First impressions at California audio Show

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It's really strange that Art got ruler flat bass at 25hz and Hi Fi Choice in their buyers guide puts the AN E at 22hz-3db. Not getting any much bass under 100hz as The Audio Hobby suggests seems curious to me. Perhaps you are not used to hearing bass with such low distortion.

Well, my H-PAS subs can do 115db at 20hz with only 2 percent distortion in my small 12x15x10 room with a 150 watt amp. I know for a fact the Audio note speakers cannot come anywhere near that loud with that low distortion figure. So reality might be counter to your assertions.

Incidentally I have the High Altitude Drums and auditioned it with Ray Kimber himself doing the demonstration along with the Recording Engineer who lives about 10 minutes from my house. It sounded better on the AN E than it did with the equipment (Sony/Pass Labs.EMM Labs/Kimber cables). Though I would not really rank it up with the most engaging of music. It's a bit more of a "stunt" disc which will play to certain strengths. The Joe McQueen 10 at 86 from the same RE and ISO Mike isn't a "stunt" and sounds quite excellent.

Well, putting our personal bias aside, it did not sound great(it did sound good) in this instance, and it certainly didn't sound as good as the Lotus Granada speaker system reproducing it, , the YG system reproducing it, or the Acoustic Zen system reproducing it.

I find it rather amusing that you would find a live acoustical recording a "stunt" recording, but would lend any credence to a Lady Gaga or Madonna recording manufactured in the recording studio. There is nothing "stuntish" about acoustical brass horns, various acoustical drums, or an totally acoustical pit section recorded live outdoors(where it should) and properly mixing with the air as these instruments should be recorded. I think in this case, the word "stunt" is an extremely poor choice.

Though I do find people's listening experiences fascinating - people who actually listened and found issue with certain aspects is completely acceptable.

Agreed. Some folks listen for one thing, others another. As a recording engineer, I listen for timbre, texture, and tonality mixed with dynamics, accuracy and subtleties. If a speaker can do all of these, it is a good speaker or system. If it cannot, then it is good with what it is good with.

[RGA]

RGA, I hate to bring this to ya, but the High Altitude recordings are acoustical recordings taken from a live event. Lady Gaga or Madonna's stuff is studio manufactured, and not live at all. If the speakers and associated equipment is up to snuff, you will hear a very wide image of horns in one layer, the pit(bells, xylophones, tympani and chimes) in another layer, and the percussion section (7 snares, 5 quad toms, 5 bass drums, and 5 cymbals) in another layer. There is no compression in the recording, at its contents covered almost the entire 10 octaves of musical signals. They are playing symphonic music with acoustical instruments, so there is nothing "stuntish" about this type of recording. If the system has the dynamic power to reproduce all of this accurately, and can lay it out naturally as it was live recorded, it is a good system. If it cannot do this, the system is compromised in some way. The AN system got it half right in this case, and this recording would definitely be more revealing of any acoustical attribute than both Lady Gaga and Madonna recordings. At least there is a frame of reference to it, of which there is not to any manufactured studio recording. Ray Kimber has said these recordings almost cover the entire dynamic range of SACD and are unaltered from the live recording session. I was there, I know he is right. He recorded this drum corps in the right environment for the instruments themselves. Outside, in a stadium where the air can mix with the output of the horns to create a perfect mix of fundamentals and harmonic overtones. It sounds like a real live recording, of which neither Lady Gaga or Madonna's stuff does. It is certainly more dynamically challenging for sure.

From where I was sitting in the front row I could see the outside of the boxes quite clearly.

I was at the session that Ray kimber himself presented at CES - I own this disc - it sounds considerably more layered on the AN system that did on the gear that Ray brought. Having said that the Sony/Pass/Emm System sounded astoundingly powerful macrodynamically but the AN system at CES sounded better with this disc than what Ray himself was presenting. Not that the Sony set-up was anything less than superb and I understand why Ray felt that the Sony speakers were the best $25,000 speakers on the market but at the same time a number of people felt they had a sandpaper like quality to themin the upper mids. And some roundly "hated" the Kimber presentation. They were in my top 10 so people simply don't always agree.

The AN E has a limit - they are standmounts after all - pedal organ and huge scale stuff is going to put them under duress. If Pedal Organ and and the high altitude drums is what you're after then NO standmount from anyone is going to do it. The E there is $7k. The Lotus room is over $400,000 and You can always budget say $100,000 for subwoofers for the E if you really want to rack plaster. I am not under the delusion that the speaker has ultimate bass slam or depth. You take the compromises as they come. That said I would rather listen to music long term on the AN E over the Sony or the Focal JM Labs Utopia or the YG Acoustics which while they have some plusses don't have the overall balance IMO across other recordings. Certainly I would understand your liking any or all of those three speakers over the AN E. I get it - I hear it too. The laws of physics can be stretched and pulled only so far.

The point with the studio material is that I view all recordings as valid and need to be represented well IMO. A quad 2905 (and lesser extent Magnepans) is quite wonderful on strings - any strings and it sounds unique and truthful but handles pop/trance/rock horribly. Owners know it going in and judging by their taste in music you can understand why they bought them in the first place. Equally, another person's music collection can illustrate why they would not touch a Magnepan/Quad with a 50 foot pole.

[RGA]

According to Audio Note, (here), the spec for the AN E is 18 Hz to 23 kHz at -6 dB; in a basic vented box this implies a -3 dB in the low 20's. This is extraordinary performance from an 8" driver assuming maximal fidelity parameters. That is, with corner placement we canimagine say, 23 Hz at -3 dB easily enough, but not without distortion.

Is the any information about what woofer AN uses? (I'd like to get one one day!) I'm wondering about the manufacturer. Of course AN will say that it is "custom build to our requirements" -- which is the usual assertion of OEM users.

The Woofer is from SEAS. They are custom but it's because they have I believe 6 different woofer magnets and wiring as they go up the line. The woofers are either hemp or paper and the upper speakers use progressively different Magnets - one is Alnico silver wired and one is copper and smaller. And the Tweeters are Foster Tonnegan (sorry I forget the corresponding numbers for the non "custom" model numbers). The Alnico tweeter is in house. http://www.audionote.co.uk/comp/speakers.shtml

The AN K on down uses drivers from Vifa.

I don't think it would be too hard to find in the catalog - not as many 8 inch drivers as the other types.

