Does "state of the art" matter?

[RGA]

Well when it comes to digital and analog people are biased. For instance people will trot out some recording engineer or a whole bunch of them that prefer Digital. And that's fine. It doesn't really mean they have good hearing since so many people complain so much about the sound of recordings - it may be that those recording engineers are tone deaf so who really cares what they have to say.

So you could take the manufacturers word for it - but if the manufacturer only males digital you can throw them out the window too because they have a bias.

So you then have to go to the manufacturers on the replay end of the chain who make BOTH CD/digital and a turntable. Then out of all those makers you ask them what they think sounds better. And my bet is that in every case they choose the turntable.

It really does come down to the recording and the players in question and the phono stage.


Tube Fan.

Audio Note is somewhat biased. Peter Qvortrup owns 100,000+ records mostly expensive rare and a lot of one of a kind prints. I remember an interview when he said he only bothered with CD for two reasons - 1) a lot of good music is only on CD and 2) everyone else's players sucked so he had to start from scratch.

Bottom line though is you can't convince any of these people because very few of them actually listen - not even the review press I'm sorry to say. I have records from the 60s that are so hauntingly real that it is unbelievable. Then I play some Chesky records or Reference Recordings disc and it is just so bad in comparison and these two are considered the world's best recording outfits - and they're better than other CD's so they're good against today's competition. Something went wrong somewhere - "loudness wars maybe?" I don't know. But I have albums from the 70s like Jackson Brown on vinyl that sound miles better than the CD versions and the CD version at least has some dynamic headroom compared to a lot of 1990 on digital.

This is an interview with reviewer Malcolm Steward and he compares digital to vinyl http://www.malcolmsteward.co.uk/?page_id=1631

Besides all that - Check out Audio Note's web designer (I think) working in PQ's office. Wall to wall vinyl in the background. And this is what you do with an Audio Note rig LOL - Use the 90k amp and AN E speakers as a guitar amp - that's the way it ought be. Any kind of music anytime. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7WZ_db2zVg

[Ajani]

Well when it comes to digital and analog people are biased. For instance people will trot out some recording engineer or a whole bunch of them that prefer Digital. And that's fine. It doesn't really mean they have good hearing since so many people complain so much about the sound of recordings - it may be that those recording engineers are tone deaf so who really cares what they have to say.

OR it could just be that they actually prefer the sound and nothing is wrong with their hearing...

Anyway, this really is boring... You gents like tubes and vinyl... great, we get it...

[Feanor]

50% of Stereophile's "reviewers" use NO digital in their "reviews"! This despite the popularity of analogue in audio rooms and in Stereophile's own readers! If you think the best digital is close to the best analogue, you need to get your hearing checked! 100% of the salesmen at the 2010 CAS admitted that analogue was superior to digital, even those who had no analogue (e.g., the Audio Note salesman).

Gads! Another dogmatic statement from Tube Fan. At least RGA tries (lamely) to rationalize his preferences.

Lots of people like vinyl / SET / HE versus modern alternatives ... can't argue with personal preference. But since these technologies are demonstrably inferior by any objective measure, we can surmise that they act as filters to accurate sound, and filtered sound is what their proponents prefer.

I gotta laugh. Salesmen at conferences telling customers what they want to hear: unbelievable!

[harley .guy07]

I have heard great analog and great digital and I do not have a favorite but I choose mostly digital for the fact that for one you can't scratch and ruin a digital file. I can play my digital file on my laptop with headphones, on my car stereo, on my home system with a CD or through my pc and my DAC. and all of my music is backed up on a external hard drive in case the file on my computer gets corrupted or the computer crashes so I have multiple copies. With vinyl you cant do that and if you scratch it or drop it its ruined and needs replaced which in today's world of vinyl is not cheap for a good vinyl recording. I have a turntable but hardly use it for these reasons and that is just my preference. I will say that the newer digital audio coming out especially the 24 96 or higher stuff is really good and does good by the music not like earlier CD's from the 80's did. Like I said though for me it is a preference and not something worth arguing about.

