First impressions at California audio Show

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yes from my reading of it the speaker does not achieve a full 9db per speaker but it doesn't need the full 9db to meet spec. The port is designed for corner loading. The original Snell was quite a bit different. The AN E is measured by Audio Note in the corner on a stand and they have all the best measuring equipment that is available. So the matter comes down to trust. Do people think they lied. I don't see the point because even if you cut the 18db gain in half it still would be 22-23hz -6db and usable at 18hz. Since next to nothing is recorded down there it's a non issue. Unfortunately, I can't find the thread on your question at AudioAsylum. If I run across it I will post it. Send em an e-mail if you're curious.

I don't think they lied per se, but they appear to do an industry standard...fudge the numbers a bit. But having the port that close to a wall might confirm some of my impressions on its corner loading, and its effect on the mid bass.

[RGA]

I don't think they lied per se, but they appear to do an industry standard...fudge the numbers a bit. But having the port that close to a wall might confirm some of my impressions on its corner loading, and its effect on the mid bass.

I looked at the picture of the Audio Note room at California Audio Show - they did not have the speakers in the corner. An air conditioner seemed to be placed against the wall. So sadly this was not ideal. At CES Peter and the people he brought had the cheaper room and AudioFederation had the half million room and Peter's room sounded better until AudioFederation put them hard in corners. Like I say - inches matter - it has to be practically touching both the side and the back wall. The pictures I see of the California Show it looks like at least a foot from the back wall and right next to the side wall. I dunno - I don't like My J positioned there - a little muddy and wompy in the bass - but I guess that's the best Mario could do with it.

I found this - on AudioAsylum http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...er+qvortrup&r=

Actually this one is closer but I still can't find the one that addresses the floor specifically and it was there someplace http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...er+qvortrup&r=

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I looked at the picture of the Audio Note room at California Audio Show - they did not have the speakers in the corner. An air conditioner seemed to be placed against the wall. So sadly this was not ideal. At CES Peter and the people he brought had the cheaper room and AudioFederation had the half million room and Peter's room sounded better until AudioFederation put them hard in corners. Like I say - inches matter - it has to be practically touching both the side and the back wall. The pictures I see of the California Show it looks like at least a foot from the back wall and right next to the side wall. I dunno - I don't like My J positioned there - a little muddy and wompy in the bass - but I guess that's the best Mario could do with it.

I found this - on AudioAsylum http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...er+qvortrup&r=

Actually this one is closer but I still can't find the one that addresses the floor specifically and it was there someplace http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...er+qvortrup&r=

Everytime I see the name Richard "BassNut"Greene, I just want to cry. I really miss that man, he truly was my mentor when he was here.

Getting back to the issue at hand; it is my understanding (and it was confirmed by RG) that in order to get the kind of boost you are looking for the room has to be totally sealed, and the room dimensions must be able to support any boost at 23hz and below by its length(it would have to be at least 25' down a wall for a boost at 23hz). So it would stand to reason that in smaller rooms less than 25' in length, you are not going to get much support at 23hz, and that boost that AN relies on won't support a 23hz extension. As the room gets smaller and smaller, the cutoff point of the AN speaker would presumably get higher and higher. This is why I feel that the AN speaker did not have the frequency extension to reproduce the bass pedals of a Hammond B-3, the room was not big enough to get the gain. So that makes all claims of low frequency response a moving target based on the size of the room. Plus, the amount of driver movement to reproduce those low notes would have a doppler effect on the higher frequencies that the driver also has to reproduce. That can't be good on the upper bass and midrange frequencies when deep bass is playing through the driver. That is why it is better to separate the deep bass drivers from the ones playing the mid bass and higher frequencies(a subwoofer for example)

Also the walls would have to be stiff as bricks, otherwise it will release any energy to the other side of the wall and not provide much boost at all. This is especially so

The second issue is having a speaker that close to a wall really does effect image depth, as you are effectively using the walls and an extension to the front baffle of the speakers, and in setups like this, image depth is compromised in favor of bass boost.

Richard Greene also makes another point, and it completely correlates to what I heard in the AN room. Corner placement is most advantageous to the upper bass, much more so than the deepest bass. In the AN room, every piece of music with the male voice, every piece of classic music that had lower strings, and brass had either a chestiness, or sounded overly ripe and much too warm than reality would have them be.

Just some food for thought.

[theaudiohobby]

I don't think they lied per se, but they appear to do an industry standard...fudge the numbers a bit

That a huge understatement, specifying a 92dB speaker as 98dB is a huge fudge.

[Geoffcin]

I don't think they lied per se, but they appear to do an industry standard...fudge the numbers a bit. But having the port that close to a wall might confirm some of my impressions on its corner loading, and its effect on the mid bass.

And I think your being way too generous. As you know (probably more than anyone here), ALL sensitivity readings are done at 1m anechoic. This is the industry standard and EVERYONE uses it except one funny little speaker company that thinks it's OK to measure their speaker in a way that adds many dB to the numbers. It's inaccurate to call these 98dB speakers when the way they measure them add 6-8dB or MORE (depending on frequency) to the readings.