As for bass - Art measured 25hz flat in room response. As engineer Donald North noted - corner loading adds 18db to low bass notes. Looking at the Stereophile graphs - look where db level is at at 18hz and then add 18db. Audio Note only needs about 13-14db of those 18db to meet their spec of 18hz-6db. In fact they're usuable to 12hz. Peter once said to me that it is more likely that people are not use to such low distortion characteristics which is why they perceive it to be less than it clearly is. Soundhounds did a level matched blind session and listeners felt the AN E was the louder speaker even though it measured 3-6db lower the competition they sell. The reason for that is because it sounds so much cleaner. Distortion was measured by Hi-Fi Choice as "commendably clean" throughout its badwidth up to 108db which is where the speakers begin to compress. Unfortunately Hi-Fi CHoice no longer puts their reviews online for free anymore - I have the AN E and J reviews in a box but it will take some time to find them. Both were Best-Buy/Recommended respectively.

But if you are looking for that kind of "accurate" sound that people perceive from the tall slim multiple stacked woofers you will NOT get it from the AN E. I mean if you think about you can't. If it sounded the same as those others I would not be passionate about them. They have to sound considerably different. If you "perceive" them to sound "right" and many people do then the other designs have to be perceived as some how "wrong." I think you know where my perception is.

If I didn't own Audio Note speakers and I had more money - I would buy KingSound or Quad Electrostatic panels or some other panel in one room and in another room a big Tannoy or big Horn based system.

You are a panel guy but you know the limitations and you know the "plusses" that a big horn can bring to the table. You also know which you prefer and you also know the weaknesses of the horns you have heard. I have always felt that the AN E and the Tannoy Westminsters are some what of a compromise between the two poles. The non damped box to get rid of stored energy as fast as possible (rather than damping and retaining unwanted resonances in the box and Higher efficiency mimicks a LOT of what a Quad 2905 does on the speed, agility, and openness front. (This is also why guys like Jack Roberts and Constantine Soo and the distributor for Quad in the US Dave Cope switched to the Audio Note E. If you are going to leave the best Quads (the 63 isn't one of them IMO) then the speaker has to sound open and clean and unboxy - despite the measurements they just have to convince a Panel guy.

The corner loading waveguide and efficiency mimics the dynamics and impact and scale of the bigger horn based systems without the shouty bright nature that is so unrelenting about a lot of horns. Of course the E doesn't have the dynamics or dynamic Ease of a big horn like a Klipschhorn but it's in the ballpark.

Thus, the E is a compromise between the two - it does not do Dynamics and Scale as well as the best horns or big time large speakers like a YG Acoustics nor is is as completely open as the better stats or single drivers like the Teresonic Ingeniums.

In other words if a Stat or Teresonic does the openness and transients at a 10/10 the E may score 8/10.

The horns have the dynamics scale at 10/10 the E gets an 8/10. The big expensive statement speakers like the Focal/YG Acoustics may get the impact and grip thing and lack of frequency variation at 10/10 the E scores two rungs down at 7 to 8/10.

It's just that IME the E scores across the board well in every area. The Panel that gets the 10/10 on the openness lack of colouration thing may only score 5/10 in the scale and dynamics arena and maybe only 2/10 in the high impact bass grip department.

The horn may be a 10/10 on dynamics and scale but a 4/10 in the other areas such as frequency or matching up to the woofer (sound treble heavy way out in front of the bass.

So they may be state of the art in some areas and rather lacking in others while the AN E is not state of the art in any area at all but good at everything. I want a system that allows me to enjoy the music and relax than one that has me sitting up front in my chair trying to pull apart everything.

Terry, my favorite dealer, who has been in this for 35+ years now has said that Audio Note is a sit back in the chair and relax speaker - his B&W's are a sit in the front of the chair and try to figure out what the next cd player or amplifier or cable will be to make it better trying to listen for things instead of to things. That's why all the guys there have AN E's at home and whatever they used to have is on the shop floor. Regardless of accuracy comments I believe that the AN E has a seductive sound - it is not a snap judge speaker - it will lose - I disliked them the first time I heard. Ray Seda a reviewer said the same thing on several occasions he could not understand the appeal - and then had a longer session and gets them and changed his mind.

I'd rather listen to music than trying to place distance between one guitar and another. If I am paying attention to that - I am out of the event. But that's just me. Obviously, others feel differently.

[Mr Peabody]

Tubefan, your facination with tape is interesting because the content on the tape would have to come from a CD or LP unless some one is walking around with master tapes. To my knowledge those aren't availabel to the general public. So it seems you prefer a copy over the original. Reel-to-reel was dead by the time I got into high end audio so I have no idea if you could buy pre-recorded reels but I've never seen one.

Sir T, you brought up something noticed in my AN DAC but never really mentioned it as it was the only piece I heard, the sound stage was flatter than anything I've ever compared it too. What i mean by that is most sound stages seem to arc upward where the top of the AN went straight across. I was indifferent to the effect but found it interesting you heard the same thing, if that is indeed what you were talking about.

[Brian K]

Hi, I'm new to the site but definitely not new to audio. I just had to post about my experience at the show.

I spent quite a while in the Audio Note room on Friday and Saturday. According to the guys working the room, the woofer is the hemp cone with a silver voice coil. I went in being a bit skeptical of Audio Note gear. Obviously high end audio equipment isn't cheap but Audio Note sells relatively 'simple' gear for quite a bit of money. Upon walking into the room I saw a very simple, moderately sized 97db sensitive 2-way speaker powered by 20watts of SET power. I really started to wonder if this room was even worth listening to. I left thoroughly blown away.

Whoever said the speakers don't have much response below 100hz is completely wrong. They played a bass 'rumble' track that was easily hitting down to the low 20's. It was literally making things accross the room rattle. You could feel the bass in your chest, something I can't say about any other system I heard. Of course, very few rooms played anything other than jazz and female vocals or at volume even close to the Audio Note system.

After that they put in a Neil Peart drum solo from the Rush 30 anniversary concert in Frankfurt. These stand mounted speaker were able to reproduce drums at mind boggling SPL levels. Someone at the back of the room - a good 15 feet from the speakers - had an SPL meter and it registered 95db. My friend who worked as a recording engineer said it was the highlight of the show for him to hear a drum kit reproduced so realistically at those volume levels. I have to agree. On some 'softer' material the system did seem a bit colored compared to other systems I heard but the Audio Notes were definitely one of my favorites from the show.