[frenchmon]

I have heard great analog and great digital and I do not have a favorite but I choose mostly digital for the fact that for one you can't scratch and ruin a digital file. I can play my digital file on my laptop with headphones, on my car stereo, on my home system with a CD or through my pc and my DAC. and all of my music is backed up on a external hard drive in case the file on my computer gets corrupted or the computer crashes so I have multiple copies. With vinyl you cant do that and if you scratch it or drop it its ruined and needs replaced which in today's world of vinyl is not cheap for a good vinyl recording. I have a turntable but hardly use it for these reasons and that is just my preference. I will say that the newer digital audio coming out especially the 24 96 or higher stuff is really good and does good by the music not like earlier CD's from the 80's did. Like I said though for me it is a preference and not something worth arguing about.

Just wondering harley...what table and cart do you have?

Thanks...

[E-Stat]

50% of Stereophile's "reviewers" use NO digital in their "reviews"!

Analog is great and I have two turntables. On the other hand, I cannot imagine ignoring 99% of musical content released in the past twenty five years.

rw

[Ajani]

Analog is great and I have two turntables. On the other hand, I cannot imagine ignoring 99% of musical content released in the past twenty five years.

rw

That would be my main reason for lacking any interest in Vinyl...

Now compare that to this nonsense:

JA for instance prefers the lean presentation of speakers like JM Labs, Focal, Paradigm. But he also isn't a music guy in the sense that he is interested in sound more than music - this is easily seen in the fact that he doesn't have a vinyl rig. If it was about the music first and foremost he would have vinyl since so much music is on vinyl and not CD and a great many albums sound better on vinyl than CD.

I'm not sure what ancient albums RGA feels are only available on Vinyl and not CD. Not a single album I listen to is only available on Vinyl (in fact the majority aren't available on Vinyl). So one could easily be a music lover (as I am) and not own a TT...

Plus, even if the handful of my CDs that are also available on Vinyl sounds better on Vinyl, SO WHAT? Am I really suppose to split my budget between a digital player and a TT just so a handful of songs sound "better" at the expense of the majority of my collection? That doesn't sound like what a music lover would do...

The idea that a music lover must own a turntable is just ridiculous....

[Feanor]

...

....
It is not about the experience listeners who disagree with me. JA for instance prefers the lean presentation of speakers like JM Labs, Focal, Paradigm. But he also isn't a music guy in the sense that he is interested in sound more than music - this is easily seen in the fact that he doesn't have a vinyl rig. If it was about the music first and foremost he would have vinyl since so much music is on vinyl and not CD and a great many albums sound better on vinyl than CD. This is not to dump on CD but there are simply superior recordings on the vinyl format that were transferred to CD badly. CD is needed for the same reasons - lots of great music on CD not on vinyl - so again not dumping on CD but you should have both if it is about music.
...

I'm not sure what ancient albums RGA feels are only available on Vinyl and not CD. Not a single album I listen to is only available on Vinyl (in fact the majority aren't available on Vinyl). So one could easily be a music lover (as I am) and not own a TT...

Plus, even if the handful of my CDs that are also available on Vinyl sounds better on Vinyl, SO WHAT? Am I really suppose to split my budget between a digital player and a TT just so a handful of songs sound "better" at the expense of the majority of my collection? That doesn't sound like what a music lover would do...

The idea that a music lover must own a turntable is just ridiculous....

"It is not about the experience listeners who disagree with me ...", says RGA. On the contrary. The above gravely slanders John Atkinson who not only edits Stereophile but also produces recordings. It also illustrates the delusion double-think with which RGA abuses himself. He doesn't like the sound presentation that JA likes so suddenly JA doesn't care about music. This doesn't follow, in fact it's warped.

I pointed out not long ago that in case of Classical music new LPs virtually non-extent. RGA protested that, no, on the contrary, there are plenty available. He referred us to several websites selling a supposedly extensive catalog; none listed more than 250 items. A certain sort of audiophile might think that 250 records is a lot, but not many music lovers will.

[Ajani]

"It is not about the experience listeners who disagree with me ...", says RGA. On the contrary. The above gravely slanders John Atkinson who not only edits Stereophile but also produces recordings. It also illustrates the delusion double-think with which RGA abuses himself. He doesn't like the sound presentation that JA likes so suddenly JA doesn't care about music. This doesn't follow, in fact it's warped.

That is exactly the issue I've had with RGA (well, one of the issues). He can never just accept that other experienced listeners have different opinions than him, he needs to discredit them in some way. At least he's moved away from talking about some alleged personal grudge that John Atkinson has with Peter Q of Audio Note...

