$1200 vs $200 cd players

[RGA]

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]

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]

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.

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 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.

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.

[Woochifer]

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]

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.

[RobotCzar]

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.

[kexodusc]

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]

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]

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]

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, ‘What’s the point of using trickery to remove distortion that you can’t hear if, in doing so, you suck the joy and life from recordings?’"

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/fr...3690&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

[RGA]

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 -

[theaudiohobby]

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 -

What books on loudspeaker design or acoustics have you read, that made you to arrive at this conclusion?

[theaudiohobby]

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]

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, ‘What’s the point of using trickery to remove distortion that you can’t hear if, in doing so, you suck the joy and life from recordings?’"

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/fr...3690&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]

...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 .

[RGA]

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.

[RGA]

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 .

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

[RGA]

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]

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 .

[DMK]

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 .

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]

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 -

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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.