Also extremely impressive were the Salk Soundscape 10 loudspeakers. Not many people know of him but Jim Salk makes some AMAZING loudspeakers. Walking into the room and seeing the build quality and finish of the speakers was unreal. They were absolutely the most beautifully finished speakers I've ever seen. The scary thing is that they sound just as good as they look.

The RAAL tweeter is everything it's been hyped up to be. The was just an incredible amount of 'air' and depth to the sound these speakers produced. The sound was extremely clean, dynamic and the imaging was unbelieveable. Along with the Accuton ceramic midrange the whole room was filled with a wall of sound. It was quite literally impossible to discern that the speakers were the source of the sound, even when sitting well out of the sweet spot.

I think they were in the running for Best of Show for sound quality - up there with the Magico's - at a cost that won't require a second mortgage on your house. The only part I didn't like about the room was the source equipment. It was definitely the worst of any room at the show. He used a Squeezebox as a digital source which actually sounded alright but his CD player was simply awful cheap consumer-grade gear. I don't recall what exactly it was but it looked like he picked up at a garage sale for $3 after it had been sitting in a garage since 1993.

[RGA]

Well, my H-PAS subs can do 115db at 20hz with only 2 percent distortion in my small 12x15x10 room with a 150 watt amp. I know for a fact the Audio note speakers cannot come anywhere near that loud with that low distortion figure. So reality might be counter to your assertions.

I would never disagree with this. I don't know if you have misread me but the AN E is not a bass hound loudspeaker. What it has is exceptional bass in room for the size and efficiency of the speaker. Audio Note uses a Snell Type A as their master curve. Peter Qvortrup is the only manufacturer I know of that on a public forum listed the speakers he likes better than his own. There is a "domestic" aspect and "sale ability" aspect at play here. The AN E is rated to 108db so it's not a wall cracker. Constantine Soo for what it's worth is using a big Genesis sub or two with the AN E. Peter has been working with some British Subwoofer manufacturers for quite some time as well. So yes there are limits and certainly with the Ultimate Drums disc - the AN E is not capable of that. But you can't say that Any standmount with a 6inch woofer has the capability either - in fact you can't say that most floorstanders from the likes of Wilson or Sonus Faber or B&W are truly capably of 115db at 20hz with less than 2% distortion. Art Dudley reviewed the Wilson Sasha (Wilson the brand that most reviewers drool over) and he mustered more bass from the AN E. $27,000 floorstander with big drivers versus a relatively small box with an 8. The point is that it hangs in with most floorstanders at far greater cost.

That would leave a LOT more cash for subwoofers. You could spend $20k on Subwoofers for the E and place them out in the room if corner loading is bothersome.

Well, putting our personal bias aside, it did not sound great(it did sound good) in this instance, and it certainly didn't sound as good as the Lotus Granada speaker system reproducing it, , the YG system reproducing it, or the Acoustic Zen system reproducing it.

That's fine. I have not heard the Lotus (though the amps with the Magico Q5 was one of the ten best rooms I heard at CES, I'm not a big fan of the YG Acoustics but less than great equipment where I heard it. The Acoustic Zen room was outstanding at CES - I did my top 5 rooms and they were in 6th place. The Audio Note dealer in Colorado and arguably one of the biggest high end dealers in the world liked the Acoustic Zen so much they picked up the line. So I am with you there. It's odd that we can agree on so many things and not quite on the other things. Although I am glad that you liked the AN set-up and can see why I and some others like it so much. That's all you can ask. Who knows maybe they will grow on you with more auditions. I disliked them intensely when i first auditioned them - so you are a step ahead of me.

I find it rather amusing that you would find a live acoustical recording a "stunt" recording, but would lend any credence to a Lady Gaga or Madonna recording manufactured in the recording studio. There is nothing "stuntish" about acoustical brass horns, various acoustical drums, or an totally acoustical pit section recorded live outdoors(where it should) and properly mixing with the air as these instruments should be recorded. I think in this case, the word "stunt" is an extremely poor choice.

Don't take it the wrong way - it is live s a showstopper but for me it is not music that I would ever just sit down and listen to for the enjoyment of listening to it. I would not sip wine listening to it, I would not want to get up and dance to it, I would not relax to it, or get involved in that CD in any emotional way shape or form. It is a "spectacle" to me similar to the scene in Terminator 2 where the sales guy puts the movie in to show the treble when T2 is frozen and gets shot into a million pieces. Certainly it's well recorded and certainly it can show off parameters of a system.

Like I said above - the AN E is still a stanmount speaker and they use a massive Type A speaker as their reference master. Peter Snell made the Type A because the Type E has limits. And this is why you are correct that speakers that bigger speakers have more capability on pedal organ or this drums CD. I own AN J speakers and they are further limited on that disc. The issue is that since I don't own a lot of Pedal Organ music (or even like it) - the Saint Saens is incredibly boring to me - and listening to the Drums CD is more about speaker testing than any sort of enjoyment what is the point of paying a huge premium to listen to music that most people will never buy? And besides for the difference in price you can always add the subwoofer - or better yet two.

Agreed. Some folks listen for one thing, others another. As a recording engineer, I listen for timbre, texture, and tonality mixed with dynamics, accuracy and subtleties. If a speaker can do all of these, it is a good speaker or system. If it cannot, then it is good with what it is good with.

Most audiophiles listen for those things and most of us hear petty good. Perception of the information that is fed to the brain is an entirely different thing. The hearing mechanism is a machine - the brain is an interpreter. Most people hear things similarly - they have to in order for recognition to work. On a bad car radio - Sarah Mclachlan's voice is recognized within seconds over Dido(assuming you were familiar with both) - even if you have not heard either singer for 5 years - you will "remember" who they are and tell them apart - $3 clock radio or 20 billion dollar stereo. People hear and recognize sound in a similar way.

The Percpetion of sound being "right" or "wrong" entirely takes place in the brain. So while you say you listen for X, Y, Z in a speaker so do I as do others. The interesting thing is that perceptions cross over from time to time and differe. Both of us like the Acoustic Zen and I think we both liked the Teresonic room similarly and both know the weakness of the room. This proves that we are "sharing a similar ear" part of the time at the very least.

I also like that Acoustic Zen can be driven with flea watt gear. It's nice to have options. Anyway, enjoy the show - hope you are able to pick up albums for cheap. CES was nice - that High Altitude Drums I got for $10 including tax. Sweet.