The problem RGA never gets, is that the way he tosses insults at any reviewers he doesn't agree with or brands he doesn't fancy, makes persons far less likely to want to try any of the brands he recommends... If I was Peter Q, I'd beg him not to mention AN on any forums...

I pointed out not long ago that in case of Classical music new LPs virtually non-extent. RGA protested that, no, on the contrary, there are plenty available. He referred us to several websites selling a supposedly extensive catalog; none listed more than 250 items. A certain sort of audiophile might think that 250 records is a lot, but not many music lovers will.

I don't buy SACD, but's its blatantly obvious why someone else would. If I was a hardcore classical fan I would have purchased the Marantz SA8001 back in the day, instead of my Benchmark... If the music I loved was only available on Vinyl, then I'd have a TT... None of this is rocket science...

[E-Stat]

That would be my main reason for lacking any interest in Vinyl...

or, conversely why others do depending upon the age and mix of their library.

I'm not sure what ancient albums RGA feels are only available on Vinyl and not CD. Not a single album I listen to is only available on Vinyl (in fact the majority aren't available on Vinyl). So one could easily be a music lover (as I am) and not own a TT...

There really are quite a few out-of-print recordings. Some folks already have large vinyl collections.

Plus, even if the handful of my CDs that are also available on Vinyl sounds better on Vinyl, SO WHAT? Am I really suppose to split my budget between a digital player and a TT just so a handful of songs sound "better" at the expense of the majority of my collection?

That is my argument against multi-channel.

rw

[Ajani]

or, conversely why others do depending upon the age and mix of their library.


There really are quite a few out-of-print recordings. Some folks already have large vinyl collections.

All of which I agree with, but that doesn't mean only persons who own a TT are music lovers ... IMO, the source(s) you own should be largely based on whether the type of music you listen to is available in that format...

[E-Stat]

... but that doesn't mean only persons who own a TT are music lovers ... IMO, the source(s) you own should be largely based on whether the type of music you listen to is available in that format...

Many true music lovers (aka conductors and musicians) have poor systems in general.

rw

[Ajani]

Many true music lovers (aka conductors and musicians) have poor systems in general.

rw

Yep, some are more interested in a real live experience than trying to create a virtual live experience in their homes...

If I had continued playing the piano as a boy, I'd probably be spending my time composing songs (or at least playing them) rather than listening to a stereo...

[RGA]

Gads! Another dogmatic statement from Tube Fan. At least RGA tries (lamely) to rationalize his preferences.

Lots of people like vinyl / SET / HE versus modern alternatives ... can't argue with personal preference. But since these technologies are demonstrably inferior by any objective measure, we can surmise that they act as filters to accurate sound, and filtered sound is what their proponents prefer.

I gotta laugh. Salesmen at conferences telling customers what they want to hear: unbelievable!

No they're not demonstrably inferior - they have "certain" measurements that are inferior. In demonstrations it is always the SE amplifiers that demonstrate better - even against the guys who don't make it. That is why amps like the $100 Radford beat $3000 Meridian. And no one measures better than Meridian. So when the guy who designs and builds Meridian listens blind and and says the best sound was from a Radford - that IS the demonstration and the result is clear. And when all the other designers in the room from top makers also choose the tube amp - then it's not one guy or two it was all of them.

One day you might bother to listen to something half way decent. Maybe go to CAS.

[Ajani]

No they're not demonstrably inferior - they have "certain" measurements that are inferior. In demonstrations it is always the SE amplifiers that demonstrate better - even against the guys who don't make it. That is why amps like the $100 Radford beat $3000 Meridian. And no one measures better than Meridian. So when the guy who designs and builds Meridian listens blind and and says the best sound was from a Radford - that IS the demonstration and the result is clear. And when all the other designers in the room from top makers also choose the tube amp - then it's not one guy or two it was all of them.

One day you might bother to listen to something half way decent. Maybe go to CAS.

+

Stereophile - "I used a selection of master tapes as the source. When the results of the blind test were analyzed, the tubed Radford had come in first, despite showing the poorest measured performance." http://www.stereophile.com/reference/70/

Not just an opinion. Sugden A21a - always wins in the blind test shootouts - and it always measures the worst.

