon Eclipse they measure differently and sound different as a consequence. On the corollary, If two turntables measure the same, guess what, they will sound the same, no prizes there, one of my biggest beefs with Stereophile, that they do not measure turntables, which leaves turntables reviews as guilty of the largest amount of hyperbole in the industry. If you can, get hold of the Hi-fi World where they measured a number of catridges, it was quite interesting, certainly shattered a lot of myths. I gathered that when a blind test was carried out between MC and MM catridges that MM catridges carried the day to consternation of many MC fans who under controlled conditions voted MM instead MC. Recently a 20 year old blind test was published by Hi-fi News ,where LP analog output was recorded directly to CD and played back under controlled test conditions, guess what the sworn audio enthusiasts could not distinguish between the CD and the vinyl rig, so much for vinyl sonic superiority, even way back then under controlled conditions, the humble CD was found to match vinyl for sound quality.

The CDP's you mentioned may indeed sound different - I've only heard the Naim. I pretty much gave up listening to different players a couple of years ago. You may be right.

I haven't read too much about turntable measurements but I can say that the majority of sonic differences have to do with the arm/cartridge than the table. That said, some tables sound different due to isolation architechture.

As for preference issues between MM and MC, certainly it depends on which cartridges are used. I'm an MC fan but the Blue Point Specials (for example) don't sound as good to me as the MM Grado woodbodies. On the other hand, I can find literally dozens of MC's that sound better than the most highly touted MM. But that's subjective. If someone prefers vinyl because of its "warm" sound, an MM cartridge will likely sound warmer with a rolled off top end. I haven't read that article and I'm only personally aware of the blind tests I've participated in, either as a listener or an observer. The MM's were never picked by anyone except the one time where an MC was used that had the most horrid FR peaks I've ever heard in an audio component. It was designed to sound "fast" and "vivid" and if those two characteristics were the designers sole intent, he succeeded quite nicely. If he also intended it to sound real or accurate, he failed miserably.

Vinyl sonic superiority - your test citation does nothing to disprove that LP's sound better than CD's but it does point out that CD's are a good storage medium. This is why it's dangerous to tout analog over digital. For the flip side, listen to a well recorded LP and it's corresponding CD. The CD sucks 98% of the time. I'm much less concerned about theory and measurement than I am reality and the reality is that, to my ears, LP's sound better. If that isn't sonic superiority, I'm at a loss as to what to call it. Perhaps better care was taken with the vinyl, I don't know. But if I'm holding two products and one of them performs its duty better via usage than another one that is proven by specs to perform better, I'll take the former.

kexodusc

10-29-2004, 04:59 PM

I'll agree with that post DMK...I have some ol' Allman Bros albums on vinyl, especially "Live at the Fillmore", which sound like crap, even on the "remastered" versions...but my Rush LP's are slightlly outdone by the remastered CD's IMO...still, the looks I get when I spin an LP in front of my friends is worth it. :)

theaudiohobby

10-30-2004, 01:52 AM

your test citation does nothing to disprove that LP's sound better than CD's but it does point out that CD's are a good storage medium. This is why it's dangerous to tout analog over digital. For the flip side, listen to a well recorded LP and it's corresponding CD. The CD sucks 98% of the time... to my ears, LP's sound better. If that isn't sonic superiority, I'm at a loss as to what to call it. Perhaps better care was taken with the vinyl, I don't know..

IOW, you prefer vinyl, but that is not in itself any evidence of sonic superiority either. I have never heard a vinyl rig beat a decent CD rig in back to back comparison. And I do not go around looking for remastered CDs to compare against equivalent LPs cos most of those CDs in question sound terribly inferior compared to the better CDs anyway, so saying that the equivalent LPs sound superior says nothing. I can think of a few in that category, Kool and the Gang, Whispers and Earth, Wind and Fire remastered CDs.

Feanor

10-30-2004, 05:28 AM

IOW... I do not go around looking for remastered CDs to compare against equivalent LPs cos most of those CDs in question sound terribly inferior compared to the better CDs anyway, so saying that the equivalent LPs sound superior says nothing. ...
I have very few LP & CD duplicates. Of what I've heard, the worst are straight reissues on CD; to me, the main problem isn't "harshness"or "digital artifacts", but rather lack of detail and spatial information. Remasters are generally better but quite variable.

I'm mainly a classical listener and for that music recordings made in the '70's and 80's, whether analog or digitally recorded or mastered, are variable on CD. Quality recordings made in the '90's to present are better, but only on average. The best CDs, not to mention SACDs, made to day are great and I simply cannot imagine them sounding better on vinyl.

Newer CD players are better but not hugely. Granted, I my comparison is entry level and mid-range only -- I have no experience with multi-kilobuck units. With that qualification, I'd say that improvement today over, say, 10 years ago is quite subtle. What makes the biggest difference, IMO, is the recording process, not the play-back.

DMK

10-30-2004, 08:11 AM

IOW, you prefer vinyl, but that is not in itself any evidence of sonic superiority either. I have never heard a vinyl rig beat a decent CD rig in back to back comparison. And I do not go around looking for remastered CDs to compare against equivalent LPs cos most of those CDs in question sound terribly inferior compared to the better CDs anyway, so saying that the equivalent LPs sound superior says nothing. I can think of a few in that category, Kool and the Gang, Whispers and Earth, Wind and Fire remastered CDs.

Correct - I prefer vinyl, which means nothing in the grand scheme of things. And I have yet to hear the vinyl rig that DOESN'T beat a CD rig - any CD rig - in back to back comparisons. Hell, I bought a used $50 Technics record spinner with a $90 cartridge that toasts any CD player. And I don't go around looking for CD's to replace vinyl, I look for vinyl to replace CD's. What usually happens is I find a CD of music I want to listen to and I play that until I can find it on vinyl - IF I can find it on vinyl. Hence, the comparisons. And I think it says a lot when 98% of the time an LP sonically bests the same CD. Some of the CD's I'm talking about are the so-called remasters or are somehow hyped as "better" sounding. The CD that beats the equivalent vinyl is rare, in my experience.

DMK

10-30-2004, 08:18 AM

. The best CDs, not to mention SACDs, made to day are great and I simply cannot imagine them sounding better on vinyl..

You know - this brings up a point. I have to admit that I don't have one single LP that is an issue of brand new music. Everything is from the 1980's and prior. I wonder if I'd still feel the same (that LP's sound better than corresponding CD's) about the stuff released today. I have to say that the better sounding CD's I own are of new music. Whether that's because they are simpler better recorded/mastered or whether it's because I have no basis for comparison to vinyl is unknown. It might be interesting to check this out.

I should also state for the record that I'm not a digital hater. I think a lot of CD's sound pretty damn good. I'm listening to Ravi Shankar right now which is a lowly ADD and it sounds nice. For some reason it always makes me want to light incense, though. :D

theaudiohobby

10-30-2004, 11:21 AM

I'm mainly a classical listener and for that music recordings made in the '70's and 80's, whether analog or digitally recorded or mastered, are variable on CD. Quality recordings made in the '90's to present are better, but only on average. The best CDs, not to mention SACDs, made to day are great and I simply cannot imagine them sounding better on vinyl.

I agree with you here, the best sounding CDs and SACDs that I have are post 1990 recordings though there are the a couple analog transfers that sound awesome like Isaac Stern's recording of Tchaikovsky Op35. For me I think that Classical and Jazz music have never sounded so good, some of Linns DSD Jazz and Pentatone classical music recordings are simply reference class.

RGA

10-30-2004, 03:13 PM

I will suggest that you go back and listen to a well integrated subwoofer/bookshelf speaker combo before you offer any more comments on this topic.

Great that was, if you READ my response the problem - I have NEVER EVER heard a well integrated Subwoofer system from anyone - including the people who designed the subwoofers who set-up the room. So by all means tell me where I can hear a good set-up - I will go to CES in the bnext 2 years - so I will make it a point to stop by Paradigm and Rel etc and let them prove to me that they have tuneful well integrated bass response - I'll keep an open mind - but you would think there would be one dealer in all of British Columbia in the last 15 years that could even get REMOTELY decent sound with a subwoofer. My dealer carries them sells them and roll their eyes at em.(and they have a paremetric EQ).

A good subwoofer will transform not just the bass but the lower midrange of many bookshelf speakers that have little (or rolled off) output below < 50Hz increasing perceived midrange transparency. A well integrated AN -K/subwoofer will sound more agile than the AN-E though it may still fall short in the area Max SPL depending on preferred integration technique.

The AN K doesn't have nearly the midrange openness nor the high frequency extension/air of the E or J, nor does it have the big bold tuneful body through the midrange . No subwoofer can change the tweeter a subwoofer should add sub bass (feeling bass) to the mix. Audio Note does not recommend the use of subwoofers for their speakers (except the AX Two - the reason should be obvious that subs are best in the front corner - but that is where the AN speakers should be placed.

No amount of superlatives you quote about the AN digital products can really shift the fundamentals, they are not transparent and the objective measurements clearly show that. Transperency and good sounding are not synonymous terms and I said that they are not transparent and none of the quotes that you have provided offers anything more than subjective preference for the DAC which is okay in itself but is an insufficient basis upon which to build an argument about the transparency of any component.

Umm of course subjective views are the ONLY thing of importance - if you can not listen to the two types of players and HEAR it - then why are you in the hobby? You obviously have no ear for transparency or to what sounds more like the live event. The objective measurements? what the hell are you talking about. First Audio Note DAC's fall down on THD just as ALL tube devices do - but THD has nothing whatsoever to do with transparency - Feedback destroys any bnotion of transparency - it is used to "trick" the measurements into looking better than they actually are. Indeed, the AN Dacs use none they don't oversample they use no brickwall filters which HACKS OFF everything above a certain frequency - study up and listen to one instead of touting this dysmal tripe the industry would like you to belive.

You talk about dark, bright and transparency in the same breath, a component may be dark or bright and not be transparent ( faithful to the source signal) more often thy are neutral. Go back and go and read Martin Colloms <a href='http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=439' >assessment of the DAC 5</a>, it was not transparent, read the other reviews of the lesser DACs that have accompanying measurements, absolutely none of them refers to any of the AN DACs as transparent, the universal opinion is that they are colored, no bad thing, since a lot of folks including reviewers love them that way, so the package obviously works, but that doesn't make them transparent.

Then give me an example of a perfectly transparent speaker - the words annalytical or cold are not transparent not your ELACs not NAIM certainly not Naim as Bob Neill shows is totally not a transparent cd player nor is the Sony.

Transparent is a bad word just like accuracy is a bad word - because both imply the same thing - NOTHING is trulty transparent and Nothing not anything is accurate. It is either accurate or it is not. The units that reveal the most differences in recordings are morre accurate than those that homogonize the sound - you can ONLY tell this by listening - the theory behind the AN DAC's make more sense - you have a one time play through approach with out correcting devices to fix all the errors your player makes - It should scan pass through and output to the Preamp not have 12 stages of feedback and correction and digital smoothing and endless time domain fixing that sounds like crap but measures better.

There is no point in further discussion - We are polar opposites on our views of audio Equipment.

RGA

10-30-2004, 04:10 PM

Best to say simply, as per Mr Colloms, that the DAC sounded like music rather than "digital". I'd trade that for transparency any day! I'm not in this hobby to listen to measurements and what the objectivists believe is accurate, particularly if one chooses, say, a cheap plastic CD player over the Audio Note due to its measurements. It appears that RGA is in the same boat. It's the old argument of whether to listen to a believeable reproduction of actual instruments or a very much NOT believable reproduction of a processed signal.

Or...perhaps what RGA meant is that the Audio Note portrays a transparent reproduction of live music rather than this processed signal? Perhaps he can expound on the matter.

Actually what you say is quite interesting - measurements are ONLY useful if they correlate to the human perception or subjective evaluation that came first. Martin Colloms first of all is not your average reviewer - He's not a subjective only reviewer. He is a world renowned expert on acoustics design and is an acoustics engineer - Awarded Chartership of the Institution of Electrical Engineers 1981. and a MacRobert Award Finalist 2000 (with Neil Harris and Henry Azima), Royal Academy of Engineers. As opposed to the AudioHobby who is a nobody from the internet. Paul Messenger also has a nice list of credentials as well. Both have said that the DAC 5 is the best Digital to analog converter on the market PERIOD. That does not mean there are NO other good players - and it does not mean that YOU or I will go and listen and not like something else better. Hi-Fi CHoice has done blind level matched listening to Bose speakers and given them recommended tags and like the CM series of B&W over the CDM series?? I would disagree. http://www.colloms.com/

People will still have opinions - the fact that somthing is more or less accutrate or more or less transparent - well I only need to go and listen for that to become readily apparent. Single Ended amplifiers are less accurate if you go by one set of measurements and far more accurate than any and all SS amplification devices if you go by measurements around linearity. To me these debates are ridiculous - you can tell when you hear it - and assuming you're not stacking the deck as most do then you can get excellent results either way.

This is the heart of the DAC 5 that despite the fact that there will be some very odd measured anomolies - the RESULT of this is a more truthful analog of the musical event. Audio Note (and they're not alone on this no times oversampling DAC), use computers and measuring equipment which is supposed to be quite sophistacated from the reviewers who have been to their plant. They have more advanced measuring equipment than makers that are quite a bit bigger than themselves - for instance they can closely match speakers to .2db something that not even KEF and B&W are capable of even in their top models - Kef brags about .5db in their flagship. Now of course this is silly because .5db is good enough of course to the ear - and this kind of thing is more about bragging rights - but it is not done by some guy sitting in a chair doing it by ear - it's with measuring equipent and sophisticated computer software. Which is why Audio Note is getting about 25hz more bass from the same cabinet and drivers that Snell got with his speaker - you don't just rebadge something to get those results.

If you pick up issue #68 of UHF magazine they reviewed the Audio Note entry level DAC's and measured them objectively "The -60db sine wave... was pretty well perfect...Jitter was very low, and remained low even on deliberately damaged CD tracks( it muted with a cut of 2mm or more)." "Well I'm impressed! This High End player produces an ambience that makes the presence of musicians palpable. Faithful Reproduction is accompanied by exceptional definition.../..Pile on the p[iano, voice, percussion, and a big orchestra, and you won;t note any distortion (Reine Lessard) "There's almost nothing bad to say about this player, except that it sounds slightly forward compared to my other favorites. But "forward" in this case doesn;t translate into shrill, or clinical, or flat. In Musical terms, everything comes out of this player sounding as it should. If higher praise exists, I don;t know what it could be." (Gerard Rejkind) "Nothing seemed overdone, no musician tried to take over the stage.../...did I mention that their timbre is always right on? nothing seems to be added, nothing seems to be missing across the well-balanced stage. Colors were distinctly displayed, as musical textures appeared in transparent shades. And you know what? Nothing was meant to impress...that's what impressed me about it.(Albert Simon).

As you know UHF is maybe the most picky magazine review outfit available when it comes to cd players. "In Patricia Barber's Like FT fromthe live Compaion disc, the kick drum's impact was actually startling. But that wasn't all. Barber's piano sounded better than with our reference, sounding much more like a quality grand piano, each note carrying new energy. The percussion amazed us too, because it was so detailed we could follow the movement of the drumsticks on the varied surfaces. Amazing...and exciting too!" (BTW they use a very good Counterpoint CD player as their reference). http://www.uhfmag.com/Issue68/Issue68.html You can click to open as a PDF and read much of it for free - though they blank part of the review out because they ant you to buy the download or the issue. Still this player is far cheaper than the Counterpoint reference model.

This was snippets of their review for the bottom of the line Dac One 1x and CDT one transport($1650US each box). If you think digital glare and etchy bright fatiguing treble is accurate then that is your opinion - I think being able to produce instruments the way i hear them when i listen to live music is what is accurate - the standard measurements are geared to the former sound. i believe the cd medium gets a bum rap too - the fault is not the cd's themselves but the players trying not to make most discs sound like caca when they are actually pretty good.