[RGA]

Hi, I'm new to the site but definitely not new to audio. I just had to post about my experience at the show.

I spent quite a while in the Audio Note room on Friday and Saturday. According to the guys working the room, the woofer is the hemp cone with a silver voice coil. I went in being a bit skeptical of Audio Note gear. Obviously high end audio equipment isn't cheap but Audio Note sells relatively 'simple' gear for quite a bit of money. Upon walking into the room I saw a very simple, moderately sized 97db sensitive 2-way speaker powered by 20watts of SET power. I really started to wonder if this room was even worth listening to. I left thoroughly blown away.

Whoever said the speakers don't have much response below 100hz is completely wrong. They played a bass 'rumble' track that was easily hitting down to the low 20's. It was literally making things accross the room rattle. You could feel the bass in your chest, something I can't say about any other system I heard. Of course, very few rooms played anything other than jazz and female vocals or at volume even close to the Audio Note system.

After that they put in a Neil Peart drum solo from the Rush 30 anniversary concert in Frankfurt. These stand mounted speaker were able to reproduce drums at mind boggling SPL levels. Someone at the back of the room - a good 15 feet from the speakers - had an SPL meter and it registered 95db. My friend who worked as a recording engineer said it was the highlight of the show for him to hear a drum kit reproduced so realistically at those volume levels. I have to agree. On some 'softer' material the system did seem a bit colored compared to other systems I heard but the Audio Notes were definitely one of my favorites from the show.

Also extremely impressive were the Salk Soundscape 10 loudspeakers. Not many people know of him but Jim Salk makes some AMAZING loudspeakers. Walking into the room and seeing the build quality and finish of the speakers was unreal. They were absolutely the most beautifully finished speakers I've ever seen. The scary thing is that they sound just as good as they look.

The RAAL tweeter is everything it's been hyped up to be. The was just an incredible amount of 'air' and depth to the sound these speakers produced. The sound was extremely clean, dynamic and the imaging was unbelieveable. Along with the Accuton ceramic midrange the whole room was filled with a wall of sound. It was quite literally impossible to discern that the speakers were the source of the sound, even when sitting well out of the sweet spot.

I think they were in the running for Best of Show for sound quality - up there with the Magico's - at a cost that won't require a second mortgage on your house. The only part I didn't like about the room was the source equipment. It was definitely the worst of any room at the show. He used a Squeezebox as a digital source which actually sounded alright but his CD player was simply awful cheap consumer-grade gear. I don't recall what exactly it was but it looked like he picked up at a garage sale for $3 after it had been sitting in a garage since 1993.

Yeah I never get the lack of bass comments either. Peter brought trance music that is easily in the 20hz range - synthesizer but nevertheless a synthesizer can produce the enitre human frequency spectrum and more. Track 9 of Fabriclive 28 album at stupid levels with bass that overpowers most of the rooms beside them generating complaints.

Bass is kind of funny and it's my belief that one needs to bring several different kinds of bass recordings because the AN E shows up some recordings differently. Though certainly if the speaker latched on to a room mode at 32hz then it will seem like it has a lot more bass than a speaker that doesn't but may actually produce a flatter bass at 25 hz. Personally I want the speaker that produces the discs that people actually purchase than producing a disc that no one wants to listen to.

That's the problem with the "supposed" accurate speakers. They may be but if you can't listen to 99.9% of the world's recorded music because it sounds irritating but the .1% of the spectacle Organ and drum solo stuff sounds better on it then maybe you have bragging rights but that's all you got.

When you put on Madonna like stuff and you want to get up and dance - frequency humps and some colouration aside then it is doing its job. If the other speaker is more accurate in the measuring sense but you sit in your seat and try to analyze where the drum set is in relation to where Madonna's mic is and then try and figure out how the bass is slightly tighter on one track versus the other then you've lost the plot.

If you liked the AN E I highly recommend you try and audition the Trenner and Freidl RA Box. It is a two way box (LOL) bigger than the AN E and also can be placed in corners near wall - but has a down firing port and thus can be sealed. It's $25,000 and if you like it loud with bass - I have heard nothing better. It has much bigger scale and impact than the AN E. Personally the E is more than most would need in terms of scale and bass for all non pedal organ music. You can always add a sub or two.

The RA Box is not that tough to drive. It was the loudest room at CES by a mile. You could actually sense that the room was compressing as if breathing in and out. Say waht you will but that's pretty awesome. Out of my price range though.

[tube fan]

Today I got them to play my vinyl at realistic levels in the Lotus room. Fantastic sound in all respects. On Cds I prefered the Audio Notes. Best sound, by far, was still via tapes (made from masters or close copies) in the Evolution Acoustics room. Not close. I went to the room 5 times, and everyone who was there with me agreed that it was the best sound, by far.

Gordon Holt used to use the goose bump factor to rate equipment. The rooms that brought me goose bumps (or tears, in two cases) were the Lotus (today at proper volume), the Evolution Acoustics (via their close-to-master tapes), the Teresonic, and the Audio Note rooms. The King electrostatic, the Quad, the YG (I hope this was one of their lesser speakers, as I hated the sound), and the Magico speakers did not move me.
For me, all art is chiefly about comunication of beauty and emotion. Numbers are fine, but, live music often gives me goose bumps, and I want my musical system to elicit the same response.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I was at the session that Ray kimber himself presented at CES - I own this disc - it sounds considerably more layered on the AN system that did on the gear that Ray brought. Having said that the Sony/Pass/Emm System sounded astoundingly powerful macrodynamically but the AN system at CES sounded better with this disc than what Ray himself was presenting. Not that the Sony set-up was anything less than superb and I understand why Ray felt that the Sony speakers were the best $25,000 speakers on the market but at the same time a number of people felt they had a sandpaper like quality to themin the upper mids. And some roundly "hated" the Kimber presentation. They were in my top 10 so people simply don't always agree.

I have never heard it on Ray Kimber's system, I first heard it on two of my own reference recording studio systems. The mutlichannel 7.1 ATC system, and the 7.1 mutlichannel Dunlavy all SC-V system with the two of his TSW -VI tower subs driving the bottom octaves. The multichannel presentation was breath taking to say the least. On two channels, it was very very good, but without the enveloping effect. This is what I hold all speakers to in terms of overall resolution, realistic power, effective presentation, tonality, timbre, and harmonic texture. It is a hard reality to follow for most speakers on the market, but the Legacy Whispers, The Granada, The Emerald Physics CS2.3, The Acoustic Zen, YG Acoustics did an excellent job, the Magico system and the AN system did very well to, and the other systems I tried it on just could not handle it(and some wouldn't even try).

