$1200 vs $200 cd players

[Woochifer]

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]

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]

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.

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...

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

Why would I read a DIY article on subwoofers when I don't plan to buy one or build one?

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.

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.

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?

Nothing to do with Brand identity? AN and Sugden are veritable No names

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.

[theaudiohobby]

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. 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]

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 .

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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???

- 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]

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]

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]

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.