But don;t believe the reviews or me - real simple listen to an ALL audio note systemm(and it is important and then IN THE SAME room listen to a top of the line Krell/Mark Levinson/Classe solid state system with a B&W N801 or the top Paraidgm or Energy or Wilson or Martin Logan. Make sure this non Audio Note system totals 4 times the money - I have. I'll stand by my opinion as to which set-up makes music sound like music. It has to measure differently in order to be better - since it sounds better it should by logic measure differently. If it measured exactly the same as the Arcam's of the world then it would sound the same -- and I got rid of such players and amplifiers for a reason - not for warmth not for midrange bloom - but to get a realistic presentation of music.

theaudiohobby

10-31-2004, 10:15 AM

RGA,

Get your facts right, Martin Colloms gave the honour of best digital playback ever to the Naim CDX3, where he said that 'It has surpassed every digital implementation to date, and that it does this for the existing CD catalogue...' (HFN 10/2003)

RGA

10-31-2004, 01:59 PM

There is nothing wrong with my facts. Nice try but there is a date issue here. He reviewed the DAC 5 in 1998 and again in 2000. You post a review from him of a $24,000.00 cd player in 2003. This still does not apply to Paul Messenger or Bob Neill - both of whom like Naim as well. And to give Naim their just credit from my own personal standpoint if I were looking at SS gear Naim would be on my shortlist. I am not going to get into this debate that you seem to be under the impression that the ONLY product I will recommend is Audio Note. What I am saying to you is that if a reviewer you respect wheher it be audio or film - comes out and lists a DAC or cd player as best - do you take his word ONLY? No anyone who did that would be an idot. Even if I respect him or say a Roger Ebert I am not goingt o JUST accept his word for it and agree that Citizen Kane is the greates of all film ever. No, I am going to find out about his runner ups.

The fact of the matter is the BOTH Naim and Audio Note(and they're not alone) make in the reviewers opinions "WORLD Class" sounding DACs. The decision STILL rests with YOU and ME and every other individual. Would you say that if a DAC such as the AN Dac 5 with all the unanimous praise and the odd detractors is now totally not worth even auditioning? That the same reviewer who loved the DAC 5 is a nut but now that he says somehting good about Naim he's now a genius again? No only a moron would say don't audition it. So If someone was shopping in the $25,000.00 range they would or should be listening to several such CD players and decide which sounds best for them. After all Stereophile had a Cambridge Audio CD player in their recommended componants listing and the same model was totally rubished with a 2 star rating in What Hi-fi - OBVIOUSLY the reviewers didn't hear it the same in that system.

If you notice I never ever tell someone to BUY Audio Note unless they can go and hear it first. I don't want anyone buying without auditioning - by the same token though people look for personal experiences - I tell people what I compared what I heard directly against other equipment. I merely stated way back that having heard mega buck cd players compared to cheap entry cd players - I noticed the most improvement in sound a more open natural presentation which allowed me to hear more of what was going on with the 3.1 cd player. That does not mean that if the Naim player in this system was used that I would not have preferred the Naim - it may very very very well be the case that I would rather the Naim player. I am not glued to one piece of gear. For instance in my signiture you cans ee my upgrade path - but you can bet your ass that when it comes time to actually buy I'll be auditioning several of the competitors in my price range. Those are there becuase I liked what I heard from them but I did not do an A/B test with other Turntables - ie; I did not spend all day or several days a/bing the TT1 versus a similarly priced Rega or Linn. I can say that I very much liked the TT1 musically. But Rega and linn are not dogs by any means. This applies to DAC's amps Speakers etc.

However ultimately there is also a system matching componant to all of this as well - you simply cannot match anything with anything and get a truly great system - even the magazines quantify their reviews by saying that. So in fact you may elect the 4 star cd player over the 5 star cd player because the 4 star sounds a helluva lot better in your system and the 5 star could be pretty banal sounding. The constantine Soo article of the AN E suggested that with matching amps - some worrked a lot better than others -- all the amps were excellent from several different manufactures and by themselves terrific pieces of gear - Bryston makes great amplifiers - but it REALLY depends on what speaker you plan to use because the result can be abysmal then again the result can be "you don't need to spend more on a Krell" excellence.

theaudiohobby

10-31-2004, 03:36 PM

Geoffcin

10-31-2004, 04:46 PM

NO name calling.

theaudiohobby

10-31-2004, 04:50 PM

The AN K doesn't have nearly the midrange openness nor the high frequency extension/air of the E or J, nor does it have the big bold tuneful body through the midrange . No subwoofer can change the tweeter a subwoofer should add sub bass (feeling bass) to the mix. Audio Note does not recommend the use of subwoofers for their speakers (except the AX Two - the reason should be obvious that subs are best in the front corner - but that is where the AN speakers should be placed.

Your comments about the actual role of a subwoofer are evidence of your appalling ignorance on main speaker/subwoofer integration. The very benefits that you attribute to the J and E models are where a subwoofer bass augmentation offers the greatest benefits. The 'the midrange openness' ,the 'high frequency' extension/air of the E or J, (and) 'the big bold tuneful body through the midrange' are benefits of extra bass extension. When the music fundamentals in the 20 - 100 Hz region are augmented by the subwoofer, a greater sense of transparency is perceived, as the system is more transparent as a result of the extra bass extension which mitigates the loss of transparency caused by the higher bass roll-off (~70Hz) of the bookshelf model, in this case the K model.

Then give me an example of a perfectly transparent speaker - the words annalytical or cold are not transparent not your ELACs not NAIM certainly not Naim as Bob Neill shows is totally not a transparent cd player nor is the Sony.

Transparent is a bad word just like accuracy is a bad word - because both imply the same thing - NOTHING is trulty transparent and Nothing not anything is accurate. It is either accurate or it is not. The units that reveal the most differences in recordings are morre accurate than those that homogonize the sound - you can ONLY tell this by listening - the theory behind the AN DAC's make more sense.

Body Fullness of sound, with particular emphasis on upper bass.
Analytical Highly detailed
Detail The most delicate elements of the original sound and those that are the first to disappear with lesser equipment (Hifi Choice Glossary)
Definition or resolution the ability of a component to reveal the subtle information that is fundamental to high fidelity sound.

Nothing is life is perfect, but various terms are used to decribe various conditions when those conditions are satisfied within certain acceptable limits. Moving on, analytical and transparency are related audio terms, analytical is closer in meaning to transparency than it is to homogeneous, homogeneous is the antithesis of analytical, as an analytical system by definition has the ability to reveal the most differences between recordings. By definition a more analytical system will be more transparent than a less analytical one in direct contrast to your comments. The rub here is this, whilst you proclaim that listening is important, you have made comments about various components that you have never heard, even your comments about homogeneity are picked entirely out of the PQ article as opposed to being something that you have arrived at on your steam. Have your ever heard the Burmester or the Naim or Audio Capitole or the Reimyo or the top Teacs? You have not heard them, so how do you know that the Audio Note DAC 5 is more transparent, accurate and/or better sounding than any of these components? How do you know that the AN DAC5 is more accurate than any of these other components? You do not know because all your comments on these components is based entirely on what you have read not on any listening experience of yours.

You make a lot of noise, but that is all it is, noise.

RGA

10-31-2004, 06:12 PM

Your comments about the actual role of a subwoofer are evidence of your appalling ignorance on main speaker/subwoofer integration. The very benefits that you attribute to the J and E models are where a subwoofer bass augmentation offers the greatest benefits. The 'the midrange openness' ,the 'high frequency' extension/air of the E or J, (and) 'the big bold tuneful body through the midrange' are benefits of extra bass extension. When the music fundamentals in the 20 - 100 Hz region are augmented by the subwoofer, a greater sense of transparency is perceived, as the system is more transparent as a result of the extra bass extension which mitigates the loss of transparency caused by the higher bass roll-off (~70Hz) of the bookshelf model, in this case the K model.

You made a claim that the AN K with a Sub would sound better than the E - it does not because the fundamental soundin the midrange and the treble of the K isn;t as good as the J or E. You cannot run Audio Note speakers cutting frequencies off and shifting them to a subwoofer. The reason is that Audio Note requires the active involment of the internal cabinet esonances to work - the resulting sound is quite poor. The K being an acoustic suspension design is already a difficult speaker to mesh with a sub but will work better than the J or E - but no sub can make the midrange or treble good enough to beat the J or E...the spekaer doesn't use the same drivers for a start.

never heard, even your comments about homogeneity are picked entirely out of the PQ article as opposed to being something that you have arrived at on your steam.

Not so - i have been saying years before I ever heard of Audio Note that most stuff I've been hearing is similar sounding drek. Audio Note certainly helped me notice it a lot better.

You have not heard them, so how do you know that the Audio Note DAC 5 is more transparent, accurate and/or better sounding than any of these components? How do you know that the AN DAC5 is more accurate than any of these other components? [/QUOTE]

But i never made any such claim that he DAC 5 was the best DAC or that I felt it was the best DAC - I specifically said what I thought of "A" Audio Note CD player versus another and that it made more of an improvement than i have heard in the past with other oplayers. You are inventing my position for some reason.

RGA

10-31-2004, 06:24 PM

RGA,

In the end, your last post brings us back to where we started, i.e. The Audio Note DAC is not transparent. Also, your comments about the filters, distortion etc is just so funny, you may think that you are making sense but all you are showing is your ignorance. When UHF bought a new reference player, they bought a Linn Unidisk :D ;), I think you should read their comments on the new digital formats.

Actually I think it is you who knows little about the cd format - the first cd players are very reminiscent of the AN DAC's - the ORIGINAL theory was best but they Sony/Phillips could not get it right. But you should know that right. UHF bought a $16,000.00 all in one player - your point is what. They said the AN system bettered their reference player. I would hope a player 5 times more expensive and from a great audio company like Linn would be better than a 5 year old discontinued bottom of the line AN DAC and Transport combination. They state no such thing - The AN is not what they want - an all in one player.

Not transparent - nothing is transparent - analytical the word is different from analytical the adjective associated with the luistening experience - no music should EVER "sound" subjectively analyticall or cold. Bob Neill reviewed the AN and a good Naim player. I trust him more than you.

theaudiohobby

11-01-2004, 02:40 AM

The K being an acoustic suspension design is already a difficult speaker to mesh with a sub but will work better than the J or E - but no sub can make the midrange or treble good enough to beat the J or E...the speaker doesn't use the same drivers for a start.

You better stop digging your yourself into a hole, an acoustic suspension design is already a difficult speaker to mesh with a sub , that is a new one. :D , care to explain?

kexodusc

11-01-2004, 04:55 AM

lumiere

11-01-2004, 08:42 AM

I am not going to get into this debate that you seem to be under the impression that the ONLY product I will recommend is Audio Note.
I wonder where would he have gotten that idea from. ;)

BRANDONH

11-01-2004, 11:31 AM

BRANDONH

11-01-2004, 12:35 PM

You know - this brings up a point. I have to admit that I don't have one single LP that is an issue of brand new music. Everything is from the 1980's and prior. I wonder if I'd still feel the same (that LP's sound better than corresponding CD's) about the stuff released today. I have to say that the better sounding CD's I own are of new music. Whether that's because they are simpler better recorded/mastered or whether it's because I have no basis for comparison to vinyl is unknown. It might be interesting to check this out.

I should also state for the record that I'm not a digital hater. I think a lot of CD's sound pretty damn good. I'm listening to Ravi Shankar right now which is a lowly ADD and it sounds nice. For some reason it always makes me want to light incense, though. :D

White Stripes issues almost all of their new stuff on vinyl.
http://www.streetlightrecords.com/
search White Stripes

RGA

11-01-2004, 04:01 PM

RGA: I can't think of any reason other than personal preference (which is quite valid, but difficult to apply universally) why an acoustic suspension design would hinder a sub's ability to enhance the bottom end...having heard some AN's in systems with subwoofers (one built with a quality Fostex woofer by the way), I disagree that you can't improve the sound. You can. And when you relieve the woofer of the bottom 2 or 3 octaves, you'll generally find that midrange IMPROVES.
I wouldn't add a $400 sub to the AN K's (or any speakers except for home theater use for that matter) but a decent sub should take nothing away from the speakers, and only add to the experience...what's so bad about that?

Firstly I can't dig a whole on this issue since i have never heard a subwoofer properly integrate with any speaker ever by anyone that "help" the musical event. It helps add bass depth and volume. I have heard a two subwoofer system do a good job and dedicated subwoofer speaker set-ups like the Gersman X1 standmount you can buy the Sub 1 sub base that go under them - some set-ups like this work...but that;s not the same thing entirely - these are basically just three ways - as we've all heard from martin Logan sub integration in this manner with very different materials doesn't always work and you get a sub to panel hick-up as with ML. How ruinous this is up to you because i still like most of what the panels are doing.

Acoustic suspension speakers tend to have a tighter quicker sounding bass response and and tend not to go as deep in the lower registers - which requires the subwoofer to act as a woofer. If you can hear male voices through your sub with all other speakers turned OFF then You have two problems - one is that to get a balanced stereo image you NEED two of them - or 2 you need a better subwoofer. Because Audio Note requires or deems best a corner placement and because most subwoofers require a corner placement - you have a problem - BOTH can not be put in the corner. I'm not imposing on anyone that they should not buy a subwoofer - it you can't hear my problems with them that is fine - if you feel a sub will make the E better that too is fine. I agree with Peter that subwoofers don;t mesh well with his speakers - since he designs them and has tried the best subs currently available with them - I have attempted subs on speakers numerously and i don;t get acceptable results. To me they are artifical bass tone controls for people who want a "loudness" button at 30hz. Truth betold I don't blame them because some standmounts like the 705 are SO incredibly anaemic in bass and dynamics that I would take my grumbles with Subs in a HEARTBEAT over being forced to live with that speaker by itself.

Before you jump on me about the loudness comment the E is -3db at 22hz and has a slight pronouncement(~+1db) in bass from 40hz up to 200hz. I'm not exactly sure why one would desire a subwoofer unless you deliberately want to get a +10db lift at 40hz. I only see the point of these for something like the K which bottoms out at 36hz - you would obviously need a sub to get it to 25hz and a very good sub to get it to 15-20hz. But the cost of this combined is MORE than buying an AN E - and you sacrifice a lot of midrange prowess, midrange and midbass dynamics and a much superior treble. This not to say the E has the most bass in the world - and he is working to get more out of it. The Sogon hits 12hz at good level - the one he brought to a show my dealer and a customer had a nice 16hz demo that shook the walls(so it can do it at level as well). I also know they are working on a E speaker dedicated(only for the E) single ended 845 tube powered sub like my previous examples of Gershman. AN has been working on it for 4 years. They may never bring it to market unless it's bang on. I'm not saying it CAN'T be done I'm saying I have yet to hear it being done to an acceptable level for me. As for my comment on Acoustic suspension it was discussed a while ago on AA. For me it may as well apply to panels and ported units too. I'd be happy to have a sub for home theater.

RGA

11-01-2004, 04:20 PM

Sorry but this part needs a second reply

And when you relieve the woofer of the bottom 2 or 3 octaves, you'll generally find that midrange IMPROVES.

Firstly, this may work for some if not many of the current speakers on the market which seem to have a highly compartmentalized sound to start with and for floorstanding speakers cheaply built taking OUT the woofer also takes out added internal box resonances. Depending how bad they were I have no doubt that the midrange and top end can "open" up. But to me this is a silly purchase - why pay for a floorstanding speaker only to relieve it of presenting any of the bass information?

Audio Note's speakers as you well know are NOT designed into comaprtments but a specifically tuned cabinet that requires certain cabinet resonances to be dissapate immediately internally. Hacking of 3 octaves from the signal sent to it and then dumnpin that down to a subwoofer which - no sub is designed remotely like the AN J or E and asking one woofer to now present the tunefulness of to cannot be done IMO with these speakers. Yes they can certainly add bass power and bass depth - but there is more to bass than that and I think that because most speakers don't present microdynamics or low level bass resolution very well - they're not missed so people focus on WOW look at the added bass. I tried several years ago taking a highly rated Boston Sub which took out my Wharfedale's responsibilites of providing the bottom end. The result was a disaster - not for directionality or room placement but because the Wharfedales ended up sounding shouty. The bass of the sub was doing all of the work and it could never capture the full bodiedness of the floorstanders. I did get a punchier sounding midrange and it opened up the treble - but it sounded overall discordant.