The AN E has a limit - they are standmounts after all - pedal organ and huge scale stuff is going to put them under duress. If Pedal Organ and and the high altitude drums is what you're after then NO standmount from anyone is going to do it. The E there is $7k. The Lotus room is over $400,000 and You can always budget say $100,000 for subwoofers for the E if you really want to rack plaster. I am not under the delusion that the speaker has ultimate bass slam or depth. You take the compromises as they come. That said I would rather listen to music long term on the AN E over the Sony or the Focal JM Labs Utopia or the YG Acoustics which while they have some plusses don't have the overall balance IMO across other recordings. Certainly I would understand your liking any or all of those three speakers over the AN E. I get it - I hear it too. The laws of physics can be stretched and pulled only so far.

I agree with your first assessment, you cannot expect pedal notes from a book shelf speaker. It takes a really good subwoofer, or a speaker the size of my SC-V to do that.

I heard the YG Acoustics playing quite a large variety of music over the last two days(I went back today) and they sounded first rate on everything thrown at it. So I cannot agree with your assessment on those speakers. I certainly agree with you on the compromise that has to be made on all speakers - as none are perfect in every way.

The point with the studio material is that I view all recordings as valid and need to be represented well IMO. A quad 2905 (and lesser extent Magnepans) is quite wonderful on strings - any strings and it sounds unique and truthful but handles pop/trance/rock horribly. Owners know it going in and judging by their taste in music you can understand why they bought them in the first place. Equally, another person's music collection can illustrate why they would not touch a Magnepan/Quad with a 50 foot pole.

Speaking of the Quad 2905 (or was it the 2805 not sure), there was a setup centered around the Quad speaker. IMO this speaker would be a great midrange driver, because it had nothing in terms of bass, and next to nothing in terms of air in the highs. It's midrange was liquid beauty, stunningly present, and breathtaking though.

[poppachubby]

Today I got them to play my vinyl at realistic levels in the Lotus room. Fantastic sound in all respects. On Cds I prefered the Audio Notes. Best sound, by far, was still via tapes (made from masters or close copies) in the Evolution Acoustics room. Not close. I went to the room 5 times, and everyone who was there with me agreed that it was the best sound, by far.

Gordon Holt used to use the goose bump factor to rate equipment. The rooms that brought me goose bumps (or tears, in two cases) were the Lotus (today at proper volume), the Evolution Acoustics (via their close-to-master tapes), the Teresonic, and the Audio Note rooms. The King electrostatic, the Quad, the YG (I hope this was one of their lesser speakers, as I hated the sound), and the Magico speakers did not move me.
For me, all art is chiefly about comunication of beauty and emotion. Numbers are fine, but, live music often gives me goose bumps, and I want my musical system to elicit the same response.

Dude, you honestly cried twice?!? You're a sensitive man. To me, there's no emotion like that, if it's not my gear. Seems logical rather than emotional that gear priced in the 10's of thousands should sound good.

[Feanor]

...

As for bass - Art measured 25hz flat in room response. As engineer Donald North noted - corner loading adds 18db to low bass notes. Looking at the Stereophile graphs - look where db level is at at 18hz and then add 18db. Audio Note only needs about 13-14db of those 18db to meet their spec of 18hz-6db. In fact they're usuable to 12hz. ...

Accepting the 18 dB corner boost for "low" notes, then the numbers are more or less plausible.

The closest standard Seas 8" woofer is the Presitige CA22RNX, (here). According to my Bass Box Pro program, in a 2.7 cu.ft box, (about the size of AN's), the -18 dB point is about 16 Hz. (This make sense since the -3 db point is around 31 and the roll-off for a standard vented box is 18 dB/octave.) So AN's spec is arguably conservative stating -6 dB at 18 Hz.

On the other hand with the steep 18 dB/oct roll-off it's pretty difficult to imagine a smooth compensation with corner placement -- what is the roll-off of Donald North's 18 dB boost with rising frequency??? For me it's easier to imagine setting up for smooth response with the closed box AN-K model with a 6 dB/oct roll-off. BassBox estimates a -22 dB at 17 Hz for the same woofer in the AN-K's approx. 1 cu.ft box-- yet for that model AN makes the much less extravagant claim of "50 Hz to 20 Hz (-6 dB)".

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Before I get on to the other systems I heard on today I just want to give a note to Richard. I went back the audio note room, and my opinion(nor my buddies) was changed from the day before. In saying that my buddy was probably a lot less critical of this system than I was, and I think it is based on the fact that I had very high expectation of this system (probably beyond what the system was truly capable of) based on your opinions and experience with the system. If I had went into the listening sessions with the same expectations as my friend(which was none), I would have probably enjoyed it a lot more. In saying that, the same issues I had with it on Saturday, I had with it today. I do not think this speaker is capable of 20hz signals, even when tucked into a corner. I say this because my understanding of the ear /brain mechanism tells me that we absolutely cannot tell a 60hz signal from a 40hz one, and cannot tell a true 20hz or so(which you feel far more than you hear) from a 40hz (of which we can hear and and still feel as well). Not even a person blessed with perfect pitch can do it because our ears are just not as sensitive to pitch as it is at 120hz and up. What may feel like the low 20hz could really just be around 35-40hz unless you truly feel the pressure wave of 20hz, and the excitation of the air which is caused by the change in pressure. I just don't think a 8" woofer is capable of those kinds of excursions, even when ported and pushed into a corner. A 15" definitely, but not a 8".

The Electrocompaniet Room.

Generally I liked the sound of these speakers, but I had two problems with its presentation. They had two different speaker on display in two different room, and both of their presentation were totally opposite to me. The Model 1 was too low, so the presentation was a little bright without much bottom to it. The other model(can't remember) had the opposite effect - it was aimed its tweeters dispersion over my head, which made the sound just a little to dark for my taste. However, when I stood up, or sat down lower to the floor, it corrected both of the problems, but in the case of being close to the floor, brought up others.

The Acapella Room.