1) Since you say say "always" in both instances, then clearly there are multiple tests in which the Sugden has won... So could you please let us know what tests those are... All I've heard from you is one blind test in HiFi News from 1975 and mentioned in your Stereophile link (Sudgen wasn't a part of, but the Radford was) and another blind test in HiFi Choice in which the Sudgen won... I hope you aren't basing your argument that "it is always the SE amplifiers that demonstrate better" on 2 very different tests, decades apart...

2) Your claim that "And when all the other designers in the room from top makers also choose the tube amp - then it's not one guy or two it was all of them." is not true. The article does not say they unanimously chose the Radford, it just says that the Radford won:

the tubed Radford had come in first, despite showing the poorest measured performance.

[RGA]

Well Sugden's test and the Radford are both examples of the same no feedback example. Other tests have been done - the Sugden several times over the decades. if you were truly interested you would look it up. I gave you two pretty decent examples - You can find the rest.

I find it funny - how many tests is enough? Why not provide just one test where the Sugden or the Radford lost or an SE amp lost? Even with just those 2 it is still better than zero. Something tells me nothing would be enough - so there really isn't any point. You have convinced yourself that every opinion I have on anything audio is completely wrong. That's fine.

Incidentally - Peter Q has no problem with what I have to say. He already believes his stuff is the best on the market and he gets into his own series of spiral debates on internet forums. Having other people say the same thing isn't going to trouble him. And people who get defensive and take pot shots without auditioning - well it''s not like they're going to be buying anyway. So exactly what does he lose? He can't even keep up with the demand he has. Can't even supply his dealers. And when you do hear it and you end up wanting it you are going to wait at least 6 months to get it.

For heaven sake Soundhounds is giving people a bunch of their demo gear to hold them over while they wait for their orders to come in. I know one of them who is the husband of a professor at the local University. The guy had a set of AN J's waiting for AN E's and when he finally got the AN E - the AN J went to another person to tide them over until their E came in. Another ended up buying the AN J as well. Soundhounds doesn't even advertise Audio Note on their website anymore because they can't meet the demand. It's getting silly. Even as a reviewer I can't get things from them. And with going into the recording studio later this year early next year - it ain't going to get any better.

Anyway, when you actually audition the stuff you opine about let me know. The he said she said game is all fine and good and somewhat entertaining for forum discussion. Has nothing to do with actually auditioning and forming judgements and having experiential listening to draw from.

[tube fan]

I've done dozens of blind comparisons of the same performance on analogue vs digital. I ALWAYS preferred the analogue version, as did 80+% of the other listeners. 100% of the demonstrators at the 2010 CAS (that I asked) admitted that analogue was FAR superior to digital. AD and MF (I bet they are, BY FAR, the most popular reviewers in SP) both concur. At least 90% of TAS's reviewers prefer analogue. I went to an audio event in SF where the Simaudio representative admitted that analogue was much more accurate than digital, but that digital was more convenient! Music is analogue. Digital takes the original analogue and converts it to bits, and then processes those bits in various ways, and, then, because humans only hear analogue, you have to convert those bits back into analogue! What a waste! Digital IS convenient, but that's it!

[Feanor]

I've done dozens of blind comparisons of the same performance on analogue vs digital. I ALWAYS preferred the analogue version, as did 80+% of the other listeners. 100% of the demonstrators at the 2010 CAS (that I asked) admitted that analogue was FAR superior to digital. AD and MF (I bet they are, BY FAR, the most popular reviewers in SP) both concur. At least 90% of TAS's reviewers prefer analogue.
...

There is no arguing with preference. Likely most people prefer their coffee with cream & sugar; this doesn't make it "better" than black. A high proportion of people -- especially "audiophiles" -- prefer analog. A chain like vinyl > cartridge > tube RIAA > tube line > tube amp > HE full-range will highly filter the sound: think of it as cream & sugar.

...
I went to an audio event in SF where the Simaudio representative admitted that analogue was much more accurate than digital, but that digital was more convenient! Music is analogue. Digital takes the original analogue and converts it to bits, and then processes those bits in various ways, and, then, because humans only hear analogue, you have to convert those bits back into analogue! What a waste! Digital IS convenient, but that's it!

For sure digital is "more convenient" (-- at least in every way that I can think of). But this doesn't mean that it is incapable of accrate reproduction. By virtually any objective measure 16/44.1 is as good or better than LP (for accuracy, and without regard to clicks & pops); any higher bit rate is far better. What matters is the resulting wave form: digital can reproduce the wave form of the master more accurately of vinyl.