TO me because the cabinet is so integral to the AN sound it would be like taking an electrostatic and asking part of the panel to stop vibrating while we get a Kevlar midrange drive to add the center of the midrange in as a substitute.

Woochifer

11-01-2004, 05:40 PM

Firstly I can't dig a whole on this issue since i have never heard a subwoofer properly integrate with any speaker ever by anyone that "help" the musical event. It helps add bass depth and volume. I have heard a two subwoofer system do a good job and dedicated subwoofer speaker set-ups like the Gersman X1 standmount you can buy the Sub 1 sub base that go under them - some set-ups like this work...but that;s not the same thing entirely - these are basically just three ways - as we've all heard from martin Logan sub integration in this manner with very different materials doesn't always work and you get a sub to panel hick-up as with ML. How ruinous this is up to you because i still like most of what the panels are doing.

Once again, you're ignoring the many points that people keep bringing up that the use of a subwoofer assists in the MIDRANGE coherency. I've gotten that in my system, kex has reiterated that in the past, and many others who are two-channel advocates make note of that. If making the midrange more coherent doesn't "help the musical event" then I don't what else possibly can.

Acoustic suspension speakers tend to have a tighter quicker sounding bass response and and tend not to go as deep in the lower registers - which requires the subwoofer to act as a woofer. If you can hear male voices through your sub with all other speakers turned OFF then You have two problems - one is that to get a balanced stereo image you NEED two of them - or 2 you need a better subwoofer.

This point is simply full of fallacies. You keep making comments on the sub integration issue, yet you don't understand some very basic principles on subwoofers and the cabinet design. First, the acoustic suspension speakers actually go DEEPER into the low registers compared to comparably designed ported speakers because the drop off at the low end occurs more gradually. When a ported speaker goes past its tuned frequency, then the dropoff is steep and any signal in the lows below that point creates driver excursion that results in nothing audible, except maybe diminished coherency in the midrange.

The quicker transient response with a sealed box is correct, but the distortion level on a sealed design increases as the frequency goes lower towards the F3 value for a given box dimension. An acoustic suspension speaker can go as low as you want, so long as the driver can handle the frequency extension. All you have to do is change the box size according to whatever Q-value you're aiming for. So, I don't know where you get this idea that with an acoustic suspension speaker, the subwoofer has to act as a woofer. That's a generalization that's pretty easy to debunk. Most acoustic suspension speakers, including bookshelf models, I've used over the years can easily extend down to at least 80 Hz, and that's about the point where the bass frequencies start to become nondirectional. And with a subwoofer, it doesn't matter how low an acoustic suspension speaker can physically go, because the subwoofer signal can be setup to crossover at the point where the acoustic suspension OR ported speaker begins to tail off.

And your point on male voices is simply wrong. If you can hear male voices on a subwoofer, it has everything to do with the CROSSOVER, and absolutely NOTHING to do with the subwoofer itself.

If you hear male voices on your sub, you DON'T have a bad subwoofer, you just don't know how to set the thing up correctly! ANY subwoofer that you install will have to have a crossover in the signal path somewhere. If you think that subs are just inserted into a system and fed a full range signal, you've obviously never used one correctly. Using a 2nd or 3rd order crossover slope at 80 Hz, I doubt that you'll get much of anything from the male vocal range from ANY subwoofer. If the subwoofer is outputing male voices, then it probably has a Bose label on it somewhere (and that has to do with the notoriously high crossover point that they use with their sub/sat systems).

I have no idea how using two subs or using a better one would eliminate male voices from the signal. You got some explaining to do if you think that this is true. In the absence of a crossover, the sub will simply play back everything up to the physical limits of the driver. Nothing to do with the quality of the sub.

The only time I've ever heard male voices on my subwoofer was when I fed a full range signal through my sub and bypassed the crossover. And guess what, that's exactly what's SUPPOSED to happen because most subwoofer drivers can extend up to at least 500 Hz with a full range signal. But, with the crossover engaged, I don't EVER hear male voices on my sub. And I doubt that even the crappiest cheapie sub would play back male voices on my setup either simply because that part of the frequency range just isn't in the subwoofer signal.

Because Audio Note requires or deems best a corner placement and because most subwoofers require a corner placement - you have a problem - BOTH can not be put in the corner. I'm not imposing on anyone that they should not buy a subwoofer - it you can't hear my problems with them that is fine - if you feel a sub will make the E better that too is fine. I agree with Peter that subwoofers don;t mesh well with his speakers - since he designs them and has tried the best subs currently available with them - I have attempted subs on speakers numerously and i don;t get acceptable results. To me they are artifical bass tone controls for people who want a "loudness" button at 30hz. Truth betold I don't blame them because some standmounts like the 705 are SO incredibly anaemic in bass and dynamics that I would take my grumbles with Subs in a HEARTBEAT over being forced to live with that speaker by itself.

Another point that you keep ignoring is that subwoofers give you the most placement flexibility. The best spot for bass response is ROOM SPECIFIC. The corner placement gives you the maximum low end reinforcement, but that's not necessarily an ideal location for a subwoofer if you want the most EVEN and LINEAR sounding bass response because the corner reinforcement has the most unpredictable tonal characteristics. In some rooms, the best placement is along the front wall, in others, the corner's best, and yet in other rooms, other locations throughout the room yield the best bass response.

It doesn't matter how many subs you've "attempted numerously" (the only one that you've ever mentioned is that one from Boston that you attached to a Pro Logic receiver -- VERY different animal than the far more advanced bass management that's now available on receivers, high end processors, and higher end subwoofers), if you don't know how to set it up and show this much disinterest in learning how to set it up properly, then OF COURSE you'll get crappy sounding bass that poorly integrates with the mains. It may reinforce your embedded beliefs on this subject, but it certainly doesn't shed any light on how it might play out with others who are interested in trying the best approaches for integrating the sub.

Before you jump on me about the loudness comment the E is -3db at 22hz and has a slight pronouncement(~+1db) in bass from 40hz up to 200hz. I'm not exactly sure why one would desire a subwoofer unless you deliberately want to get a +10db lift at 40hz. I only see the point of these for something like the K which bottoms out at 36hz - you would obviously need a sub to get it to 25hz and a very good sub to get it to 15-20hz.

But, if the speaker depends on the corner placement to achieve that kind of in-room response, then again you're a slave to the room acoustics. And unless the room is fairly large, a corner placement is almost guaranteed to create at least one sizable peak or null at your listening position. Are these specs that you quote actually from YOUR room or are they something that someone else came up with somewhere else? I would seriously doubt that the range between 22 Hz and 200 Hz is anywhere close to flat response simply because of the room interactions.

Also, what if your room is like mine and the corners are about 17' apart, but the listening position is only 6' from the front wall? That would seem to present all kinds of issues, especially in the imaging, if the corner placement is the only way to wring the best performance out of those speakers.

RGA

11-01-2004, 11:19 PM

Woochifer

11-02-2004, 01:09 PM

First of all I don't want to be restating this same sub argument - I am NOT basing my subwoofer experience as to my reason to not be impressed with sub integration and you know full well this is the case or you have very selective memory. The room placement was not the problem with my sub - the bass depth was the problem wiht my sub - my front speakers produced deeper more tuneful bass than that powered sub could produce - that alone was enough to dump it even for home theater. Obviously with these terrific do all receivers then the salespeople can easily set up the correct place for subwoofers now so we'll see if in the next few months a SINGLE dealer here will be able to get a sub to integrate properly - I mean all these dealers have morons working there obviously - I mean mine builds speakers amplifiers and sets up turntables and use parametric EQ's and use SPL meters and have quite the staff - and they have Paradigm and B&W folk designe their rooms so of course NONE of these people can simply figure out where to place a sub ~20 by 20 room. All I ask is for a convincing demo before I buy.

For someone who claims not to be basing your subwoofer experience as the basis for your opinion on the subject, you sure make an awful lot of sweeping statements about them. Stuff like male voices as an indicator of subwoofer quality, acoustic suspension speakers not being able to extend far enough for a subwoofer not to act as a woofer, etc.

Rather than demand that the dealer provide the convincing demo, why not learn how to properly set up a sub and use the available tools for yourself? I can count the number of properly done subwoofer demo room setups that I've heard over the years on one hand. I posed a question like this years ago on this board as to why so many subwoofer demos sounded so bad, and I got the info about things to watch out for on the setup and the room acoustics. I put those principles to the test for myself, and the results speak for themselves.

Just because your dealer sells Audio Notes, builds amps, and has the equipment to do a proper subwoofer demo, does NOT mean that the demo room is actually setup correctly. Since they have the parametric EQ, SPL meters, and other tools in place, what a great opportunity for you to actually learn how to use them and see for yourself how a subwoofer is SUPPOSED to sound.

As I've stated in the past, demo rooms are not constant and they rarely if ever demonstrate a subwoofer at their best. The room setups change all the time, equipment gets swapped out, settings get changed, listening locations change, etc. Subwoofers have to be precisely calibrated to the room, the equipment settings, and the listening location. Do you know for sure that your local dealers are recalibrating the equipment every time they swap out the subwoofer or change its location or match it to a different set of front end components? It took me 90 minutes to get my subwoofer setup done correctly the first time. I doubt that most dealers will invest that kind of time into recalibrating their subs every time they make an equipment change in their demo room, especially if they know that they will be swapping them out for customers who want to do comparisons.

Compared to main speakers, subwoofers are HIGHLY susceptible to what occurs in the room. It's a lazy approach to just take these demo room listenings as gospel, and not look into whether the levels, placement, crossover settings, and EQ were done right on the subwoofer, or to not even bother to learn about how those individual settings affect what you hear.

I also agreed with the notion ALREADY so why I have to keep repeating myself I do not know - selective reading? With certain speakers I have no doubt the midrange can be improved - a poorly consturcted resonating box resonates BECAUSE of the bass the speaker is trying to put out. Alleviating such speakers of this responsibility and giving it to a sub is no doubt desriable - as I already said. AN actively requires the involvement of the cabinet for the thing to work it's magic - taking the cabinet out of the picture which is what is being done by stopping anything below 80hz being sent to the speaker is NOT desirable for these specific speakers and outright destroys the type of bass the speaker puts out. IMO there is no point in buying the speaker if you are going to cross it over at 80 hz.

The midrange improves after removing the low frequencies from the signal because it diverts a significant peak load away from both the amp and the driver. As I mentioned above, if you have a ported speaker and the signal goes below the tuned port frequency, then the driver excursion increases markedly but does not output anything audible. That's an unnecessary stress on both the amp and the driver, and produces nothing in the way of usable bass. In the process, this noticeably decreases the midrange coherency, collapses the soundstage, and muddies up the imaging. Even if there is nothing below the tuned port frequency, removing the low frequencies from the signal has noticeable benefit to the midrange.

The 80 Hz crossover point is the most commonly used one with most bass management systems, but the latest receivers now have variable crossover points and high end processors allow you to not only select the crossover point but the attenuation slope as well. I've heard these types of high end processors at work with both an Innersound and a Wilson Audio setup, and the bass integration was pinpoint accurate with very deep bass extension. Even with a fixed crossover point, it's easy enough to direct the LFE and bass signals to the main speaker outputs and high pass them through the subwoofer crossover. That allow you to select whatever crossover point you want and use the sub only to pick up the lowest octave. So, going with a speaker that has decent low end extension is not a "silly" purchase if it's setup this way. And even if it's crossed over around 80 Hz, it's not a waste either because the larger speakers can also have better performance in the midrange and in the frequencies right around the crossover point.

The measurement of the AN E was not done in a corner(Nor was the Hi-Fi Choice review) but in a free standing position - the test room has no corners - I agree if your room is not set up as a 'typical' listening room of rectangular shape AN's upper models will not perform to desired results(but hell I heard the E/SEC in a free standing position and it was the best speaker set-up I've yet heard and owners seem to have preferneces here so i'm not going to say which is right). They are designed to sound best in corners because in corners they have taken into account the rear side wall reflected wave time delay so that reflections from side walls follow so closely behind the direct wave that it is inaudible - ~.5 miliseconds. If not in a corner then you have more room problems and colouration can result just like any speaker. Corner speaker placement was used by Allison and is again used by Allison for a reason. WHile I have not had the opportunity to hear the Allison 3 I would like to. Nothing really new here - you solve a LOT of problems by having corner placement speakers - except the problem you don't solve is that not everyone has corners they can use and thus you have less opportunity to sell your product.

But, the corner placement does not negate the room effects, and might even exacerbate them because the tonal characteristics of a corner placement are less than consistent, especially in a small to medium sized room. Most of the times I've ever tried a corner speaker placement, it creates boominess galore. It's maximum bass, but it also goes all over the place. Plus, depending on the room dimensions, the imaging can suffer a lot if the speakers are spaced too far apart.

I personally have only heard decent to good integration with two subs - and subs for home theater no problems. And this is telling - they managed to set up two subs in the room and got it right the same place never got one to sound right. But come to think of it I have not heard a whole lot of three way speakers I have liked either and a sub addition is a three way.

Not exactly the same as a 3-way speaker because the subwoofer only picks up the deepest of the bass notes. I don't know of any 3-way speakers that have the woofer crossed over in the nondirectional frequencies. There are technical advantages to using two subwoofers, but they also add a layer of complexity to the room setup because they create a new set of wave interactions. The only thing that's "telling" about your observation is that you're letting how a store sets up a subwoofer dictate your opinion on the subject. If I had relied only on what I observed at audio stores, I would never have gone with a sub. Fortunately, there are other sources of information out there that allowed me to judge for myself whether those demo room listenings were truly indicative of a subwoofer's merits.

RGA

11-02-2004, 01:43 PM

RobotCzar

11-02-2004, 02:04 PM

kexodusc

11-02-2004, 02:13 PM

I had prepared a rather long response, but a computer crash and subsequent reloading revealed Wooch had addressed most of points.

RGA, you can't have your cake and eat it too...Too often you make bold claims to the effect the subwoofers cannot improve Audio Note speakers' performance, yet you also claim not to spend much time experimenting with subwoofers.
You keep talking about 80Hz cutoffs, claiming they'll impact the musicality of your full-range speakers...why are you so dead-set on 80Hz? For music, I cut mine off at 70 Hz, 60Hz and even 40Hz...for music this seems best.

You refer to a speakers published frequency response and accept that they are full range. Yet have you ever wondered what happens to frequency response in certain rooms once you start to deviate from the reference volume level the measurements were taken...it's rarely uniform. In fact, it's quite possible your bottom end is being choked off or accentuated. A sub can help compensate for this.

You keep bringing up male vocals...if you've got male vocals coming through your sub, you've got bigger problems or you've got to stop listening to that Swedish Death Metal cult stuff.

I could accept an argument along the lines that you can't justify the cost/benefit ratio to add a sub to your system, I can even accept you don't like fussing with subs...I just have a problem when you start employing universal language implying no sub could ever improve an Audio Note speaker.

Someday Sneaky Pete is going to build a fancy AN subwoofer with a petrified wood cabinet filled with water that uses a 9 inch woofer and 2 tweeters, and you're going to open your mind to the possibility that a subwoofer can be a good thing...

Woochifer

11-02-2004, 03:47 PM

Well wooch I don;t buy unless they can show me it's WORTH buying period. I am not going to take the word of the manufacturers alla Paradigm etc when I don;t believe they make particularly good sounding speakers why I would trut that they can make good subs - is a tough leap for me to make.

It's not the manufacturer's word that you trust with subwoofers, it's simple concepts that you find in a physics text, in books about acoustics, in technical articles about subwoofer setup, and in posts on websites like this one where you can read pointers and experiences from people who've actually setup subwoofers and have tried different approaches.

Fine, if you don't want to buy, stand pat and be happy. But in the process of praising your ANs, don't start trying to discredit subs by spreading misinformation about their merits and design traits, when you've yet to grasp the basics on to properly set them up and integrate them into a main system. Relying on demo room listenings and waiting for a dealer to show you the correct approach is a copout for a myriad of reasons.