Featured the Acapella High Violoncello with a pair of huge tube mono blocks(if I am not mistaken). I love the sound of this system. It was very natural, relaxed, at times exciting. The presentation was not exactly forward like some horn designs I have heard, but it was just as dynamic. Driver integration was excellent, so what you heard was wave after wave of very coherent sound hitting your ears. This was another presentation that I thought was at the top of everything we had heard overall.


The High Value AV Room.

This room featured the Emerald Physics CS2.3 point source dipole speaker partnered with some very impressive electronics. The same impression that I had of the Lotus Granada speaker, I had of this one. Beautifully realistic sound, excellent tonal, timbre, and textural rendition, and nice wide open sound from top to bottom. It had dynamics to spare, and an excellent tight as a drum bass response that plummeted to the deep depths. It is no secret that both the Granada and this speaker system are dipole designs, and I really do like the way the dipole sounds with these driver implementations. Linkwitz is definately on to something, but one really has to properly place these speakers to get the best out of them.

The Eficion Room

This is another presentation dogged by the speakers being too low. The speakers frequency response seemed tilted upwards when at a seated position, leaving not much body to the sound on some of the recordings I heard on it. Once again I had to get lower towards the floor to appreciated its sound. A note to some presenters at this show - getting the right imaging height is just as important as getting the right frequency response. This is where the systems that really sounded excellent had it right, and where everyone else had it wrong.

The Highend Electronics Room.

This room featured the Conspiracy Loudspeakers by Consensus Audio. These speakers and associated equipment sounded superb. They sounded authoritive, exceptionally clean and clear, and just the perfect portions of bass, mids and highs. Great sound staging that made the performers feel like they were standing right in front of you when in a seated position. That didn't change much even when standing up. Some big band music was playing when we walked in, and it was a very realistic presentation to say the least. The depth and lateral width of the soundstage was excellent, and I could imaging this system sounding better in a larger room.

The Fritz Speaker Room.

This room had a variety of Fritz speakers on display, but the focus of the presentation was the Carbon 7's(if I am not mistaken). This speaker shares some of the same design principles in terms of crossovers as my mini monitors such as no capacitors or resistors in the crossover to the tweeter, and just one small inductor on the mid/bass driver. It uses ScanSpeak drivers, and had a very nice presentation. While this speaker went just a little deeper than my own, my had a much more precise imaging, better tonal, textural and timbre characteristics, more neutral in presentation, and quite a bit more open and extended at the top (thanks to their beryllium tweeters). Very good sound from a relatively compact speaker.

Just to curve the length of my review, I will just make small comments on the rest of what I saw.

The Sonist Rooms.

This speaker was voiced just a bit hot for my taste, as it seem like the tweeter was more prominent than the mid/bass driver. The sound was not rejectable at all, just a little more bright than I would have liked.

The Legacy/Win Room.

One of the things I noticed when walking in this room was how low the volume was, but how very balanced the speaker sounded regardless even down to the low bass. However this speaker snapped to when I put in the High Altitude drums disc. This system had great coherence, but was able to separate the individual elements when passages got thick and complex, always remaining exceptionally clean and clear and keep its composure. Imaging was excellent, and the Whispers had where very balanced from top to bottom. One of the best of show IMO.

The Salk room.

Very good sound coming from this room, but because of the choices in music I couldn't really hear what these speakers could do. The system was very competent in reproducing what I did hear.

The
Genesis/Soundscape Room

This system sounded good, but not remarkable, and once again the choice of music really didn't give me a fair evaluation of this system.

The Magico/Audio Image Room.

Man what a sweet sound from this system. I heard a four part acapella gospel group on it, and what a gorgeous sound, nice and smooth but highly detailed without sounding clinical or etchy. Another speaker that got the bass right, without it being overly ripe. Good stuff here.

Overall I really enjoyed this show, and really heard some outstanding systems, even when placed in small rooms - far too small for the system to stretch its legs. If I could take the Emerald Physic, Acoustic Zen, The legacy Whisper, YG Acoustics, or The Lotus Granada system home with me, I would be in heaven.

[PeruvianSkies]

Is Hansen Audio represented at the show?

[tube fan]

WOW! TTT's hearing and mine are 180 degrees off. The sound from the YG speakers was hard, strident, hot, and unlistenable (yes, to me). Ditto for the Emerald Physics (cheap in price). BTW, I own a pair of Dunlavy SC-IV speakers (from my brother), but 95% of the time I prefer the sound from my 30+ year old Fulton J speakers. IMO, all the Dunlavy speakers measure flat (in frequency response), but, IMO, all lack tonal saturation.

The Adagio d'Albinoni version by Gary Karr on Double-bass and Harmon Lewis on Organ
always brings me to tears played on my system. An interesting note: a man played a vinyl record of the Adagio by a full Orchestra and got it played in the Teresonic room. It sounded great, but I got them to play the Gary Karr version immediately after, and it was fantastic (yes, to me, but also to others present). I suspect TTT has a high tolerance for bright, hard sound (he would say clear). I go to many blind wine tastings, and I have a similar dislike for high alcohol and oaky wines, while most find them big and robust. I will continue to like low alcohol wines with good acid. Most younger drinkers love high alcohol and super ripe fruit. Rating sound systems is every bit as subjective as rating wines. It's clearly not a science at this point.

At any rate, I'll continue to listen to the Fulton Js, with the Dunlavys as backup, and continue to drink my older, lower alcohol wines (mostly pre 1986).

[blackraven]

Hey Brian K., were the Salk speakers paired with Van Alstine gear? I've heard the Salk Veracity HTR-3's and the Song Towers. The HTR's are awesome and the build quality is excellent. The finishes he puts on his speakers is a piece of art.

[tube fan]

Hey Brian K., were the Salk speakers paired with Van Alstine gear? I've heard the Salk Veracity HTR-3's and the Song Towers. The HTR's are awesome and the build quality is excellent. The finishes he puts on his speakers is a piece of art.

Yes, they were paired with Van Alstine equipment. To me, the sound was good (much better than the similarily priced Emerald Physics system).
..

[RGA]

Accepting the 18 dB corner boost for "low" notes, then the numbers are more or less plausible.

The closest standard Seas 8" woofer is the Presitige CA22RNX, (here). According to my Bass Box Pro program, in a 2.7 cu.ft box, (about the size of AN's), the -18 dB point is about 16 Hz. (This make sense since the -3 db point is around 31 and the roll-off for a standard vented box is 18 dB/octave.) So AN's spec is arguably conservative stating -6 dB at 18 Hz.