Vinyl is a filter. People -- who prefer vinyl -- have copied LPs to CD and admit that the characteristic of vinyl is preserved. There are also people who have vinyl cutting equipment who have made LPs from CD; they say that the result has the character of vinyl.

Incidentally I like my coffee black.

[Ajani]

I've done dozens of blind comparisons of the same performance on analogue vs digital. I ALWAYS preferred the analogue version, as did 80+% of the other listeners.

Considering that you were the same person who found that in a blind test 80 +% of audiophiles preferred MP3 to high res, then you should realize that preference is not proof of accuracy...

I was at a recent blind listening test of MP3 vs high rez digital, and even I was shocked that over 80% of those attending (most very confident owners of very expensive equipment) thought the hi rez was MP3! Yes, both my wife (who helps in my own blind testing) and I correctly identified the MP3. I hate most digital, but the high rez actually sounded pretty good to me, while the MP3 was flat, and lacked detail. Not close IMO, but only a handful preferred the high rez!

[tube fan]

There is no arguing with preference. Likely most people prefer their coffee with cream & sugar; this doesn't make it "better" than black. A high proportion of people -- especially "audiophiles" -- prefer analog. A chain like vinyl > cartridge > tube RIAA > tube line > tube amp > HE full-range will highly filter the sound: think of it as cream & sugar.


For sure digital is "more convenient" (-- at least in every way that I can think of). But this doesn't mean that it is incapable of accrate reproduction. By virtually any objective measure 16/44.1 is as good or better than LP (for accuracy, and without regard to clicks & pops); any higher bit rate is far better. What matters is the resulting wave form: digital can reproduce the wave form of the master more accurately of vinyl.

Vinyl is a filter. People -- who prefer vinyl -- have copied LPs to CD and admit that the characteristic of vinyl is preserved. There are also people who have vinyl cutting equipment who have made LPs from CD; they say that the result has the character of vinyl.

Incidentally I like my coffee black.

I also like my coffee black, and hate all the over-roasted coffee beans that are so very popular with those who use cream and sugar.

As for your contention that digital is better than analogue because it measures better, I'm far from convinced. Digital has ALWAYS measured better than analogue, but almost everyone now admits that early digital was crap. Thousands of factors are involved in audio reproduction, and the usual measurements that JA and others make only address a small fraction of factors. I suspect that AD, MF, SM, RGA, and the reviewers at TAS trust their ears more than the usual set of measurements. Most people buy audio equipment to listen to, not to measure!

[Ajani]

Incidentally - Peter Q has no problem with what I have to say. He already believes his stuff is the best on the market and he gets into his own series of spiral debates on internet forums. Having other people say the same thing isn't going to trouble him. And people who get defensive and take pot shots without auditioning - well it''s not like they're going to be buying anyway. So exactly what does he lose? He can't even keep up with the demand he has. Can't even supply his dealers. And when you do hear it and you end up wanting it you are going to wait at least 6 months to get it.

For heaven sake Soundhounds is giving people a bunch of their demo gear to hold them over while they wait for their orders to come in. I know one of them who is the husband of a professor at the local University. The guy had a set of AN J's waiting for AN E's and when he finally got the AN E - the AN J went to another person to tide them over until their E came in. Another ended up buying the AN J as well. Soundhounds doesn't even advertise Audio Note on their website anymore because they can't meet the demand. It's getting silly. Even as a reviewer I can't get things from them. And with going into the recording studio later this year early next year - it ain't going to get any better.

Long lines for a very small quantity of gear means what exactly? When I used to go to clubs in Toronto, the clubs were notorious for making persons wait at least 40 minutes to get in despite the club not even being a third full... That was simply an attempt to convince passers by that the club was a hot spot. So AN always having a long wait means nothing at all...

Also, considering how long AN has been delivering the same line up of products, and the capital at the disposal of Peter Q, if he was evenly slightly interested in meeting this alleged demand he could... If lines are long, it is his intention for them to be so and nothing more....

Instead of touting the alleged superiority of his products, Peter Q should make them readily accessible for audition and purchase... It's easy to run off your mouth on forums when there is little chance that most persons will have the opportunity to test your claims... The few HE speaker companies that attempt to make themselves readily available meet with the same kind of mixed reviews as any other brand... Just check out the feedback for Klipsch and Zu...