Like I keep saying, the key determinants as you go into the low frequencies are the room and the setup. And to a large degree, these factors matter more than the subwoofer itself because you can switch out sub after sub, but if you don't set them up properly and account for the room variables, you'll deal with the exact same issues no matter what model you go with. If you're not interested in learning any more about the subject, nobody is forcing you to. You don't even have to buy -- your dealer's got a parametric EQ and a SPL meter, right?

DMK

11-02-2004, 06:52 PM

Dear jfish,

Despite what you may hear from faith-based audio fans, there is no logical reason that you would hear any difference. There also is no evidence that anybody can, despite a spate of claims from those who do not take proper time to do controlled listening.

Funny how many of them recommend "just listen and decide" and then find that you made some kind of mistake. Don't believe them--ask them for evidence, not theories.

An expenisive player is likely to last longer (but you can't be sure). They do not "sound" different--let alone "better"; and even if they did, many other factors (that don't cost a lot of money) matter much more in determining the accuracy and realism of what you hear. Find out more, but beware as this business is full of misinformation.

First, you neglected to mention that this "evidence" that you're looking for is multiple trials of blind tests, peer reviewed, some sort of AES paper that goes into multitudes upon oodles of detail and having the blind test replicated by 62 other people over two years time (exaggeration button now turned off). You and I have had this discussion before and I'll ask you again: Who would want to go through all that to satisfy YOU? Or anyone else, for that matter?

Second, an expensive player usually does last longer because I'm sure gonna spend a reasonable amount of bucks to fix the thing whereas I'm scrapping a $100 player when it develops a bugaboo. Heh, heh - makes sense, no? :)

Last, the Audio Note DAC I listened to was so different, your deaf granny could have heard the difference from 50 yards away! Oops, there goes that danged exaggeration button, but seriously, it was quite noticeable. This may, however, speak to the DAC's deviation from measured accuracy i.e it may have been designed to sound euphonic. You are aware of such possibilities but you failed to mention that to the original poster.

" many other factors (that don't cost a lot of money) matter much more in determining the accuracy and realism of what you hear. "

You've hit the mark squarely with this. I couldn't agree more.

RGA

11-03-2004, 10:51 PM

RGA

11-03-2004, 11:00 PM

It's not the manufacturer's word that you trust with subwoofers, it's simple concepts that you find in a physics text, in books about acoustics, in technical articles about subwoofer setup, and in posts on websites like this one where you can read pointers and experiences from people who've actually setup subwoofers and have tried different approaches.

Actually no you can;t trust those sources either - those were the ones telling me that the box cabinet shapes of "most" out there sound like quality reproduction of music - :rolleyes:

theaudiohobby

11-04-2004, 12:56 AM

theaudiohobby

11-04-2004, 01:16 AM

DMK Re: the DAC has nothing to do with euphonics. There is no measurable evidence to that effect. I do agree that the DAC is easily noticeably different which is why I added my thought to this thread and got everyone all upset.

It does have to do with euphonics and measurable differences RGA, the DAC3 .1 was measured by Noel Keywood of Hi-fi World and was found to be severely rolled off in both the lowest and highest frequencies amongst other things, IIRC it had almost no output >16KHz.

DMK

11-04-2004, 04:46 AM

DMK Re: the DAC has nothing to do with euphonics. There is no measurable evidence to that effect. I do agree that the DAC is easily noticeably different which is why I added my thought to this thread and got everyone all upset. Why I don't know since it was merely a stated opinion of something I heard between two units(and I slammed no other companies??).

The output stage of a cd player acts as a pre-preamplifier. So if all cd players are the same then all amplification devices must be the same thus connect your 1970 Yorx boom box up to anything and it will sound identical to Krell monoblocks. Hi fi choice listens in blind level matched sessions with several listeners - it is more valid to a real environment than a testing environment - the pseudo scientist simply don't know anything about psychology and they overshoot their conclusions - but you won;t convince them so who cares.

Yes you can deliberately MAKE something sound different - i had that experience with the original Rega Planet. I think you could make a good case with the AN DACs at least from a theoretical perspective that they are adding the LEAST to the signal. No treble smoothing, no digital brickwall filters, no noise shaping smoothing oversampling etc. "Convention says the measurements matter. But Audio Note says, â€˜Whatâ€™s the point of using trickery to remove distortion that you canâ€™t hear if, in doing so, you suck the joy and life from recordings?â€™"

This may give you more information on the design - with folow-ups at the bottom. That word microdynamics - seems like such a small thing - it's not. http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/frr.pl?rdgtl&1073373690&read&3&4&

The AN DAC design from the designer Andy Grove http://audionotekits.espyderweb.net/agrovedac.html
Interestingly Andy Grove has been snapped up by Quad as designer back in 1999 - but apparently also still works with Audio Note. Hmm those European companies seem less competitive with each other when they're all going out for beers and trading trade secrets?? Interesting business community

I suppose in a way the Audio Hobby would be correct in that if the DAC 3.1 rolls off the lows and especially the highs, it could be considered euphonic (since certainly some of the sonic problems with CD's are in the high treble - although I have more issues with the upper mids and lower treble) but I think of euphonic more in the sense of certain tube designs (not by any means ALL of them) as adding 2nd order, or pleasing, distortion. Haven't seen the measurements so I don't know. What I do know is that I don't care! As you said, there are no transparent audio components. I use tubed amps and prefer LP's, both of which are said to add distortion. Interestingly, my tube amps measure only very slightly more distorted at half power than solid state amps - so slight that it's considered under the JND threshold. And with 103 db sensitive speakers, my 25 watt amps rarely if ever are pushed beyond a watt or two. Anyway, my point is that my audio interest lies not in measurements but in actual usage = in their sonic performance. Audio isn't nearly the hobby for me that listening to music in the home is. Whatever components get me closer to the live event are what I strive to find. The Audio Note I heard does that better than any other CD player. I wish I could afford it... along with the $8K Wyetech Opal preamp and the $8K Wyetech Topaz power amp! :) I'll just have to make do with what I have for now.

Have you heard all the Audio Note DAC's? I don't have an opportunity to but how do the 1.1 or 2.1 compare to their upper echelon dacs? Perhaps I could buy a cheaper one and still get superior sound, if a bit less refined.

I also find it interesting that both you and I like the Audio Note DAC's and the Sugden integrated. I'd have to describe the sonic signature of both to be in the same league. So much for the "all this stuff sounds alike" crowd. A friend of mine just bought the A21A and I swear that if I had heard it before I bought my tubed pre and tubed monoblocks, I'd have bought the Sugden to save money. So, so close in sound.

theaudiohobby

11-04-2004, 06:37 AM

...if the DAC 3.1 rolls off the lows and especially the highs, it could be considered euphonic...Haven't seen the measurements so I don't know. What I do know is that I don't care

The point I am trying to make precisely ;) , however it is incredulous to suggest that such products are more transparent or accurate than other products on this basis, since the only way a subjective opinion can make that call is by comparing the actual playback directly to the master tapes or even better the actual recorded live performance :D .

RGA

11-04-2004, 10:29 AM

It does have to do with euphonics and measurable differences RGA, the DAC3 .1 was measured by Noel Keywood of Hi-fi World and was found to be severely rolled off in both the lowest and highest frequencies amongst other things, IIRC it had almost no output >16KHz.

LOL. :rolleyes:

RGA

11-04-2004, 10:33 AM

RGA

11-04-2004, 10:47 AM

I suppose in a way the Audio Hobby would be correct in that if the DAC 3.1 rolls off the lows and especially the highs, it could be considered euphonic (since certainly some of the sonic problems with CD's are in the high treble - although I have more issues with the upper mids and lower treble) but I think of euphonic more in the sense of certain tube designs (not by any means ALL of them) as adding 2nd order, or pleasing, distortion. Haven't seen the measurements so I don't know. What I do know is that I don't care! As you said, there are no transparent audio components. I use tubed amps and prefer LP's, both of which are said to add distortion. Interestingly, my tube amps measure only very slightly more distorted at half power than solid state amps - so slight that it's considered under the JND threshold. And with 103 db sensitive speakers, my 25 watt amps rarely if ever are pushed beyond a watt or two. Anyway, my point is that my audio interest lies not in measurements but in actual usage = in their sonic performance. Audio isn't nearly the hobby for me that listening to music in the home is. Whatever components get me closer to the live event are what I strive to find. The Audio Note I heard does that better than any other CD player. I wish I could afford it... along with the $8K Wyetech Opal preamp and the $8K Wyetech Topaz power amp! :) I'll just have to make do with what I have for now.

i have heard the 3.1 one box player and I've only heard it in an all audio note system. Remember they design the entire chain - how a unit does in a review outside an all audio note chain or how it sounds I don't know. These players have strange mismatch output to input impedences(which will affect treble and bass always first). Still even if one is to say there is a rolloff at 16khz - umm why would anyone care - after the age of about 25 and male you can't hear past 15khz anyway - almost no musical energy is above 15khz to start with. The measurements i've seen of new models have no such frequency anomolies - trouble is that like most Audio note gear as Lynn Olsen noted on the SET amps testing with pink noise and test bench and with a real speaker load are not the same - so of all the amplifiers he owned the Ongaku measured by far the worst in THD and power measurements but was also by far the truest to the music(which means the most accurate to the music). It CERTAINLY isn't the most accurate to the measurement - so one can take that two ways - one is to say well this is a music listening issue so the one that does the best job at presenting the music is the most accurate piece - or you can choose the one that does the best on a test bench - frankly I don't care because I don't think the Audio Hobby are looking at it from the same angle. No big deal. I take the real world listening performance and he takes it from the test bench. The science is suppose to be there ONLY to support the real world listening experience - if it doesn't match up then you have to look at the validity of what it is you're measuring.

I get what is said here - the Teac player had more high frequency glare than the AN CD player - but there was no hacked off rolled of voiolins or cymbals - what was taken away was the fake spitty grain that was there in the teac. So what I would be looking for is okay of the music "energy" only goes to 15khz - then what is the TEAC "ADDING" to the music to get to 20khz? It certainly wan't music it was noise - and this was a very very good $400.00Cdn cd player. Why is it the AN Dac has a three dimensional soundstage and a clearer sound in the midrange where i could hear and follow brish strokes far better. All the subjective evaluation talk of HEARING MORE of the musical information through it - except some earlier DACs which had some issues.

Again it's the context of an all AN system and that was the designers intent.

theaudiohobby

11-04-2004, 12:30 PM

But if you bothered to read Audio Hell what you are saying is EXACTLY what Peter Q said.

The crux of the matter is when I audition audio gear, I listen for positive differences i.e increased resolution, refinement, soundstaging etc and not similarities, I also listen to a variety of recordings across various genres in an attempt to assess performance over a variety of styles. I do not expect Bach to sound the similar Third Day, nor do I expect Louis Armstrong to sound the similar to Eva Cassidy. Neither do I expect a jazz cafe recording to sound similar to a studio or concert hall recording. How well the said component renders the recordings in their given context gives a clue to the performance of the component(s) in question. Strictly speaking I do not know anyone who sets about on an upgrade quest and looks for a component that sounds exactly the same as the component they are looking to upgrade from, why bother in that? 'Comparison by contrast (i.e. qualitative differences)' is the way any rational person goes about the upgrade process.However, In a different scenario, a person may be seeking to replace an existing well-regarded or treasured but discontinued component, in which case the goal of the individual is to replace their well regarded component with a similar sounding component and therefore they will be listening for similarities not differences. Any person setting about an audition would be wise to assemble a wide variety of recordings across a large selection of genres in order to properly evaluate performance, though I wonder how anybody could possibly reliably evaluate any rig with unfamiliar recordings, but each to his own!

You keep getting your knickers in a twist, because you are trying, rather unsuccessfully I may add, to draw an ambigous relationship between your sonic preferences and actual technical superiority of various audio components. You can like what you like, but you are in uncharted territory when you start using that as a basis to argue for the technical superiority of any component. As an aside, high frequency glare seized to be an issue in my rig many many moons ago and I am sure that I am much further down the road of audio satisfaction than you are, but I still experiment and pleasantly surprise myself sometimes even followed some of PQ's advice on one occasion, something that I think you are still skeptical about, biwiring, have you biwired your J's yet? :) I doubt it . Personally, I refuse to approach audio or any other area for that matter with a closed mind :D .

DMK

11-04-2004, 12:56 PM

The point I am trying to make precisely ;) , however it is incredulous to suggest that such products are more transparent or accurate than other products on this basis, since the only way a subjective opinion can make that call is by comparing the actual playback directly to the master tapes or even better the actual recorded live performance :D .

Absolutely agree, which is why I "try" never to use words like transparent or accurate and prefer words like believable and phrases like "true to my preconception of the live event".

I've had the good fortune to listen closely to three master tapes and the resultant CD's. Sadly, there is a HUGE difference. The RE's in question have always blamed the limitations of the CD medium, a format that supposedly HAS no limitations. I'd perhaps blame their skill if I didn't know better. They all agree; SACD is truest to the master tape, next comes CD and lastly the LP. However, they all also agree that while the LP deviates more than the CD, what the CD adds in the way of distortion (that stuff that measurements tell us the CD medium is devoid of - haha!) is much more discordant while the LP is more "musical". Oh, there's that word again! Sorry. :)

The problem with comparisons to the live event is usually the length of time between said event and the recording playback. The mind forgets. However, on a few occasions I've noticed some horrible sonic anomalies that, if they had been present while I was at the concert, I couldn't have helped but notice.

Transparency among components? Let's find transparency in recording first. The cart before the horse makes for a well built cart that doesn't go anywhere AND is content with its destination.

Woochifer

11-05-2004, 09:02 AM

Actually no you can;t trust those sources either - those were the ones telling me that the box cabinet shapes of "most" out there sound like quality reproduction of music - :rolleyes:

Can't trust books on acoustics? Can't trust the laws of physics? Can't trust the findings of other people who've ACTUALLY tried proper subwoofer setups? No wonder why you believe that male voices coming out of subs are the fault of the sub and not the crossover setup, and that acoustic suspension speakers have less extended bass by design.

Sorry, but your efforts to generalize your preferences into some kind of definitive truth about how the evolution of the loudspeaker should have stopped at Snell's designs are really reaching into the ridiculous rhelm.

What source that I cited is saying anything about the cabinet shapes or about the "quality of music reproduction"? The relationship between the box volume, the port opening, the driver characteristics, the Q-value, and the actual bass output is what it is. You can't magically manufacture what isn't there. Some people prefer the type of bass that arises out of a low-Q resonance, while others prefer the bass bump that a higher Q value will give you. Whether not it constitues "quality reproduction of music" is a SUBJECTIVE preference. As someone else asked, what texts and technical articles have you actually read that says something about the cabinet shape and "quality reproduction of music"? Or are you just extrapolating again based on what you read in some marketing brochure?

musicoverall

11-05-2004, 12:57 PM

[QUOTE=RGA] The science is suppose to be there ONLY to support the real world listening experience - if it doesn't match up then you have to look at the validity of what it is you're measuring. QUOTE]

Or the validity of HOW you're measuring it!

I think measurements dictate certain parameters in audio gear. But I can't imagine being so blinded as to believe we've discovered everything that makes gear sound as it does. If we had, we'd understand why amps and preamps that measure essentially the same actually sound different.

musicoverall

11-05-2004, 01:00 PM

what the CD adds in the way of distortion (that stuff that measurements tell us the CD medium is devoid of - haha!) is much more discordant while the LP is more "musical".

The fact that we've apparently not uncovered all the distortions that CD's present leads me to be more staunch in my belief that measurements in audio have a way to go before they will tell the entire story of why things sound as they do.

dean_martin

11-05-2004, 01:59 PM

i have no idea what you guys are talking about...lol

Yeah, jfish, some of the guys did go a little off course. But, the bottom line is it looks like you have been able to compare the Arcam and Sony at home with your own equipment. If you compare RCA output from both machines and can't justify the extra $1000 for the Arcam then that's all there is to it.