On the other hand with the steep 18 dB/oct roll-off it's pretty difficult to imagine a smooth compensation with corner placement -- what is the roll-off of Donald North's 18 dB boost with rising frequency??? For me it's easier to imagine setting up for smooth response with the closed box AN-K model with a 6 dB/oct roll-off. BassBox estimates a -22 dB at 17 Hz for the same woofer in the AN-K's approx. 1 cu.ft box-- yet for that model AN makes the much less extravagant claim of "50 Hz to 20 Hz (-6 dB)".

Peter unfortunately doesn't much care about the website - it was created by a fan of his stuff - 2 points -

1) the 8 inch woofer you linked does not look much like the AN woofer so we can't be sure it's the same - it is possible that when AN says it's a custom woofer that it truly is a custom woofer and they don't make it for anyone else. For instance there is a Tonnegan tweeter that AN uses but AN has had all the Ferro-Fluid removed - the speakers are air-cooled and there is a completely different magnet on the speaker. That's a big custom change so while you can buy the shell it's not really the same. Also, the AN E woofer is not a long throw woofer so if you see any of those cross them off consideration. Hemp, not long throw, foam surround.

2) The AN K is rated free standing according to Peter and not corner loaded like the J and E. I asked him on another forum about this and I can't remember why he said he placed a spec for free standing position. According to Peter in a corner the AN K is 36hz -6db. I also know that he is not entirely happy with the AN K in the sense that it has some compromises in the speaker that he was forced to make due to the size of Audio Note as a company. For instance he wanted a foam surround for the AN K but to get that driver he would need to order 500 pairs at a time. So he is using a rubber surround. That is an upgrade to make for the K. I think there are plenty of things he would do personally to a lot of things but it has to fit an end price that has some possibility of sale. I think the majority of companies are in the same boat.

[theaudiohobby]

It's really strange that Art got ruler flat bass at 25hz and Hi Fi Choice in their buyers guide puts the AN E at 22hz-3db. Not getting any much bass under 100hz as The Audio Hobby suggests seems curious to me. Perhaps you are not used to hearing bass with such low distortion.

The raggednes below 200Hz in the linked in-room response graph (in Art's room) from the "Speaker characteristics' thread strongly suggests that Art did not get ruler-flat bass to 25Hz his room, A room mode lifts the bass output somewhat between 50-100Hz, however it is pretty clear that the bass output starts dropping off from 200Hz.

[RGA]

The raggednes below 200Hz in the linked in-room response graph (in Art's room) from the "Speaker characteristics' thread strongly suggests that Art did not get ruler-flat bass to 25Hz his room, A room mode lifts the bass output somewhat between 50-100Hz, however it is pretty clear that the bass output starts dropping off from 200Hz.

Yes and entirely different results in the same band with the black graph done by JA where there is a pronounced level in the same band. At 100hz-200hz the speaker is +2db - +5db with the note that this is about 2db too high according to the way JA measures. So it's 0db to +3db across the 100hz-200hz band. Art's room that area is a mess and it's also a mess for the other speaker he had - that's a room issue.

According to this graph the speaker is -2.5db at 29hz. The speaker at 18hz is down -20db maybe -22db and this is a free standing measurement. Corner gain provides an 18db gain. It's simple math. -22db +18db = -4db or -20db +18db = -2db. The speaker is 18hz -4db or 18hz -2db and Audio Note is using a conservative 18hz-6db rating which both Hi-Fi Choice and Hi-fi Critic confirm and is completely clear in JA's graph. 18db is an "ideal" with rigid walls and correctly positioned. Audio Note knows that no one will correctly do things so they don't use the whole 18db corner gain they use 14db or so. And the point is it doesn't matter - no one here is going to tell the difference between an 18hz tone and a 23hz tone. So even if we cut the 18db gain in half and say 9db and look at the -15db point which is about 22hz that would -15db +9db = 22hz -6db. Hell the tune port frequency of 29hz is more than enough for 99.999999999999999999% of all recorded music in existence. Hell 35-40hz is more than required for most music. I don't understand the persistence on this - the measurement is clear. If it makes you feel better consider it a 95hz speaker -80db for all I care. It's not like AN needs any more sales - they can't stock the dealers let alone provide any for customers. I doubt they're sweating it much.

Art has two listening rooms so it is not clear which room he took his measurement in and which one JA took his in or how close to room boundries they placed them - an inch matters.

[theaudiohobby]

Yes and entirely different results in the same band with the black graph done by JA where there is a pronounced level in the same band. At 100hz-200hz the speaker is +2db - +5db with the note that this is about 2db too high according to the way JA measures. So it's 0db to +3db across the 100hz-200hz band. Art's room that area is a mess and it's also a mess for the other speaker he had - that's a room issue.

Different graphs that say essentially the same thing if you understand the data, The 'black graph' is a complex sum of quasi-anechoic >=300Hzand nearfield@1m <300Hz, as noted it shows a rising response (+3db) for a flat measuring speaker. However what you see here below 200Hz is falling response that suggest that the speaker's output is tailing off below this frequency, At 40Hz, it is off approx 9dB off the 300Hz response level.

Corner gain provides an 18db gain. It's simple math. -22db +18db = -4db or -20db +18db = -2db. The speaker is 18hz -4db or 18hz -2dB

But we have real in-room measurements and they suggest otherwise. As you note, those lofty figures are not representative of real-world listening rooms. looking at an actual in-room response, save the for the peak centered at 60Hz, at all times the speaker is off it's midrange peak by worse than 6dB.

Art has two listening rooms so it is not clear which room he took his measurement in and which one JA took his in or how close to room boundries they placed them - an inch matters.

You might want to read the comments that accompany those measurements you've just done discussing.

[theaudiohobby]

Upon walking into the room I saw a very simple, moderately sized 97db sensitive 2-way speaker powered by 20watts of SET power. I really started to wonder if this room was even worth listening to. I left thoroughly blown away.

er no.....it's 92dB with the caveat of it's reduced output below 200Hz. I think it is probably advisable to stick to discussing to sound of the rig without quoting the specs which are a can of worms IMO

[Feanor]

Peter unfortunately doesn't much care about the website - it was created by a fan of his stuff - 2 points -

...