[Feanor]

Considering that you were the same person who found that in a blind test 80 +% of audiophiles preferred MP3 to high res, then you should realize that preference is not proof of accuracy...
Quote:

I was at a recent blind listening test of MP3 vs high rez digital, and even I was shocked that over 80% of those attending (most very confident owners of very expensive equipment) thought the hi rez was MP3! Yes, both my wife (who helps in my own blind testing) and I correctly identified the MP3. I hate most digital, but the high rez actually sounded pretty good to me, while the MP3 was flat, and lacked detail. Not close IMO, but only a handful preferred the high rez!

MP3 shares one characteristic of vinyl: it is a filter. To my hearing, MP3 has a distinctly smoothing effect, (though it does indeed loose air and detail). It isn't surprising to me that many people prefer the smoothed version of the music -- whether smoothed by MP3 or vinyl.

MP3 does have various degrees of loss. 128 kbps delivers obvious degradation vs. CD (or LP), but 320 kbps or VBR Extreme can sound extremely close to source depending on the recording.

[tube fan]

The MP3 vs hi rez blind listening was very short term (say 20 to 30 seconds). Yes, to me the difference was clear, but, then, I have a lot of experience with blind listening. I'm certain that AD, MF, RGA, and the others who prefer analogue would easily have correctly identified the MP3 cuts.

ALL audio products modify input. EACH AND EVERY ONE! Nothing is a straight wire with gain. That is true of all analogue and all digital units. The real question is this: what components sound accurate to you over the long term? A HUGE % of reviewers, audio company representatives, audio demonstrators, and high end consumers prefer analogue. That was NOT true twenty years ago, but analogue gives long term satisfaction, while digital does not. I can happily listen to live music for countless hours. I can happily listen to analogue for countless hours. I can take digital for about an hour. To me, both digital and ss bleach-out the sound and render three-dimensional music two-dimensional.

If you really consistently prefer MP3 to high rez over the long term, you should not waste money moving up from MP3. If you can't tell the difference between a $2,000 ss amp and one costing upwards of $20,000, you should save the money and buy the $2,000 unit (assuming you preferred ss over tubes). Ditto for inexpensive and expensive analogue.

The exact same thing happens with wines. Many wealthy wine consumers buy famous, expensive wines, when they prefer inexpensive wines tasted blind. Blind listening and tasting removes the bias produced from brand, cost, and type.

When I go to audio shows or to audio stores, I DO, of course, listen to the latest and greatest digital and ss. With the singular exception of the Audio Note CD, nothing I have heard impresses me. Unfortunately, I don't think there is an Audio Note dealer close to where I live. I would love to hear an AN CD player over many hours.

[RGA]

Long lines for a very small quantity of gear means what exactly? When I used to go to clubs in Toronto, the clubs were notorious for making persons wait at least 40 minutes to get in despite the club not even being a third full... That was simply an attempt to convince passers by that the club was a hot spot. So AN always having a long wait means nothing at all...

Also, considering how long AN has been delivering the same line up of products, and the capital at the disposal of Peter Q, if he was evenly slightly interested in meeting this alleged demand he could... If lines are long, it is his intention for them to be so and nothing more....

Instead of touting the alleged superiority of his products, Peter Q should make them readily accessible for audition and purchase... It's easy to run off your mouth on forums when there is little chance that most persons will have the opportunity to test your claims... The few HE speaker companies that attempt to make themselves readily available meet with the same kind of mixed reviews as any other brand... Just check out the feedback for Klipsch and Zu...

Audio Note has doubled the size of their staff - there is only so fast a company can grow and do so safely. Nobody wants long lines - long lines loses sales - and dealers because dealers want the easiest buck possible. Whatever 'prestige' factor may result with a wait is more than nullified by a loss of sales. North America is a fast food nation and needs products yesterday - and that is why AN does 5% of their business in North America. You have to wait and few are willing to wait. Telling customers they have to wait for an item is not the greatest of business ideas. What it usually means is the customer will buy something else. Or at least this is the Dealer's concern. He has to stock demo gear - spend time letting people audition then when the person wants it he has to tell them - give me the money now and I will place the order - by the way it will take 10 months for the turntable - maybe longer. Now even if it was the best performing unit in the store - would you spend $5k up front on a turntable or amp to wait 10 months maybe longer? Dealer's don't want to go near that conversation or the hassle that when the 6month or 10 month wait go by that it still isn't ready. The dealer has to bare the brunt of those conversations. Soundhounds deals with it a lot and it is a huge pain in the arse. But they deal with it because they knew it going in and they're big enough to lend enough demo stuff out to keep people happy while they wait.

