First impressions at California audio Show

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have found that it takes them a couple of days to get the bass right. Every room is a bit different and trying to get the bottom end right seems to be an issue. Fred noted that the first day at CES it wasn't right, and a reviewer at 6 moons said the same. They usually figure it out by the last day of the show but usually if there is an issue it's with the bass. Perhaps they have gotten there faster this show. Usually, they don't get them far enough in the corners and if they are a few inches too far out they yield some bass boom. Closer to the wall usually gets rid of that problem which runs counter to established theory. Which says more about established theory being wrong IMO.

No,the theory is not wrong, not by any stretch of the imagination. I completely understand why you like audio note speakers, at least from the mids upward. From the mid bass down, the audio note speaker truly engaged with the room modes and nodes, and you could plainly hear it in male voices, with drums and percussion, and at least through the mid bass frequencies in the form of chestiness on male vocals, and mushiness with bass drums and percussion with loud transients. The soundstage also have zero layering, but excellent lateral imaging. Everything seemed to bunch up depth wise to the same plane.

No box speaker can defy the modes and nodes theory when it is pushed into a corner. The corner is a high pressure zone, and any speaker in that zone whether it is a main speaker, or a subwoofer with fully excite all of the rooms modes and nodes when in that space.

[RGA]

No,the theory is not wrong, not by any stretch of the imagination. I completely understand why you like audio note speakers, at least from the mids upward. From the mid bass down, the audio note speaker truly engaged with the room modes and nodes, and you could plainly hear it in male voices, with drums and percussion, and at least through the mid bass frequencies in the form of chestiness on male vocals, and mushiness with bass drums and percussion with loud transients. The soundstage also have zero layering, but excellent lateral imaging. Everything seemed to bunch up depth wise to the same plane.

No box speaker can defy the modes and nodes theory when it is pushed into a corner. The corner is a high pressure zone, and any speaker in that zone whether it is a main speaker, or a subwoofer with fully excite all of the rooms modes and nodes when in that space.

And that is why they still need to find the hot spot in that room where the depth comes back. I have the speakers (well the J which is mostly the same speaker) and there should be significant depth to the soundstage. If it is just left and right (lateral) imaging and staging then there is a problem. From the picture of the room I would toe the speaker in such that the center of the rear port is in line directly with the corner. The listener should "see" the outside of the boxes prominantly. And the toe in should go further if the results still don't get there to the point where both the speakers are literally facing eachother.

The Stage should have a multitude of layers extending far beyond the back wall. I have a Loreena McKennit album with pipers and drummers coming seemingly 20 feet from behind the wall as the procession drums move into the room - there should be greater front to back depth of stage than free standers (at least all of the free stander systems I have had here and have heard in the last 20 years). Nevertheless, it is the job of the people setting up to do it right so there you go.

I still say you guys should play Lady Gaga's at high level - or Madonna. Get some trance in there (ask them to play the "Evil Nine" Seriously - get some of the Cerwin Vega "FUN" back into the show. Not the High Altitude boring drum stunt discs that don't really have a true frame of reference. It's like playing a disc with a car explosion - that's great but there's no real reference for that and the music is uninteresting - great stunt but who cares.

[RGA]

Tube Fan

It is frustrating that rooms won't play your discs - if you go again try again. The Lotus room is close to half a million dollars. That I suspect would be a serious system. I have heard the Technical Brain amplifiers with magico and the sound was outstanding. I think the Lotus room would be seriously good.

I think we all need to not let the preference get in the way - I was very impressed with a lot of systems at CES that were not tube based. I decided to go back and look.

Take the AudioFederation - they sell uber accurate speakers in the $300,000 Marten Supreme's top of the line Sound Labs (which some will argue are also accurate) and they note that Audio Note speakers are not "accurate" in the same terms.

Just as Tubes and SET are not accurate in the same terms - let's just accept the fact that they clearly are NOT the same sounding and present material differently and in terms of measurements less accurate. Though it is interesting that they can still offer high IMO higher resolution.

There is a "kind of" control and ability to hit hard that a big SS system with geared for SS speaker systems have that a SET system doesn't possess.

I think though that Sir T was pretty fair in his assessment and I bet despite the bass issues in the room he was surprised that adding SET, and a Zero times no error checking, no digitial or analog filters would produce a rather clear presentation and that when looking at the technology of the system it does a terrific job of conveying the even. Even if it is not accurate in the sense of a YG Acoustics kind of way.

What I find interesting is that most people hear this the same way - it's when we then associate a perception to it "our brain" which is the ultimate filter. I took numerous psychology courses and the brain hemispheres work differently. The simplistic one is that one hemisphere controls logic mathematics, reasoning while the other is responsible for music, art, creativity.

I hear high impact slam, grip, tight, impact the same as anyone else but the part of the brain that responds is different just as it is different in me hating rap music but likeing Beethoven another person will react oppositely even though they are hearing the exact same piece of music. Music that may draw you to tears may bore another person to death.

Tubes have a second order harmonic distortion and Single Ended topology have a certain something there that for those that respond to that then really there is nothing else.

Take the big Boulder/Focal or YG Acoustics or the big hard hitting system. I can never get away from the word Hard. They have a brute force kind of sound to everything and it sounds clear enough it is more "accurate" in the established sense. The AN E system with the warts in and the softer clipping and the radiated bass pattern instead of the high excursion impact vairiety will seem softer and comparatively polite.

On the other hand for my ear the systems like the Focal/YG Acoustics can do better at shows and shorter auditions with the "stunt or show off discs" that reveal the high impact slam and spectacle material. The better tube systems sound more inviting and perhaps play to people who are controlled more by the creative artisitc hemisphere of the brain.

I suspect if one were to do a study that engineers, and math majors would gravitate more to a YG acoustics big slam system then Ennglish majors artisits creative writers where I suspect many of whom are more controlled by the creative hemisphere.

I never really thought about this much until now and it would be an interesting research study.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And that is why they still need to find the hot spot in that room where the depth comes back. I have the speakers (well the J which is mostly the same speaker) and there should be significant depth to the soundstage. If it is just left and right (lateral) imaging and staging then there is a problem. From the picture of the room I would toe the speaker in such that the center of the rear port is in line directly with the corner. The listener should "see" the outside of the boxes prominantly. And the toe in should go further if the results still don't get there to the point where both the speakers are literally facing eachother.

The Stage should have a multitude of layers extending far beyond the back wall. I have a Loreena McKennit album with pipers and drummers coming seemingly 20 feet from behind the wall as the procession drums move into the room - there should be greater front to back depth of stage than free standers (at least all of the free stander systems I have had here and have heard in the last 20 years). Nevertheless, it is the job of the people setting up to do it right so there you go.

I still say you guys should play Lady Gaga's at high level - or Madonna. Get some trance in there (ask them to play the "Evil Nine" Seriously - get some of the Cerwin Vega "FUN" back into the show. Not the High Altitude boring drum stunt discs that don't really have a true frame of reference. It's like playing a disc with a car explosion - that's great but there's no real reference for that and the music is uninteresting - great stunt but who cares.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?