However, if you decide against the Arcam, but still have some money to spend on your system, one thing you might try is a 2-channel amp for your main left front and right front speakers. I'm assuming that your Sony es2000 is a home theater receiver since you mentioned using its digital inputs. From what I understand, the Sony processor/preamp section is pretty good, but you might be able to improve on its amplifier section. If you can "borrow" or demo a B&K, Parasound, Aragon, Rotel or some other quality 2-channel amp in your system, then you might detect a bigger difference than you would with the Arcam cd player. Stronger, cleaner power to your speakers (from what I've read the Proacs are pretty good) will make a bigger difference in sound quality, IMO. And, the price you pay for a quality 2-channel amp could be as little as half the cost of the Arcam.

RGA

11-05-2004, 08:37 PM

Can't trust books on acoustics? Can't trust the laws of physics?

never said that - Can't trust what does not sound right in real world listening environments.

Can't trust the findings of other people who've ACTUALLY tried proper subwoofer setups?

Who am I gonna trust there? People who bought speakers I think are pretty poor to mediocre? No I may lean towards people whose opinions I respect on speakers first before I trust them on subs.

No wonder why you believe that male voices coming out of subs are the fault of the sub and not the crossover setup, and that acoustic suspension speakers have less extended bass by design.

"If your sub has significant output over 80Hz. (a serious mistake in my opinion) you will be able to hear male voices through the sub with all other speakers turned off). If so, you need two subwoofers for a proper stereo image. A single mono sub halfway between the left and right speakers is a compromise, as there is sometimes an audible stereo effect in the 80-160Hz, octave."

I never said Acoustic Suspension speakers had less bass extension - quite obvious since I bought the AN -K.

Sorry, but your efforts to generalize your preferences into some kind of definitive truth about how the evolution of the loudspeaker should have stopped at Snell's designs are really reaching into the ridiculous rhelm.

Never said that another of your invented straw men - I've never heard the original Snell designs.

What source that I cited is saying anything about the cabinet shapes or about the "quality of music reproduction"? The relationship between the box volume, the port opening, the driver characteristics, the Q-value, and the actual bass output is what it is. You can't magically manufacture what isn't there. Some people prefer the type of bass that arises out of a low-Q resonance, while others prefer the bass bump that a higher Q value will give you. Whether not it constitues "quality reproduction of music" is a SUBJECTIVE preference. As someone else asked, what texts and technical articles have you actually read that says something about the cabinet shape and "quality reproduction of music"? Or are you just extrapolating again based on what you read in some marketing brochure?

I never made such claim - ohh I am talking about the manufacturers of the speakers. "Actually no you can;t trust those sources either - those were the ones telling me that the box cabinet shapes of "most" out there sound like quality reproduction of music" I am not a physics major norr do I pretend to be. I assume that Paradigm and Polk and Energy etc have read up. They are the ones who tout their box shapes - and rarely do any of them make credible music in my humble opinion.

Woochifer

11-07-2004, 06:33 PM

never said that - Can't trust what does not sound right in real world listening environments.

Books about physics, acoustics, and articles written by people with real world experience were what I referred to, and you said that those couldn't be trusted. What's so hard about that?

Okay, so what about them cannot be trusted? If you've ever read a DIY article or technical text about how all the various performance parameters, box sizes, port openings, Q-values etc. work, you'd actually note that they make note of how they affect what you hear under real world conditions. But, of course you're narrowly focused on brand identity, so any discussion outside of that rhelm just ends up in more gross distortions and misnomers on your part.

Who am I gonna trust there? People who bought speakers I think are pretty poor to mediocre? No I may lean towards people whose opinions I respect on speakers first before I trust them on subs.

Just because somebody knows something about main speakers does not mean that their knowledge extends into subwoofers. You could have the numero uno expert about main speakers, but that doesn't mean that they know squat about bass/room interactions and about subwoofers in the absence of a grasp of basic technical concepts and real world experience.

A lot of the subwoofer experts I've consulted on this and other boards made very different choices (choices that I at times disagreed with) about the main speakers that they use, but that does not make their expertise on this subject any less salient. Your statement presumes people with whom you share personal preferences are the ones who have a monopoly on expertise. If you want to subscribe to groupspeak and assume that everything that arises out of that kind of closed-minded circle is the end-all authority, then that's your choice.

"If your sub has significant output over 80Hz. (a serious mistake in my opinion) you will be able to hear male voices through the sub with all other speakers turned off). If so, you need two subwoofers for a proper stereo image. A single mono sub halfway between the left and right speakers is a compromise, as there is sometimes an audible stereo effect in the 80-160Hz, octave."

And once again, you reiterate your continued ignorance of the crossover. Have you actually tried a variable crossover point and actually done listenings with the mains switched off? For someone who hates measurements and doesn't even use a SPL meter, you sure as hell quote a lot of frequency ranges, as if you've actually done measurements on these things yourself.

I never said Acoustic Suspension speakers had less bass extension - quite obvious since I bought the AN -K.

How do you explain this?

Acoustic suspension speakers tend to have a tighter quicker sounding bass response and and tend not to go as deep in the lower registers - which requires the subwoofer to act as a woofer.

Right about the quicker transient response, but wrong about the other points.

Never said that another of your invented straw men - I've never heard the original Snell designs.

Oh, but you continually like to bring up how AN is a derivative of the Snell design and is indicative of how superior older designs are over newer technology.

I never made such claim - ohh I am talking about the manufacturers of the speakers. "Actually no you can;t trust those sources either - those were the ones telling me that the box cabinet shapes of "most" out there sound like quality reproduction of music" I am not a physics major norr do I pretend to be. I assume that Paradigm and Polk and Energy etc have read up. They are the ones who tout their box shapes - and rarely do any of them make credible music in my humble opinion.

Of course, you're ignoring the simple fact that I never brought up anything about individual manufacturers. And once again, this is where your obsessive brand identity blinds you to learning anything about more general concepts. Subwoofer and bass frequencies are far more complex to setup and far more variable from room to room because of things having to do with basic wave concepts. This has nothing to do with the marketing brochures that you obsessively thumb through, it has more to do with how generalized concepts affect what you hear. This discussion had nothing to do with the box shapes, and yet you had to get yet another potshot in on "box shapes" and "credible music".

RGA

11-08-2004, 12:40 AM

Books about physics, acoustics, and articles written by people with real world experience were what I referred to, and you said that those couldn't be trusted. What's so hard about that?

Not if they're written by subwoogfer manufacturers - conflict of interest to seel their wares just as Harman International doles the caca out. Obviously it works on you - Recevers and Paradigm - thanks your advice must be of the do as I say don't do as I do because if I did as you did - well I'd be serioussly dissapointed. The room was set up badly nice excuse - convenient one too.

Okay, so what about them cannot be trusted? If you've ever read a DIY article or technical text about how all the various performance parameters, box sizes, port openings, Q-values etc. work, you'd actually note that they make note of how they affect what you hear under real world conditions. But, of course you're narrowly focused on brand identity, so any discussion outside of that rhelm just ends up in more gross distortions and misnomers on your part.

Why would I read a DIY article on subwoofers when I don't plan to buy one or build one? The manufacturer with their professional expertise in designing and building speakers is what I am paying for - if I was a speaker designer I'd build my own. Nothing to do with Brand identity? AN and Sugden are veritable No names - it would be great if I loved Paradigm - when I made a recommendation people might actually be able to hear one in their town. Firstly 90% of music is in the midrange - so starting there from companies who are IMO competant at that first. Peter Q is not about re-inventing the wheel if and when it's not required to do so - when it is required they design fully from the ground up their own gear - transformers amplifiers, soldering amterial, cabling and when it's not speakers, turntables(sans one) etc.

I don't deny that I put a lot of stock into what Peter has to say - I put more stock into what he has to say than a design team at Paradigm or PSB or B&W etc who are extolling the virtue of a sub when they could not not convince me on their speakers. Peter Q feels there is no subwoofer currently available that works with his K, J and E, speakers. The group there as a design team knows an aweful lot about bass response - assuming that they don't because they don't make a sub is a huge assumption on your part. Judging by how consistant the speakers sound in wildly different rooms with wildly different acousti treatments and the way the speakers pressurize rooms while maintaining high efficieny, tonal greatness and bass response as deep as they do as loud as they do shows me they know bass. When much larger speakers from paradigm and B&W with bigger or more drivers have way less bass, take up more volume, and are far harder to drive and sound worse - who's word to take? Yes I could buy one and test it for myself but why? Because Paradigm and B&W put out a doucument claiming their virtues - or because some guy on an internet forum who can't differentiate significant differences between receivers from good amplification is telling me I should buy it. Very little content is under 30hz

Just because somebody knows something about main speakers does not mean that their knowledge extends into subwoofers. You could have the numero uno expert about main speakers, but that doesn't mean that they know squat about bass/room interactions and about subwoofers in the absence of a grasp of basic technical concepts and real world experience.

Well if we're talking about AN again - Understanding bass room interaction is not a problem for them IMO.

A lot of the subwoofer experts I've consulted on this and other boards made very different choices (choices that I at times disagreed with) about the main speakers that they use, but that does not make their expertise on this subject any less salient. Your statement presumes people with whom you share personal preferences are the ones who have a monopoly on expertise. If you want to subscribe to groupspeak and assume that everything that arises out of that kind of closed-minded circle is the end-all authority, then that's your choice.

But why would the advice of a manufacturer be tossed out by you over some guy on an internet forum? Why would I should I take your word on Subs over Peter's? I have already said several times that if you want a sub use a sub, I am talking about a specific speaker maker's integration with subs - I also said if I had certain other speakers I would use a sub. I am not saying Peter is the end all authority and nor am I principly against subwoofers - hell AN is working on a Sub have been for a long time so they are not opposed to them either. I put more stock into what they say because they have proven in real world listening environements to ME their superiority to the contenders I've heard. If I sit down to play to video game systems and one has Knights of the Old Republic on XBOX and the other has Pong on an Atari 2600. Chances are I'm going to lean toward the guy who made the former when advice is coming out.

And once again, you reiterate your continued ignorance of the crossover. Have you actually tried a variable crossover point and actually done listenings with the mains switched off? For someone who hates measurements and doesn't even use a SPL meter, you sure as hell quote a lot of frequency ranges, as if you've actually done measurements on these things yourself.

The quote was from Richard BassNut Green. I post reviews and frequency ranges for people who solely value their use. Personally I can't understand why someone needs to check with a graph and a review to determine if speaker A can produce a piano correctly while the other one sounds so obviously poor in comparison.

Acoustic suspension speakers tend to have a tighter quicker sounding bass response and and tend not to go as deep in the lower registers - which requires the subwoofer to act as a woofer.

The Acoustic suspensions designs I've seen tend to go to 50hz-70hz a subwoofer should act as a sub woofer - IMO below 20hz and certainly no higher than 40hz IMO. There is now a gap of 30hz to be made up by the subwoofer - and this is assuming the speaker produces real output at 50hz. (BTW I was referring to standmount Acoustic Suspensions so I opologize for leaving that out because I was thinking about AN specifically as well as AR standmounts).

Oh, but you continually like to bring up how AN is a derivative of the Snell design and is indicative of how superior older designs are over newer technology.

Actually I could give a rat's behind as to what they derived their speaker from - since I have never liked the Snell speakers (sans the A which I only have a foggy memory of) myself that is hardly a selling point to me. Nor do I blindly stte that old technology is better. IMO in this particular instance compared to a lot of "giants" (all of the ones I've heard which is HARDLY an all encompassing sample of the world's loudspeakers) it happens to hold true by quite a substantial margin.

Of course, you're ignoring the simple fact that I never brought up anything about individual manufacturers. And once again, this is where your obsessive brand identity blinds you to learning anything about more general concepts. Subwoofer and bass frequencies are far more complex to setup and far more variable from room to room because of things having to do with basic wave concepts. This has nothing to do with the marketing brochures that you obsessively thumb through, it has more to do with how generalized concepts affect what you hear. This discussion had nothing to do with the box shapes, and yet you had to get yet another potshot in on "box shapes" and "credible music".

AN has no marketing brochures remember - I don't read what isn't there. And if it's so basic then why did you previously state that good speaker makers won;t know anything about it. I mean if YOU can get a sub to sound good - you're saying that very accomplished speaker designers can't? An is working on it because they want to do it right because in their mind it has not been done right. Money is no issue to them nor are they afraid to co-produce somehting if the other guy has any sort of clue. They are very adept at extracting bass from small cabinets as it is.

I'm not against subwoofers as a general rule or close minded to them being an effective tool.

I have logistics issues which can hamper any subwoofer addition as well. For instance I don't want to have to run my system through any of the recievers I have heard on the market over the last 5 years. Ie; I don't want to have to have a receiver to connect my main speakers to. 2) I don't want the AN speakers to be relieved of any frequencies because they're integral to making the complete box sound the way they're suppose to sound. 3) I want the main speakers connected to a SET amp which has no sub output but I choose not to accept the SS amps I've heard from the likes of Bryston to gain that output. I want the seamless integration that AN provides from midwoofer to tweeter with the identical precision from a subwoofer with the kind of tuneful bass response.

Can it be done? Probably - I however have yet to be convinced with a lot less restrictions than this.

kexodusc

11-08-2004, 04:49 AM

theaudiohobby

11-08-2004, 07:58 AM

AN has no marketing brochures remember - I don't read what isn't there.
Did you forget that they have a website? that is an 'electronic' marketing brochure. :D marketing AN products, if they did not believe in marketing at all, they will have a place holder site and be done with it.

I'm not against subwoofers as a general rule or close minded to them being an effective tool.

I have logistics issues which can hamper any subwoofer addition as well. For instance I don't want to have to run my system through any of the recievers I have heard on the market over the last 5 years. Ie; I don't want to have to have a receiver to connect my main speakers to. 2) I don't want the AN speakers to be relieved of any frequencies because they're integral to making the complete box sound the way they're suppose to sound. 3) I want the main speakers connected to a SET amp which has no sub output but I choose not to accept the SS amps I've heard from the likes of Bryston to gain that output. I want the seamless integration that AN provides from midwoofer to tweeter with the identical precision from a subwoofer with the kind of tuneful bass response.

Can it be done? Probably - I however have yet to be convinced with a lot less restrictions than this.

If you open your mind a little and think through some of these responses, your objections have been addressed by the mfrs many moons ago. Do you need preamp outputs? No. Do you need to filter the output to your main speakers? No. Do you need a receiver or SS with preamp outputs to use a sub? No Can you connect your sub to your preferred SET amp (which you do not yet have ;) ) in parallel with your main speakers? Yes. Many subwoofers come with speaker level inputs.

Feanor

11-09-2004, 10:27 AM

The point I am trying to make precisely ;) , however it is incredulous to suggest that such products are more transparent or accurate than other products on this basis, since the only way a subjective opinion can make that call is by comparing the actual playback directly to the master tapes or even better the actual recorded live performance :D .
I don't have a problem using accurate. A truly "accurate" reproduction should be indistinguishable from the master played through the recording engineer's reference system. Otherwise master-to-recording comparison only establishes the record medium's accuracy, not the system components' accuracy. And the master has nothing to do with the actual live performance. In most case what the recording engineer intended to record as little to do with what the live performance might have sounded like to someone sitting in the recording studio. (Too bad maybe.)

Most of us will never get the chance to compare masters to distribution media on the RE's equipment or our own for that matter. So we have to go by our recollection of live instruments and voices. If one component typically reproduces this sound more naturally than another, then it perhaps can be said to be relatively "accurate".

Consider that it's possible that the majority of recordings are in some way biased towards some particular, unrealistic sound. In the case of classical music at least, I believe such a bias does exist. It is for a too close-up sound, (resulting from too-close micing of the instruments), that isn't really like an audience member would hear in typical venue. Still, if one is familiar with the close-up sound, one can take this into consideration when evaluating the recording and component accuracy.