From the customer perspective is that often the person is willing to wait because it is "that" much better than the rest of the stuff in the store. IMO Audio Note is truly "that" much better than the rest of the stuff that Soundhounds carries at similar or higher price points. I'd like to be more diplomatic but I can't and hell why be dimplomatic - the people selling the stuff aren't. And Soundhounds carries some damn good gear.

The comparison to Klipsch and Zu, with respect to them - isn't a comparison. Consider that these are speaker first companies - one with a very long track record the other not so much. Neither has had the "critical" acclaim that Audio Note (or Snell) received. Remember the Type A was roundly viewed as one of the handful best loudspeakers ever created. The Type E and J were owned by many reviewers and were highly regarded when they came out - they did after all put Snell on the map. When he died the company hired Kevin Voecks and they too got some reviews but they were nowhere near as good and Snell eventually went bankrupt. Bought by BA and then Denon - but the original models and the second series were highly regarded.

Klipsch was basically made famous by the Heritage line. They K-Horn and certain other models are well thought of but not much else. Zu appears to be a solid budget loudspeaker with high efficiency and an advantage of single driver sound. A poor man's Teresonic.

The AN speakers (J and E and to some extent the K) are IMO the best loudspeakers in their class. (which is why I bought them in the first place). And I bought them back before they had any kind of review presence. IMO it comes down to some simple points.

1) Speakers is not the main business at Audio Note - They do a lot of things and speakers are a part of it.

2) The company is relatively tiny compared to speaker making heaveyweights such as say a Dynaudio, B&W, Revel, Paradigm, JM Labs Focal, (panels), and most other speaker makers in this price class.

3) most people will accept 1 and 2 being truths because they are after all facts.

4) Audio Note speakers despite 1 and 2 are owned by a very high number of reviewers who have heard those BIG speakers brands. To be a reviewer you would have had to have heard the majority of the BIG speaker brands.

5) with 4 in mind it is also true that not nearly as many reviewers have heard AN speakers.

6) couple 4 and 5 together and I find it remarkable that such a huge percentage of reviewers would buy AN speakers relative to the size of the company versus speaker only makers. Actually I don't find it too remarkable because I have auditioned most of the big name speaker companies for the same money.

Consider that this is not even their main thing and they a lot of reviewers all around the world on board - more-so than huge dedicated speaker manufacturers. If that isn't worth your time then I can't help you. When Zu or Klipsch do that then you can make a comparison - they have not. Not yet anyway.

[Ajani]

Audio Note has doubled the size of their staff - there is only so fast a company can grow and do so safely. Nobody wants long lines - long lines loses sales - and dealers because dealers want the easiest buck possible. Whatever 'prestige' factor may result with a wait is more than nullified by a loss of sales. North America is a fast food nation and needs products yesterday - and that is why AN does 5% of their business in North America. You have to wait and few are willing to wait. Telling customers they have to wait for an item is not the greatest of business ideas. What it usually means is the customer will buy something else. Or at least this is the Dealer's concern. He has to stock demo gear - spend time letting people audition then when the person wants it he has to tell them - give me the money now and I will place the order - by the way it will take 10 months for the turntable - maybe longer. Now even if it was the best performing unit in the store - would you spend $5k up front on a turntable or amp to wait 10 months maybe longer? Dealer's don't want to go near that conversation or the hassle that when the 6month or 10 month wait go by that it still isn't ready. The dealer has to bare the brunt of those conversations. Soundhounds deals with it a lot and it is a huge pain in the arse. But they deal with it because they knew it going in and they're big enough to lend enough demo stuff out to keep people happy while they wait.

From the customer perspective is that often the person is willing to wait because it is "that" much better than the rest of the stuff in the store. IMO Audio Note is truly "that" much better than the rest of the stuff that Soundhounds carries at similar or higher price points. I'd like to be more diplomatic but I can't and hell why be dimplomatic - the people selling the stuff aren't. And Soundhounds carries some damn good gear.