If the AN-E`s woofer is hemp and foam then it isn`t the CA22RNX for sure. Conceivably that woofer is the one used in the AN-K.

I still have misgivings about boosting below the -3 dB roll-off frequency, at least with the steep, vented box 18 dB/octave. A real expert, (with all due respect), would have to assure me that corner placement has at least a roughly complementary boost effect.

I like the idea of closed boxes. In this case boost below -3 dB is often recommented, albeit usually by electronically means rather than by corner placement. Of course the electronic boost isn't efficient in terms of the amp power required.

[RGA]

As you note, those lofty figures are not representative of real-world listening rooms. looking at an actual in-room response.
You might want to read the comments that accompany those measurements you've just done discussing.

You might want to note that the "real world response" that JA measured in Art's room is "free standing" measurement and again not how Audio Note recommends them to be placed. Putting the speaker neart he side wall and in a corner is not the same - the Red blue graph that is shown had the speaker measured not from a corner and according to JA "they were a little more than 15" from the wall behind them" according to JA. 15 inches is more than a foot away from the corner and as such that is not corner loading - (the viscinity of the corner is not in a corner) it's free standing. I am impressed that it did well free standing against a much larger built for free standing position Harbeth. The E manual also notes that bass boom will be an issue if it is out from the corner too far - and that result is pretty clear with the "enetertaining" 31.5 hz boost.

Since it's not designed for free standing and sounds worse free standing then whatever the conclusion of how it sounds there is totally irrelevant. It would be like me putting a speaker not remotely designed for a corner in a corner and blaming the speaker for sounding muddy. The speaker is supposes to be as close to the back wall and side wall as you can get without actually touching - 1or 2 centimeters - not 15 inches. 2 inches it booms so the temptation is to do what Art did and pull them far out from the wall. I don't blame him I did the same thing for a couple of months.

[RGA]

If the AN-E`s woofer is hemp and foam then it isn`t the CA22RNX for sure. Conceivably that woofer is the one used in the AN-K.

I still have misgivings about boosting below the -3 dB roll-off frequency, at least with the steep, vented box 18 dB/octave. A real expert, (with all due respect), would have to assure me that corner placement has at least a roughly complementary boost effect.

I like the idea of closed boxes. In this case boost below -3 dB is often recommented, albeit usually by electronically means rather than by corner placement. Of course the electronic boost isn't efficient in terms of the amp power required.

Unfortunately the AN K woofer is not a SEAS it's a Vifa.

The problem is that all the measurements that have been done have been free standing. And most of the time they're not positioned in corners because most people are not used to it. In England Audio Note will drive to your house and set it up for you to try so there is absolutely zero excuse for people living in England not to try them - costs nothing but some time (Peter also runs a high end shop in Denmark so people living there also probably have the same in home service). Here where I live you can take home anything to try so it's not like that costs anything but some gas and some time. And a couple of dealers in the US will mail you stuff so to me it's a try it and see. All speakers and gear should be a try it and see. It's not like they're the only game in town. There are other ways to get deep bass. A popular one is the old small two ways standmount with a sub in between or two subs (IMO better) and a good sub will play deeper and louder. I have never heard a truly good system doing this except for George Lucas' favorite M&K gear but even then I didn't care for the treble.

I think Peter relies heavily on the acoustics papers done by Bell Labs, L.L Bearanek the opera house designer acoustician, speaker designer who designed the boxes, Peter Snell, and N. W. McLaughlin's Loudspeakers, McGraw-Hill 1934 (Peter believes this is the best book on loudspeaker basics that has been written) and Any of Harry Ohlsons books.

And hey why not skip the AN E and look into speakers Peter thinks are the absolute best of the lot?

"The treble and midrange on the Lowthers [PM4] was one of the best I have ever encountered, and I have owned pretty much everything over the past 35 years, from Voigt's field coil driven horns, Tannoy's original 1950's Westminster's, Siemens Klangfilm and WE cinema systems to B&W DM70s, stacked Quad 57's, Beveridge System 2's, Acoustats, to Hill's Plasmatronics, Heil's full range AMT, Snell A/IIIs you name it, I have at some time or another had them all and what they all has taught me is not insubstantial.

I rate the Lowther PM4 system and the Siemens systems as the best overall, but they are domestically almost impossible unless you live in a mansion, and very few of us do, so something smaller is needed.
Which is why we are here!" http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...er+Qvortrup&r=

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

WOW! TTT's hearing and mine are 180 degrees off. The sound from the YG speakers was hard, strident, hot, and unlistenable (yes, to me). Ditto for the Emerald Physics (cheap in price). BTW, I own a pair of Dunlavy SC-IV speakers (from my brother), but 95% of the time I prefer the sound from my 30+ year old Fulton J speakers. IMO, all the Dunlavy speakers measure flat (in frequency response), but, IMO, all lack tonal saturation.

For folks that love the more ephonic side of listening, yes the SC-IV would be a little short on tonal saturation. For those of us that prefer accuracy over euphonics, the Dunlay SC-V is a revalation. I want to hear what is exactly on my tapes or hard drives. I don't need it sprinkled with salt and pepper just to make it palatable.

The Adagio d'Albinoni version by Gary Karr on Double-bass and Harmon Lewis on Organ
always brings me to tears played on my system. An interesting note: a man played a vinyl record of the Adagio by a full Orchestra and got it played in the Teresonic room. It sounded great, but I got them to play the Gary Karr version immediately after, and it was fantastic (yes, to me, but also to others present). I suspect TTT has a high tolerance for bright, hard sound (he would say clear). I go to many blind wine tastings, and I have a similar dislike for high alcohol and oaky wines, while most find them big and robust. I will continue to like low alcohol wines with good acid. Most younger drinkers love high alcohol and super ripe fruit. Rating sound systems is every bit as subjective as rating wines. It's clearly not a science at this point.

What sounds good to me does not need any co-signing from others. The gentleman I was with like the AN system a little more than I did, and he didn't like the Acoustic Zen set up, and I did. Personally I think he sat too close, which is why is didn't like it. I told him there is a fusion point for each speaker, and you need to either sit at the point, or futher away. The second day he stood back more, and end up loving the system as I did. Our own taste is highly subjective, and not easily transferable.

At any rate, I'll continue to listen to the Fulton Js, with the Dunlavys as backup, and continue to drink my older, lower alcohol wines (mostly pre 1986).

Enjoy!