RGA

11-10-2004, 12:04 AM

So, lemme get this straight, you won't ever give a subwoofer a chance, and you don't believe anything anyone ever tells you (except Sneaky Pete), but you DO know that no subwoofer under any circumstance could ever, ever produce one iota of positive experience with Audio Note speakers...

But i have tried many times already said that. When the people designing the subs from a speaker maker you own can;t get it to sound right in a set-up store like Audio Vide Unlimited can't get it right even close then that is bothersome. Never said that some people won't be happy integrating a sub with Audio Note speakers - and if it can be demonstrated to me I'd be happy to add one or two (likely two for it to work). I'm not against subs and neither is Audio Note.

Why do I get the feeling that even if we DID prove it to you, you'd just be in denial anyway?

Actually I feel that I am VERY easy to convince - you don;t need to show me marketing hype becuase I ignore it - you don;t need to show me reviews because I pay them no attention, and I obviously don't need brochures and I certainly don;t need features - all I need is for system A to sound better musically than system B in the same room with the same gear with proper set-up. Soundhounds is rather interesting too not trying to push the subs like common dealers - they know it sounds like crap with AN speakers and they;re not stupid enough to try and flog it on people who can actually hear the problems.

Because, you might LEARN SOMETHING and be able to formulate your arguments based on knowledge obtained from somewhere other than the marketing pitches spit out by biased Peter Q on his website and in audio forums.

But umm my arguemnt is from a subjective listening experience - not from marketing from anyone. I'm not buying a sub to test the theory - I'm not made of money - and I can no longer get to my dealer to borrow their assoortment of subs and equipment which they don't recommend in the first place - if they sold a sub that worked they'd be more than happy to get a sale. Now you said earlier the type or quality of the sub matters - now that may be true and maybe Soundhounds doesn't carry good enough subwoofers. That may be a valid case.

So you're paying for someone else's expertise...but at the same time you don't believe what they tell you. Huh?
You've admitted to us that you don't read any technical literature to educate yourself on important details...Here's my question for you...DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE PAYING FOR? Or do you just arbitrarily choose who to trust and who not to trust based on whatever current brands you own?

First of all when you buy a speaker any speaker you are paying for their R&D and design and build etc. If I buy a Lada I'm paying for their expertise on that Lada. The question is do if I'm no expert in upper level calculus etc and am no engineer then do I take the Lada guys' ramblings about the best sports cars design for speed or the folks at Ferarri. Certainly relying on Ferrari's design team may have a dose of marketing to it - but the fact of the matter is Ferrari has a product to back up their expertise - Lada does not. SO if I'm not a calculus Expert nor an engineer - I'm going to take the expert advice of the guy who PROVED to me sonically they have a clue about audio. To me, and I realize this is subjective, the guy who proved it with his product is Peter Q and the guy building the Lada equivelent is Paradigm. OS who am I going to trust to know somehting about subwoofers and integrating drivers. If Paradigm can;t integrate their freaking tweeter acceptably then I sure as hell ain;t going to believe they can integrate a sub effectively. And the advice from you and Woochifer who bought speakers from Paradigm a company I don't feel integrqtes their drivers properly are telling me that I'm wrong and that subs are perfectly integratable? How can I take that seriously - if you can't hear what to me is an obvious problem with many Paradigm, PSB, ENergy, B&W speakers (and yes they're better than many others) then I can;t take your subjective opinions with any sort of credence.

The technical credence - well that was the stuff for years that stated these stacked multiway 6 inch stacked driver speakers sounded good - IMO they don't so I'm leary on taking the technical arguements on face value. And frankly because I'm not an engineer nor do I have the time at present to become one on the side - I'd STILL have to go and actually listen to the product. And hell SET is so horrible to those folks it's not funny - and yet comparing one of those to Bryston Separates in the real world IMO is simply no contest - and I own neither. And it blows my amp to the four winds - I can criticise what I own I often do - like everyone or mopst people I operate under a budget and what is available. I bought a nice NAD 533 turntable - but really there was not a helluva lot of choices in my area - it has problems but Rega has been good for many years - the NAD is a P2 and cheaper - But I recently heard a much cheaper Pro-Ject Dubut player at soundhounds that kills my NAD. I'm not afraid to say that - I'm not blind in thinking what I own is the best. I don;t think anyone can truly be objective either because at the end of the day you bought what you bought for a reason - to you it was probably the best item you heard that you could afford in your opinion.

I take exception to this statement...most people who would be in the market for gear of this price range, expecting anywhere close to this level of performance DO know of these companies...ESPECIALLY Sugden.
If I were you, I'd pay alot less attention to brand names, and advice from company owners that frequent internet forums with inherrent conflicts of interest towards marketing their products, and a bit more about the fundamental properties of the products you're shopping for. You might save yourself a bit of money, and, heaven forbid, end up improving your system.

Firstly, I've been down this road so often it's not funny. The internet is a different marketing animal altogether. If you've never heard of Sugden and Audio Note - how will you hear about them. If you're like me you went into a dealer and they let you listen to stuff - and IF and only IF you really liked the AN against the other product would you bother to go home and look them up on a web-site - there was no fancy pamphlet to pick up when you leave complete with web-site. The internet - well what was Audio Note selling since 1976 before AA and the internet came online? With no web-site and no advertising and no brochures. Ahh sound.

Audio Note is a Kits ordering site - is that advertising - is it B&W and Paradigm advertising in every magazine in every issue all over the world? Is it bribing reviewers with fancy Musical Fidelity watches?

Hell I'm not even against any of this if the product at the end of the day cuts the hi-fi mustard. When it didn;t in my opinion then perhpas I mistakinglly thought gee well maybe why the 100 gets thumped by the J so badly is that Paradigm is putting too much cash into the advertising??? Maybe I'm wrong - maybe they just don;t have a clue as to make a good speaker that works to serve the music in the real world. And maybe Peter said that - but guess what - I've been saying that BEFORE I had ever heard of Audio Note. Then I heard Audio Note then I read about the company - then I thought well this guy is saying the same thing I've been grumbling about for YEARS. Is it advertising to state your opinions on the state of the reproduction of music - if you're me no it's not - if you happen to own a company then yes that will be the percetption. Frankly, I could give a rat's ass as to whether people agree with him or not or even like his product(s) or not.

Answering questions on a forum - that;s called customer service not advertising - a lot of what he says and the way he says it certainly doesn't "help" him advertise. In fact he's lucky I heard the product before I read about his stuff - because had I read it first i probably would not have bothered to give it a go.

Just the same arguement I had with the Pulp Fiction hater - you either "Get" Tarantino or you don't get him and nothing said is going to really change that.

theaudiohobby

11-10-2004, 05:41 AM

I don't have a problem using accurate. A truly "accurate" reproduction should be indistinguishable from the master played through the recording engineer's reference system. Otherwise master-to-recording comparison only establishes the record medium's accuracy, not the system components' accuracy. And the master has nothing to do with the actual live performance. In most case what the recording engineer intended to record as little to do with what the live performance might have sounded like to someone sitting in the recording studio. (Too bad maybe.)

Consider that it's possible that the majority of recordings are in some way biased towards some particular, unrealistic sound. In the case of classical music at least, I believe such a bias does exist. It is for a too close-up sound, (resulting from too-close micing of the instruments), that isn't really like an audience member would hear in typical venue. Still, if one is familiar with the close-up sound, one can take this into consideration when evaluating the recording and component accuracy.

I think you have just added weight to the big controversy amongst various enthusiasts in the audio industry. Whose perspective is more natural? The guy who likes a nearfield perspective or the guy who prefers a farfield perspective. Both perspectives can be captured by the recording engineer, the choice of perspective to capture is down to the artistic perferences of the RE. This dovetails to my original premise 'a believable reproduction of actual instruments if that was what was captured on the recording.' I largely agree with you that the master may not sound like the live performance at all, but that is the artistic perogative of the RE and the musicians and argueably some masters are the better for that artistic perogative. In conclusion, if the playback equipment does not accurately represent the recording, it cannot be described as accurate.

kexodusc

11-10-2004, 07:55 AM

But i have tried many times already said that. When the people designing the subs from a speaker maker you own can;t get it to sound right in a set-up store like Audio Vide Unlimited can't get it right even close then that is bothersome. Never said that some people won't be happy integrating a sub with Audio Note speakers - and if it can be demonstrated to me I'd be happy to add one or two (likely two for it to work). I'm not against subs and neither is Audio Note.
Maybe you just need to hear the right subwoofer, then...Fostex makes some good big woofers. There's lots of decent subwoofer kits out there that would allow you build a sub at a fraction the price of an equivalent commercial sub...
I own a Paradigm PW-2100 and had PW-2200 they're in the $700-$800 range. I built my folks a 12" Titanic MKIII sub from Partsexpress.com that came with a Parametric EQ and outperformed these all for the low price of $430 and 4 hours labor. I liked the Paradigm more than an old SVS sub I had and a few $1000 Velodynes I tried out, and was hesitant to believe a DIY jobby at 1/2 the price could out-do it. Something to consider... Subs are easier than speaker to build, far easier...

Setup doesn't have to be all that hard, and I'd have the crossover at 40-60Hz or less for musical listening...to me the difference even on good full range speakers is the life-like authority vs hi-fi reproduction sounds.

OS who am I going to trust to know somehting about subwoofers and integrating drivers. If Paradigm can;t integrate their freaking tweeter acceptably then I sure as hell ain;t going to believe they can integrate a sub effectively. And the advice from you and Woochifer who bought speakers from Paradigm a company I don't feel integrqtes their drivers properly are telling me that I'm wrong and that subs are perfectly integratable? How can I take that seriously - if you can't hear what to me is an obvious problem with many Paradigm, PSB, ENergy, B&W speakers (and yes they're better than many others) then I can;t take your subjective opinions with any sort of credence.

Now this statement just puzzles me...What are you now, an audio-elitist? I bought my Studio 40's and 20's not because I'm a big Paradigm fan (having owned Wharfedale, PSB and other brands in the past) but because at about 50% of their retail price, at less than 2 years old, (and $350 floor demo discount on the 40's when the Canadian dollar was 0.67 $US) the Studio's were by FAR, the best sounding speakers I could afford for my HT system. There was nothing in the US even close! Furthermore, when I listen to most other speakers from the same price range (including the AN models), I'm more than hard pressed to find a commercial speaker under $1200 or $800 CDN that does a whole lot better, and when I do it's easy to attribute that to my personal preference.
For my stereo, I had a band mate who's been doing the DIY thing for along time build me some full range speakers using Vifa/Seas drivers, for about $800 they smoke my Studio's, and alot of speakers I've heard under $2500. Does owning these make my arguments that sub could enhance the listening experience anymore valid in your opinion?

Firstly, I've been down this road so often it's not funny. The internet is a different marketing animal altogether. If you've never heard of Sugden and Audio Note - how will you hear about them
Same as any other product in any other market, but Sudgen is in the "high-end" market, and consumers that are part of this market (not your average household with a boombox or HTIB, but high-end audiophile types) know of Sugden.

Audio Note is a Kits ordering site - is that advertising - is it B&W and Paradigm advertising in every magazine in every issue all over the world? Is it bribing reviewers with fancy Musical Fidelity watches?
Audio Note is NOT merely a kit ordering site...and you insist on remaining close minded regarding the ultimate truth that advertising is not merely pamphlets, magazines, and tv commercials...advertising is creating AWARENESS...by any means...web forum activity IS a form of advertising...so is a website.

When it didn;t in my opinion then perhpas I mistakinglly thought gee well maybe why the 100 gets thumped by the J so badly is that Paradigm is putting too much cash into the advertising??? Answering questions on a forum - that;s called customer service not advertising - a lot of what he says and the way he says it certainly doesn't "help" him advertise. In fact he's lucky I heard the product before I read about his stuff - because had I read it first i probably would not have bothered to give it a go.

As percentage of the final product cost, I would seriously bet my house that Paradigm's advertising budget isn't even 5%...big companies can advertise very cheaply and enjoy tremendous economies of scale in that department. Truth is, the "advertising costs of speakers" is an unsubstantiated argument without merit, that smaller companies have been clinging to for YEARS....At the end of the day, advertising doesn't cost money, it makes money, effectively allowing a company to decrease costs!!! More anti-capitalist tripe built on bad premises...hey that tactic (just as evil and dirty as advertising) tricks more than some people into buying small brand speakers, thinking they're getting more for their money. That's funny.

Woochifer

11-10-2004, 01:58 PM

Not if they're written by subwoogfer manufacturers - conflict of interest to seel their wares just as Harman International doles the caca out. Obviously it works on you - Recevers and Paradigm - thanks your advice must be of the do as I say don't do as I do because if I did as you did - well I'd be serioussly dissapointed. The room was set up badly nice excuse - convenient one too.

Obviously, since the last time we discussed this topic a few months ago, you still haven't gotten around to actually reading any of the papers that Harman posts on their website. I'm not a fan of most speakers that Harman manufactures, yet the technical data and pointers that they post in their white papers include solid information that I have used to great advantage in setting up my system. And contrary to your unsubstantiated beliefs, those white papers are not empty sales pitches, they contain straight forward information that anybody with an interest in learning more about their system can apply. Once again, you've proven that it's the messenger and not the message that you look at.

"Receivers and Paradigm" - glad that I can disappoint you. In my posts, when have I EVER suggested that people do as I do in the choices that they make? If I recommend something, it's in response to what people lay out as their priorities. If they want home theater for under $1,000, of course I'll suggest a receiver. Since two-channel's your priority, why would I ever suggest a home theater receiver to you? My choices are based on my priorities, and unlike some people, I do not impose my listening habits on others. If someone else wants to buy a system based on what I own, then they only have themselves to blame for that.

The room setup improperly as an excuse? Nope, it's just simple fact that room variations and the setup parameters for the amp directly affect what we hear. If you don't understand that concept or if you choose to dispute it, then that seriously brings your credibility into question. If anybody says that a specific speaker will sound the same no matter the room dimensions, no matter the room treatments, no matter the positioning, no matter the setup parameters on the amp/receiver, then that type of statement had better be backed up by something other than the assurances of a pair of golden ears, since it runs contrary to what any article or book on acoustics will tell you.

I don't judge credibility based on brand preference, but rather by how factual and applicable an certain assertion is. Just because I bought something from a particular company does not mean that I buy into everything that they preach. It simply means that one of their products met a specific need for my listening preferences, not that I drink and preach about all of the kool-aid that they serve. For example, Paradigm recommends using dipolar surround speakers for all applications, but I don't use them, I don't recommend them, and I don't see any merit to using them for multichannel music.

Why would I read a DIY article on subwoofers when I don't plan to buy one or build one? The manufacturer with their professional expertise in designing and building speakers is what I am paying for - if I was a speaker designer I'd build my own. Nothing to do with Brand identity? AN and Sugden are veritable No names - it would be great if I loved Paradigm - when I made a recommendation people might actually be able to hear one in their town. Firstly 90% of music is in the midrange - so starting there from companies who are IMO competant at that first. Peter Q is not about re-inventing the wheel if and when it's not required to do so - when it is required they design fully from the ground up their own gear - transformers amplifiers, soldering amterial, cabling and when it's not speakers, turntables(sans one) etc.

Reading a DIY article is exactly what you SHOULD do, given that you've taken to parroting everything that AN puts out as gospel. Peter Q is advocating HIS approach, just as every other manufacturer out there advocates their approach. But, advocating a particular design approach does not help the consumer wade through what is factual and relevant, and what is just unsubstantiated advocacy or buzzwords that don't mean anything. When you're making blanket statements about subwoofer integration and ignoring everything about how the setup parameters affect what you hear, then I guess having some kind of objective information is not a priority.