The comparison to Klipsch and Zu, with respect to them - isn't a comparison. Consider that these are speaker first companies - one with a very long track record the other not so much. Neither has had the "critical" acclaim that Audio Note (or Snell) received. Remember the Type A was roundly viewed as one of the handful best loudspeakers ever created. The Type E and J were owned by many reviewers and were highly regarded when they came out - they did after all put Snell on the map. When he died the company hired Kevin Voecks and they too got some reviews but they were nowhere near as good and Snell eventually went bankrupt. Bought by BA and then Denon - but the original models and the second series were highly regarded.

Klipsch was basically made famous by the Heritage line. They K-Horn and certain other models are well thought of but not much else. Zu appears to be a solid budget loudspeaker with high efficiency and an advantage of single driver sound. A poor man's Teresonic.

The AN speakers (J and E and to some extent the K) are IMO the best loudspeakers in their class. (which is why I bought them in the first place). And I bought them back before they had any kind of review presence. IMO it comes down to some simple points.

1) Speakers is not the main business at Audio Note - They do a lot of things and speakers are a part of it.

2) The company is relatively tiny compared to speaker making heaveyweights such as say a Dynaudio, B&W, Revel, Paradigm, JM Labs Focal, (panels), and most other speaker makers in this price class.

3) most people will accept 1 and 2 being truths because they are after all facts.

4) Audio Note speakers despite 1 and 2 are owned by a very high number of reviewers who have heard those BIG speakers brands. To be a reviewer you would have had to have heard the majority of the BIG speaker brands.

5) with 4 in mind it is also true that not nearly as many reviewers have heard AN speakers.

6) couple 4 and 5 together and I find it remarkable that such a huge percentage of reviewers would buy AN speakers relative to the size of the company versus speaker only makers. Actually I don't find it too remarkable because I have auditioned most of the big name speaker companies for the same money.

Consider that this is not even their main thing and they a lot of reviewers all around the world on board - more-so than huge dedicated speaker manufacturers. If that isn't worth your time then I can't help you. When Zu or Klipsch do that then you can make a comparison - they have not. Not yet anyway.

A few points:

1) Doubling staff doesn't mean anything either... It depends on how much staff they had and how long they took to double them... I'm sure if Peter Q was interested he could have expanded much faster and still retained quality... It's his choice to do it very slowly, for whatever reasons...

2) Perhaps my wording has misled you into thinking that the discussion is about AN as just a HE speaker company... I'm well aware of their very diverse product line...

3) The actual point I was trying to get across is that AN is not subject to the kind on intense scrutiny of mainstream brands like B&W, Klipsch, Revel, Rotel, KEF, NAD, etc... Anyone can walk into a store an audition those brands.. In fact, some can even be ordered online, with no audition... That kind of scrutiny means that ANYONE can have an opinion on those brands based on some listening experience or the other... It also means that more people will be able to express negative opinions on those brands... Until AN is widely available for demo and purchase then it's easy for yourself and Peter Q to make all manner of claims of sonic superiority...

4) No matter how good a product is, once it is readily available, it will be criticized heavily... A perfect example being the Benchmark DAC1 (a product that even persons like yourself who hate brands that are all about the measurements like - The DAC1 measures like a dream and is the product of those same "tone deaf engineers" you think so little of)... Yet, despite all the rave pro and consumer audio reviews globally and positive user feedback, there are still many persons quick to diss the DAC1 as being overhyped and not as good as X or Y DAC for the same/less money... Any day AN becomes readily available, it will suffer the same issue of criticism... Nothing is universally loved....

5) AN has a rabid cult following - but so do many other brands... Ordering anything from Odyssey Audio is an exercise in patience (because of the share number of raves of the last decade). Hell, even Emotiva has fans waiting in lines for months before a product is even released to buy it...

6) As much as many of us would love to audition AN, even if only to know whether you are a complete loon, the fact is that a Rabid fan following is not enough to make us jump through hoops to hear it... I wouldn't fly down to and audio show to hear new products from brands I love, and I'm sure not going to do it just to hear AN... Nor am I going to order a mid-priced to expensive product (without auditioning) and wait months to get it...

7) Despite the ever lasting long wait for AN gear, there's still a decent amount of it currently on Audiogon... In fact some of these pieces have been there for quite some time...