I don't deny that I put a lot of stock into what Peter has to say - I put more stock into what he has to say than a design team at Paradigm or PSB or B&W etc who are extolling the virtue of a sub when they could not not convince me on their speakers. Peter Q feels there is no subwoofer currently available that works with his K, J and E, speakers. The group there as a design team knows an aweful lot about bass response - assuming that they don't because they don't make a sub is a huge assumption on your part. Judging by how consistant the speakers sound in wildly different rooms with wildly different acousti treatments and the way the speakers pressurize rooms while maintaining high efficieny, tonal greatness and bass response as deep as they do as loud as they do shows me they know bass. When much larger speakers from paradigm and B&W with bigger or more drivers have way less bass, take up more volume, and are far harder to drive and sound worse - who's word to take? Yes I could buy one and test it for myself but why? Because Paradigm and B&W put out a doucument claiming their virtues - or because some guy on an internet forum who can't differentiate significant differences between receivers from good amplification is telling me I should buy it. Very little content is under 30hz

This statement is nothing more than leaning on brand identity to make up for lack of actual experience and technical knowledge. It doesn't matter to me one bit what Paradigm, B&W, Harman, AN, or any of other companies post on their website. And it doesn't matter to me how any of their speakers integrate their drivers or how their main speakers put out bass. NONE of what you're saying has any relevance to the information that I've been reiterating about integrating subwoofers with mains!

Are you trying to use people's choices in equipment to discredit the validity of what they say? So, because you use AN that makes you a subwoofer authority, more so than people who use subs? You're arguing the subject with people who've done the reading, who've done the setups, who've done more than just walk into a store demo room and assume that it's optimally setup, who understand why waves in the bass range behave differently than higher frequencies in normal sized listening rooms, etc., yet none of us have credibility about the subject because our equipment isn't up to your high and mighty standards.

But why would the advice of a manufacturer be tossed out by you over some guy on an internet forum? Why would I should I take your word on Subs over Peter's?

I'm not asking anyone to toss anything out. Try it out and make your own decision about it. You're arguing from the vantage point of having never used a parametric EQ, never setting up a sub with a SPL meter, never worked with a variable crossover, never adjusting the phase switch, never done a room mode calculation, never measured the effects of room treatments, etc. Just listening to a dealer demo does not take any of those parameters into account, and just taking Peter Q at his word doesn't answer the question either.

The quote was from Richard BassNut Green. I post reviews and frequency ranges for people who solely value their use. Personally I can't understand why someone needs to check with a graph and a review to determine if speaker A can produce a piano correctly while the other one sounds so obviously poor in comparison.

And there are technical reasons for using two subs, but they don't have to do with "male voice" or stereo bass. Try reading Harman's white papers on the subject if you want to read more about it. Doc Greene referred to them quite frequently when he was a regular on this site.

What does speaker A producing a piano sound have to do with this subject? But, if you really want to know why checking a graph is valuable -- that's how you identify whether or not you got any in-room problems! Rather than using frequency response graphs to obsessively compare brands, I use them to improve the sound quality on MY own system. In my room, the mains will produce a minimum +8 db peak around 70 Hz (and I know it's room induced because the peak frequency shifts after physically moving the speaker). Crossing over the bass to the subwoofer and using a parametric EQ to correct the room-induced problems from that location, now the piano sound is consistent and full from end to end.

AN has no marketing brochures remember - I don't read what isn't there. And if it's so basic then why did you previously state that good speaker makers won;t know anything about it. I mean if YOU can get a sub to sound good - you're saying that very accomplished speaker designers can't? An is working on it because they want to do it right because in their mind it has not been done right. Money is no issue to them nor are they afraid to co-produce somehting if the other guy has any sort of clue. They are very adept at extracting bass from small cabinets as it is.

The brochures that I was referring to are the ones that you obviously thumb through from the manufacturers that do put them out. You keep bringing up the subject of what Paradigm, PSB, Energy, B&W etc put into their brochures, so I assume that read them a lot. No obsession with brand identity? Okay...

The "good speaker makers" DO know about the issues that I am bringing up. Why do you think manufacturers have begun incorporating equalization into their designs? Most of what I bring up has to do with simply setting the subwoofer up properly. That might be why subs almost always include a variable crossover, phase control, level control, and switchable high and low pass inputs.

Where do I say that manufacturers know nothing about getting a sub to sound good? For that matter, when have I EVER compared subwoofer brands?

Manufacturers make the units, but they're not the ones in your living room setting them up. You keep bringing it back to the manufacturers, but as I have stated over and over, the low frequencies have specific setup and room-induced issues that override anything that the manufacturers have control over. If the room has specific issues from your listening position, it won't matter one bit who made the subwoofer or how good it is.

If I got a $400 subwoofer (made out of DIY components) to sound better than almost every dealer subwoofer demo that I've ever heard by simply going through all of the proper setup prcedures, taking in-room measurements, and installing a parametric EQ, then that should be a clue as to the importance of the proper setup and room corrections. It also indicates the futility of trying to derive anything meaningful from listening to subs in a demo room without knowing about (or being interested in) the setup.

I have logistics issues which can hamper any subwoofer addition as well. For instance I don't want to have to run my system through any of the recievers I have heard on the market over the last 5 years. Ie; I don't want to have to have a receiver to connect my main speakers to. 2) I don't want the AN speakers to be relieved of any frequencies because they're integral to making the complete box sound the way they're suppose to sound. 3) I want the main speakers connected to a SET amp which has no sub output but I choose not to accept the SS amps I've heard from the likes of Bryston to gain that output. I want the seamless integration that AN provides from midwoofer to tweeter with the identical precision from a subwoofer with the kind of tuneful bass response.

Can it be done? Probably - I however have yet to be convinced with a lot less restrictions than this.

As someone else pointed out, there are PLENTY of connection options available with subs that meet all of these criteria that you listed. However, if you don't want to relieve the ANs of any of the frequencies, then you're negating the advantages with the midrange improvements and (if ported) eliminating unnecessary driver excursion at the low end.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

11-10-2004, 04:17 PM

I think you have just added weight to the big controversy amongst various enthusiasts in the audio industry. Whose perspective is more natural? The guy who likes a nearfield perspective or the guy who prefers a farfield perspective. Both perspectives can be captured by the recording engineer, the choice of perspective to capture is down to the artistic perferences of the RE.

One of the difficult things about using the farfield approach to record is that room reverberation changes the natural timbre of acoustical instruments. At some frequencies in the farfield it is difficult for the ear to distinguished the tone of a clarinet from and oboe from a flute. This is because the multiple reflections of the reverberation are actually louder than the source itself at a distance. Nearfield recording removes the rooms response, eleminates frequency aberrations, and enables the sources timbre to arrive before the reflected component. If you attempt to record stereo from a distance it will mono-ize. As the reflections are captured before the original source arrives, it eleminates the timing cues use to ascertain direction. This narrows imaging the further you get from the source. Also fairfield recording tends to muddy the sound as the different reflections arrive at the microphone at different times. That is why you use seperate microphones to record the source, and the ambience

RGA

11-10-2004, 07:41 PM

Same as any other product in any other market, but Sudgen is in the "high-end" market, and consumers that are part of this market (not your average household with a boombox or HTIB, but high-end audiophile types) know of Sugden.

Audio Note is NOT merely a kit ordering site...and you insist on remaining close minded regarding the ultimate truth that advertising is not merely pamphlets, magazines, and tv commercials...advertising is creating AWARENESS...by any means...web forum activity IS a form of advertising...so is a website.

As percentage of the final product cost, I would seriously bet my house that Paradigm's advertising budget isn't even 5%...big companies can advertise very cheaply and enjoy tremendous economies of scale in that department. Truth is, the "advertising costs of speakers" is an unsubstantiated argument without merit, that smaller companies have been clinging to for YEARS....At the end of the day, advertising doesn't cost money, it makes money, effectively allowing a company to decrease costs!!! More anti-capitalist tripe built on bad premises...hey that tactic (just as evil and dirty as advertising) tricks more than some people into buying small brand speakers, thinking they're getting more for their money. That's funny.

Well I disagree and I posted this on another forum - I think you jknow very little about how advertising works - advertising is used for a variety of purposes and on items such as speakers it is SOLELY about generating sales - which is very different from advertising from stable high frequyency purchases such as Corn Flakes or Coca Cola. It appears you don;t understand the difference - thanks I learned that in busineass first year. You are citing a lack of advertising as advertising - from Audio Note which is humourous. Word of mouth advertising started based off the sound of the product FIRST. If it was not for me on this forum I bet almost no one here would give them a second thought or a first one for that matter. It's not Peter's fault if he has a rabid religious like following - actually it is his fault for making superior musically sounding products. been down this road before. Soundhounds has the best subs Paradigm makes.

And like I said before I have nothing against advertising. The entire reason i ever brought it up was spawned simply from my personal experiences with two big Advertisers in Paradigm and B&W which no matter how you would like to twist it physically hand over more CASH to magazines for advertising than does Audio Note. And pamphlets/brochures are not free. Again though this in and of itself I never noticed I bought B&W after all. The only reason I thought about was after seeing big Paradigm posters and plexiglass plaques with some advertised reviews all over the sales floor of a Paradigm dealer and again noticed it with B&W. Even then thisI would never have noticed since most do it - i have no problem with it because they HAVE to do it in order to sell their slim box against the other guy's slim box. I mean Energy has those cool looking woofers and the dealer here is always showing the nice looking woofers with the Energy plaque etc. The reason though was sound. I made an assumption that gee speaker A is better than speaker B and speaker B costs more than twice the money so perhaps speaker B should spend whatever penny they're spending on advertising and put it to the speaker because it's getting hammered by no namer with far less direct advertising. Now I may be totally wrong and you may totally disagree that advertising has anything to do with my assumption that's fine - then I'll go to the alternative which is that speaker B is made by an incompetant company And/OR are just trying to hose me.

Yeah one day I'll try a sub yet again when I get a free in home trial. I suppose I could gamble and if it sucks I can always transfer it to the home theater rig.

It's not elitist by the way - i have been listening to various Paradigms for over a decade - I agree that some in certain price ranges are good for the money - which is to say that I didn;t hear much better for the money at a given price range so a good review by default is in order. The best of a bad bunch still doesn't make it a great speaker. Beating a particular Bose, JBL, Polk, Klipsch, Cerwin Vega, KLH, Energy, PSB, Mirage, Boston Acoustics, Vivid, Advent, Infinity a few years ago isn't exactly saying a helluva lot. And some of these I could make a case for.

If you wsh to discuss subs firther resurrect the reply i already gave you - the moderator probably would like this to be on the topic of DAC's and since i covered the points already in more detail look there.

RGA

11-10-2004, 08:25 PM

As someone else pointed out, there are PLENTY of connection options available with subs that meet all of these criteria that you listed. However, if you don't want to relieve the ANs of any of the frequencies, then you're negating the advantages with the midrange improvements and (if ported) eliminating unnecessary driver excursion at the low end.

I don't have much problem with the rest of it - Audio Note is a different design than all other boxed speakers on the market currently. I have a feeling it has to do with their pressurization envelop approach would/could be lost if low frequencies were cut. I'll try and track down the reason if it's still on line.

To me though the theory should be met with a product in the real world - Harman?- Mirage has interesting theory on speakers but their products tend to fail miserably. This is not a movie where I can respect the idea they were going for but it bored me to tears. Mirage may have the theory the proof is in the pudding - the product - and if you can't ge it to work in reality I'm unimpressed.

I also don't want an EQ in the signal chain

kexodusc

11-11-2004, 04:43 AM

I also don't want an EQ in the signal chain

While normally I agree with this, unless you have the most sensitve ears in the history of mankind, or can sense vibrations similar to a reptile, the parametric eq for your subwoofer will contribute no undesireable colourations, distortion, etc...unless you've got your sub crossed over at 200 Hz or something...even then...

Audio Note is a different design than all other boxed speakers on the market currently. I have a feeling it has to do with their pressurization envelop approach would/could be lost if low frequencies were cut. I'll try and track down the reason if it's still on line.
Having actually seen one of the AN-E/D kits being built, and the end result, I have to question you here...there's no rocket science going on inside the cabinet that creates a pressurized effect that isn't common in any other speaker cabinet...removing bass frequencies will have NO undesireable effect on the midrange, RGA...after all, are you telling me that if you played a song that consisted ONLY of Diana Krall's voice, absent any low frequencies, that the AN speakers have some sort of issue in the mid-range?

It would be no different relieving the woofer of the signal and routing it to a subwoofer. Anything you hear from Peter Q or the boys at the Audio Asylum is simply factually incorrect.

RGA

11-11-2004, 02:28 PM

I'm not going to continue on with this - I sent Peter an e-mail on this matter as to why he's unhappy with subwoofers with his speakers. I did not ask permission to give his reply to me here so I won't except to say that what they require from a sub goes well beyond aligning JUST frequency and phase.

Looks can be quite deceiving. The AN E/Sogon puts out a sound that competitors would argue is an impossibility - for them perhaps. I like Peter for sticking to his guns - I agree with him "arguing rocket propulsion technology with people who have never seen anything more sophisticated than a bicycle" is really quite pointless. Thankfully I heard em side by side --- They beat to a different drummer - a good one.

I have seen the inside of the E as well - maybe you need to look again. It's often what is not there that means something.

kexodusc

11-11-2004, 04:08 PM

I'm not going to continue on with this

I can only assume my last post rebutting your hilarious argument about bass pressurization being important for the midrange has caused you to throw in the flag...Maybe Peter could explain why Diana Krall would sound like crap unless there were low frequencies in the signal simultaneously??? :D

- I sent Peter an e-mail on this matter as to why he's unhappy with subwoofers with his speakers. I did not ask permission to give his reply to me here so I won't except to say that what they require from a sub goes well beyond aligning JUST frequency and phase.
Did Sneaky Pete care to elaborate? What does he "require" the subwoofer to do? Fold space? Convert energy into matter?

Looks can be quite deceiving. The AN E/Sogon puts out a sound that competitors would argue is an impossibility - for them perhaps..
..."For God so loved the world that he gaveth it his only begotten speaker-builder, so that he who so believeth shall not understand why, but buy because Peter sayeth so".
(from the book of Audio Note, 3:16)

I've never argued AN's (other than the Zero's) don't sound great...just for all to believe that they could sound even better.

I like Peter for sticking to his guns - I agree with him "arguing rocket propulsion technology with people who have never seen anything more sophisticated than a bicycle" is really quite pointless.

OMG...The only thing fatter than Peter's profit margins is his f'n ego...sounds like Blind Faith and Blue Sky to me...care to enlighten us bicycle owners, oh exhalted one?
You're not the only person that's heard Audio Note speakers here...

I have seen the inside of the E as well - maybe you need to look again. It's often what is not there that means something.

The only thing I don't see is the gold lining and platinum bonding material that justifies a cost of $US 550 for 2 speaker cabinets...wow! We'll see I'm honestly thinking of buying the SPKR-KIT-02 or 03, but there's the Seas THOR T-Lines that by all accounts are the best kit on the market for the money...
Love them t-lines...

RGA

11-11-2004, 06:46 PM

You want an answer from him ask him for yourself - going through me is unfair and innaproprate - especialy if i misquote him - which I've done in the past. He has argued against much of the mainstream thinking for many years so he does not need me to make meal out of his arguements. Especially since English isn't his first language to start with.

Your Dianna Krall argument is simplistic - Since vocals are in the midband - if you seriously can not tell the difference between "types" of bass response from the E versus most other considred to be Very good speaker's presentation in low level resolution then it's no point further discussing this. Taking the Paradigm 100V3's type of bass presentation and the type offerred by the E or J --- on Dianna Krall's latest album. or her former ones since i have them - the Paradigm Studio 100V3 turns her into a nasal thin sounding brittle highs hacked off edges of notes shadow of her real self. Truly Abysmal.

And this for $2700.00. What exactly was that about proifit margin again? You the one who blasts me for making anti-capitalist statements. Please. From a consumer perspective I compare like priced speakers - if Peter can build it for less money - GOOOOOOD. He deserves it. Because the "like" priced stuff form Paradigm and their ilk is truly caca in comparison. But then not using good cabinets drivers, wiring, crossovers and housed in a bad design and copying the Bose sales model - all adds up to helping destroy the music. But hey don;t worry just buy a SUBwoofer - we know our midrange and bass SUCKS reallyreally bad but if you buiy a SUBwoofer (err woofer), then you will actually get some semblance of bass you SHOULD have got when you spent your $2300.00 on the 705 but didn't.

And since most of their Big competitors do the Exact same thing with almost the exact same sound no one ever hears really good systems. It's no wonder so many people go to Magnepan - anything has to be better than most of the truly abysmal garbage on the market. It's also no wonder Peter's tone is so hostile and arrogant - it's next to impossible NOT to be. Even with some Maggie issues they at least reveal that a large chunk of sound eminitating from the trash Paradigm and their ilk puts out needs a serious re-think.

Elitest - well it's hard not to be in the A/B comparos I've done.

Umm Audio Note provides pre-cut cabinets = labour -- you don't have to order the cabinets. Since the AN E/LX retails at about $4,500 US and competes very very well with speakers in that range( in the blind level matched listening panels it was given a best buy along with some other speakers managed a nice Best Buy award - not perfect some complaints not a listening room with corners to really get them going good and room reflections become an issue too far out from walls creatinga boxy or coloured presentation - but hey of all the vast number of speakers Hi-fi Choice has had since the early 1990s the speaker they kept was the Audio Note - and gee it replaced what? An Audio Note. Not a B&W and most certainly not a Paradigm.

My dealer replaced his flagship Maggies with the bottom AN E(all this info I've only come acroiss well after listening and buying). I've personally heard none better from a system point of view than an all AN system - and blows the crap out of the N801/N802, the ML's at 10K Cdn, JM Labs Mezza Utopias($20,000.00Cdn) Totems etc. It's quite literally embarrassing for the other companies at Soundhounds trying to sell their wares.

Well if building my own E --- even overpaying for the cabinets come to $300.00 LESS than some piece of utter crap like the Paradigm Studio 100V3 then thanks it's a no brainer - for the difference I could hire a pro woodworker to put it together for me to boot. And Audio Note does not directly run the kit site.
The only downside is that it's the equivelant of the E/D. http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=475

Now ask Paradigm why we can't get a kit from them? Oh that's right the money the spend on marketing actually has no cost right and their speaker uses $2598.00 worth of parts and the speaker is boxed and shipped and marketed for the difference and the retailer makes no money off them right? Every company's speakers is market up along the way. And crying foul at one company while not addressing the rest of them is ludicrous.

Woochifer

11-11-2004, 08:01 PM

Your Dianna Krall argument is simplistic - Since vocals are in the midband - if you seriously can not tell the difference between "types" of bass response from the E versus most other considred to be Very good speaker's presentation in low level resolution then it's no point further discussing this. Taking the Paradigm 100V3's type of bass presentation and the type offerred by the E or J --- on Dianna Krall's latest album. or her former ones since i have them - the Paradigm Studio 100V3 turns her into a nasal thin sounding brittle highs hacked off edges of notes shadow of her real self. Truly Abysmal.

Actually, you were the one that has said that if the bottom end of the frequency range gets cut out of the signal, then something goes awry with the ANs because the box design depends on getting the full signal in order to work right. It doesn't make much sense to me either precisely because of the issues that kex brought up -- what if the source signal does not have any low frequencies?

Your exaggerated condemnation of the Studio 100 v.3 also doesn't make much sense on this issue given that you're talking about "brittle highs hacked off edges of notes shadow of her real self", yet the issue is about why the ANs need the low frequencies in the signal in order to sound right.

As an aside, I've listened to both the Studio 20 and 40, and IMO both of them had excellent vocal reproduction and some of the most transparent midrange that I've heard in their respective price ranges. Either the 100 is dramatically different (and my previous listenings of the v.2 series do not indicate that Paradigm voices their floorstanders in the midrange differently than the standmounts) or you're really laying on "abysmal" and "caca" descriptions more for dramatic effect than anything.

Also, how would you actually know what Diana Krall's voice actually sounds like? Have you heard it up close and without any amplicationtion or processing?

And this for $2700.00. What exactly was that about proifit margin again? You the one who blasts me for making anti-capitalist statements. Please. From a consumer perspective I compare like priced speakers - if Peter can build it for less money - GOOOOOOD. He deserves it. Because the "like" priced stuff form Paradigm and their ilk is truly caca in comparison. But then not using good cabinets drivers, wiring, crossovers and housed in a bad design and copying the Bose sales model - all adds up to helping destroy the music. But hey don;t worry just buy a SUBwoofer - we know our midrange and bass SUCKS reallyreally bad but if you buiy a SUBwoofer (err woofer), then you will actually get some semblance of bass you SHOULD have got when you spent your $2300.00 on the 705 but didn't.

It's this kind of nonsensically hyperbolic rant that throws your points off track. When you start talking about Paradigm "and their ilk" and go into how they use inferior parts, bad design, use the Bose sales model, and "destroy" the music, how can anyone take any of your other points seriously? You're not a speaker designer, you DON'T know what parts Paradigm "and their ilk" use, you DON'T know how the designers arrived at the design parameters or even what they are (maybe if you read a DIY article, you could say something substantive about the design process), and you DON'T have inside information about how their marketing compares with Bose. So, all you have to go on is your ears, yet you got all sorts of insights on the inferiority of Paradigm "and their ilk" all the way down the line from conception to design to construction to delivery to marketing. Those ears must be quite golden if they can tell you all that.

When you start accusing a well regarded company like Paradigm of knowingly putting out speakers with inferior midrange and bass just to sell subwoofers, that's just flatout ridiculous for any number of reasons. (and if my listenings of the other v.3 Studio models are any indication, that accusation has no basis in truth in my view) If you KNOW this to be true, tell us how you know this. Otherwise, don't be making up crap like this.

And since most of their Big competitors do the Exact same thing with almost the exact same sound no one ever hears really good systems. It's no wonder so many people go to Magnepan - anything has to be better than most of the truly abysmal garbage on the market. It's also no wonder Peter's tone is so hostile and arrogant - it's next to impossible NOT to be. Even with some Maggie issues they at least reveal that a large chunk of sound eminitating from the trash Paradigm and their ilk puts out needs a serious re-think.

Oh? "no one ever hears really good systems"? So, all of us who like the sound of speakers from larger companies are mistaken because we've never actually heard anything good. Funny. I guess when I auditioned the Maggies and wound up not buying them, it was because I just had excessive ear wax or was under some corrupting influece or something. I mean, judging by your statement, NO WAY I could have preferred abysmal garbage like B&W and Paradigm over something as "revealing" as the Maggies.

The fact that I did NOT opt for the Maggies has NOTHING to do with other speakers meeting MY needs better, right? Okay, since you're so prescient about things going on in the market and about how people get deluded into making the decisions that they do, why don't you tell me why I bought a set of Paradigms over a set of Magneplanars? Obviously, the Maggies are so preferable in your view that any dumb**** would opt for them in an A/B comparison. There must be a reason OTHER THAN me knowing my own sound preferences for buying Paradigm.

Elitest - well it's hard not to be in the A/B comparos I've done.

Elitist? As in an arrogant and hostile attitude towards anything that doesn't suit your preferences is justified just because you "know better"? Sorry, but I've auditioned plenty of high end components in my time and it's all too easy to mistake "different" for "better."

My dealer replaced his flagship Maggies with the bottom AN E(all this info I've only come acroiss well after listening and buying). I've personally heard none better from a system point of view than an all AN system - and blows the crap out of the N801/N802, the ML's at 10K Cdn, JM Labs Mezza Utopias($20,000.00Cdn) Totems etc. It's quite literally embarrassing for the other companies at Soundhounds trying to sell their wares.

Once again, you're presuming that if only the world would give those precious underdog ANs a listen, EVERYBODY would prefer them over the other high priced speakers of the world. SHAME on THEM for daring to occupy the same space as Audio Note!

Now ask Paradigm why we can't get a kit from them? Oh that's right the money the spend on marketing actually has no cost right and their speaker uses $2598.00 worth of parts and the speaker is boxed and shipped and marketed for the difference and the retailer makes no money off them right? Every company's speakers is market up along the way. And crying foul at one company while not addressing the rest of them is ludicrous.

Huh? Why don't you ask Magnepan why we can't get a kit from them? Or Von Schweikert? Or Dynaudio? Or Martin Logan? Or Sonus Faber? Or Vienna Acoustics? Or Innersound? Perhaps the reason why you can't get a kit from them is because NOBODY ASKED THEM to produce one! So Audio Note has a kit option available, nice for you to lower the price point in your obsessive comparisons, but how is it a sign of anything about the quality of the speaker or how well it matches with a consumer's preferences?

Unless you actually know the cost structure of the companies in question, why do you keep making baseless presumptions about the marketing costs? The simple fact is that EVERYBODY's out to make a buck, and with some of your holier than thou praise of Audio Note and devil incarnate damnation of Paradigm in particular, it seems that you're denying that simple fact. Audio Note is not a charity or the salvation of the audio world. They are a BUSINESS that happens to make a product that you're happy with. If you leave it at that rather than bringing all these irrelevant externalities and fanboy loveins into the discussion, then people wouldn't be on your case.

RGA

11-11-2004, 11:48 PM

Actually, you were the one that has said that if the bottom end of the frequency range gets cut out of the signal, then something goes awry with the ANs because the box design depends on getting the full signal in order to work right. It doesn't make much sense to me either precisely because of the issues that kex brought up -- what if the source signal does not have any low frequencies?

You don't get it obviously the speaker does not need bass to work right never said that - it needs the bottom end on bottom end material - to reproduce the superior bass response that the speaker is capable of. Handing that over to the "kind" of bass response on offer from other devices from other cabinets won't. You think the way you're thinking because you believe that that the "kind" of bass Pradigm and their ilk put out resmbles reality - it doesn;t and until you hearAudio Note's J or E properly set up in their system - then you haven;t a clue as to the key bit of info here.

Your exaggerated condemnation of the Studio 100 v.3 also doesn't make much sense on this issue given that you're talking about "brittle highs hacked off edges of notes shadow of her real self", yet the issue is about why the ANs need the low frequencies in the signal in order to sound right.

Once again it's not exagerated - it is relative - it seems to me you've heard a lot of similar stuff - people who recommend taking home two or three "like" speakers to determine which is better - sorry but AN hits you any room I've tried within virtuually any track of any CD or LP I own - instantly it sounds more right and you cannot go back to that sound. It is not unlike hearing sound from a $9.00 clock radio and then comparing it to the Royal Philharmonic. It's not subtle. You may be used to that - and Subs may very well help simply to avoid the crappy kind of bass outputted from the 100. Certainly reduce the bad design by buying the 20 and a sub

As an aside, I've listened to both the Studio 20 and 40, and IMO both of them had excellent vocal reproduction and some of the most transparent midrange that I've heard in their respective price ranges. Either the 100 is dramatically different (and my previous listenings of the v.2 series do not indicate that Paradigm voices their floorstanders in the midrange differently than the standmounts) or you're really laying on "abysmal" and "caca" descriptions more for dramatic effect than anything.

Well if that's what you like be my guest. Some of the V2 series was good for the money. The 100V3 isn't.

Also, how would you actually know what Diana Krall's voice actually sounds like? Have you heard it up close and without any amplicationtion or processing?

Yes she's from my town yes I've heard live unamplified piano only - Yes I've heard Piano, Drums Clarinet etc singularly no amplification - few speakers can even approach drums - The AX Two at $550.00 makes a piano seem more like a real piano than anything I've yet to hear from Paradigm.

It's this kind of nonsensically hyperbolic rant that throws your points off track. When you start talking about Paradigm "and their ilk" and go into how they use inferior parts, bad design, use the Bose sales model, and "destroy" the music, how can anyone take any of your other points seriously? You're not a speaker designer, you DON'T know what parts Paradigm "and their ilk" use, you DON'T know how the designers arrived at the design parameters or even what they are (maybe if you read a DIY article, you could say something substantive about the design process), and you DON'T have inside information about how their marketing compares with Bose. So, all you have to go on is your ears, yet you got all sorts of insights on the inferiority of Paradigm "and their ilk" all the way down the line from conception to design to construction to delivery to marketing. Those ears must be quite golden if they can tell you all that.

Hey it's a given that people who own products I don't care for won't listen to anything I say anyway. Chances are they bought into the magazines and the industry writings already. I could care less if anyone takes me seriously - the people who have auditoined them here in the A/B comparisons and those of a fellow AN owner in town who lends out his speakers - we know. Good ol Socrates Cave - I am happy to have moved beyond the darkness. It's a tough thing because it means admitting what I thought I knew and all those countless hours reading Stereophile and others prattle on about the endless technobabble was for not.

When you start accusing a well regarded company like Paradigm of knowingly putting out speakers with inferior midrange and bass just to sell subwoofers, that's just flatout ridiculous for any number of reasons. (and if my listenings of the other v.3 Studio models are any indication, that accusation has no basis in truth in my view) If you KNOW this to be true, tell us how you know this. Otherwise, don't be making up crap like this.

Well you have a point - maybe they honestly DON'T know. Maybe their 4 driver multi way much larger heavier cabinets put out inferior bass, midrange and treble and require way more power for a reason - that reason escapes me however.

Oh? "no one ever hears really good systems"? So, all of us who like the sound of speakers from larger companies are mistaken because we've never actually heard anything good. Funny. I guess when I auditioned the Maggies and wound up not buying them, it was because I just had excessive ear wax or was under some corrupting influece or something. I mean, judging by your statement, NO WAY I could have preferred abysmal garbage like B&W and Paradigm over something as "revealing" as the Maggies.

I have heard and not loved Maggie either - The Magnepans have logistic problems which will rule them out for many and certain sound traits which, although I've not heard the new big ones, rule em out for me. My statement was that I'm not surprised people make such a huge jump for such a wildly different sound - I never said they were right or wrong - but if I kept hearing the endless sream of Paradigm PSB, JBL, Energy, and POLK's I'm hardly surprised that people jump to something else non boxed.

Elitist? As in an arrogant and hostile attitude towards anything that doesn't suit your preferences is justified just because you "know better"? Sorry, but I've auditioned plenty of high end components in my time and it's all too easy to mistake "different" for "better."

High end or high priced? Yes I've heard different that was not necessarily better as well - the Magnepan SMG, speakers from Vandersteen, etc.

Once again, you're presuming that if only the world would give those precious underdog ANs a listen, EVERYBODY would prefer them over the other high priced speakers of the world. SHAME on THEM for daring to occupy the same space as Audio Note!

No - I never said that --- there are lots of things people may have a preference for that the AN's won;t provide for them - Such is life.

Huh? Why don't you ask Magnepan why we can't get a kit from them? Or Von Schweikert? Or Dynaudio? Or Martin Logan? Or Sonus Faber? Or Vienna Acoustics? Or Innersound? Perhaps the reason why you can't get a kit from them is because NOBODY ASKED THEM to produce one! So Audio Note has a kit option available, nice for you to lower the price point in your obsessive comparisons, but how is it a sign of anything about the quality of the speaker or how well it matches with a consumer's preferences?

Kex attacked Audio Note's pricing - well the same argument can be made for the mark-up of ALL retail prices from ALL speaker makers. Indeed why not those companies you mention.

Unless you actually know the cost structure of the companies in question, why do you keep making baseless presumptions about the marketing costs? The simple fact is that EVERYBODY's out to make a buck, and with some of your holier than thou praise of Audio Note and devil incarnate damnation of Paradigm in particular, it seems that you're denying that simple fact. Audio Note is not a charity or the salvation of the audio world. They are a BUSINESS that happens to make a product that you're happy with. If you leave it at that rather than bringing all these irrelevant externalities and fanboy loveins into the discussion, then people wouldn't be on your case.

Umm I don't like the double standard you obviously believe. Audio Note makes a buck and their the devil but Paradigm makes a buck but their sensibly priced loudspeakers improving the industry at large. I've never said AN doesn't or should not be operating at a profit - hell I hope he makes the biggest profit in the industry. But people like to continually bring up AN's profit as some sort of evil thing. Umm please explain it to me. If AN's $5000.00 speaker makes Peter $4000.00 in pure profit and Paradigm's $5000.00 speaker makes Paradigm only $3000.00 Profit I'm trying to figure out what the hell that has to do with tea in China - or the "sound" of the speakers in question.