[Brian K]

And I think your being way too generous. As you know (probably more than anyone here), ALL sensitivity readings are done at 1m anechoic. This is the industry standard and EVERYONE uses it except one funny little speaker company that thinks it's OK to measure their speaker in a way that adds many dB to the numbers. It's inaccurate to call these 98dB speakers when the way they measure them add 6-8dB or MORE (depending on frequency) to the readings.

You make a valid point about 1m anechoic being the industry standard for measurement. Their numbers wouldn't be as high as they are if they used that setup for the measurements. To measure the system in a setup that's completely contrary to the way the designer intended (and has stated numerous times) just doesn't make alot of sense. The whole speaker is designed around this corner loading and to measure it in an anechoic environment will give results that are completely irrepresentitive of the actual performance when the setup is done as intended by the designer. In order to get flat frequency response from them they must be corner loaded as the designers intended.

[Geoffcin]

You make a valid point about 1m anechoic being the industry standard for measurement. Their numbers wouldn't be as high as they are if they used that setup for the measurements. To measure the system in a setup that's completely contrary to the way the designer intended (and has stated numerous times) just doesn't make alot of sense. The whole speaker is designed around this corner loading and to measure it in an anechoic environment will give results that are completely irrepresentitive of the actual performance when the setup is done as intended by the designer. In order to get flat frequency response from them they must be corner loaded as the designers intended.

Actually the frequency response from them is far from flat, corner loaded or not.

Many speakers are designed for specific placement. This does not mean that the manufacturer has the right to claim a specification that is in total disregard of standard measurment practice. FWIW; you could corner load any speaker and come up with wildly enhanced readings. It would be very tempting to fudge the data that way but as far as I know there's only one speaker company that does.

[RGA]

You make a valid point about 1m anechoic being the industry standard for measurement. Their numbers wouldn't be as high as they are if they used that setup for the measurements. To measure the system in a setup that's completely contrary to the way the designer intended (and has stated numerous times) just doesn't make alot of sense. The whole speaker is designed around this corner loading and to measure it in an anechoic environment will give results that are completely irrepresentitive of the actual performance when the setup is done as intended by the designer. In order to get flat frequency response from them they must be corner loaded as the designers intended.

Don't bother - these are the same people who believe that testing a Ferrari in off road tests represents the capability of the Ferrari. And conclude that the Ferrari sucks because it can't go over a bolder like a Hummer. You design a test for the capability of that which you are testing. In psychology you call this "validity" - You do not test something in conditions that it was not remotely designed to operate. The AN is designed to operate in a corner and to use the room as part of the overall sound - all testing must be done with the speaker operating in that environment or it's not a valid test. All they have is what is known as "reliability."

Reliability is a test that will yield the same results over and over and over. Which is fine if what you are testing is valid. Thus, if you create a test made for off road vehicles to see how the shocks hold up going over bolders then for ALL vehicles designed for that you can get highly reliable and accurate results and you can make very accurate and reliable comparisons. In audio the test is designed for free standing speakers - all speakers compared for that would be valid - all other kinds of speakers should not be measured because they will be unfairly treated. Just as the Ferrari is unfairly treated against a Hummer and a Hummer would be unfairly treated against a set of tests designed for speed and handling. This is not rocket science - it is science 9 - validity (the range rule for old geezer posters) vs reliability. And the people arguing against it merely have an axe to grind.

No one treats all the different car designs in the same way and yet people are willing to do so with speakers (those people need a searchlight to find their IQ). The fact that 99% of cars are not built for off road does not mean that we should force the 1% that are built of off road cars to be tested like the other 99% - And the silly thing is it is the panel guys if anyone who should "get" that.

[Geoffcin]

Don't bother - these are the same people who believe that testing a Ferrari in off road tests represents the capability of the Ferrari.

A poorer analogy has never been postulated!

Have you ever driven a Ferrari? Sat in one at least? Perhaps ogled one from afar maybe?

Ferrari is all about performance, and the use of modern technology to achieve it.

Performance that can be tested against other cars on the track, where numbers (as in lap times) are king, and bullsh!t (like your fake sensitivity readings) gets smacked down hard, and often.

I know you would like to consider your speakers in the same breath as a Ferrari, but they're a better fit with a Yugo. Unsophisticated 60's tech at it's best!

[theaudiohobby]

A poorer analogy has never been postulated!

Have you ever driven a Ferrari? Sat in one at least? Perhaps ogled one from afar maybe?

Ferrari is all about performance, and the use of modern technology to achieve it.

Performance that can be tested against other cars on the track, where numbers (as in lap times) are king, and bullsh!t (like your fake sensitivity readings) gets smacked down hard, and often.

I know you would like to consider your speakers in the same breath as a Ferrari, but they're a better fit with a Yugo. Unsophisticated 60's tech at it's best!

Now that's funny

[RGA]

A poorer analogy has never been postulated!

Have you ever driven a Ferrari? Sat in one at least? Perhaps ogled one from afar maybe?

Ferrari is all about performance, and the use of modern technology to achieve it.

Performance that can be tested against other cars on the track, where numbers (as in lap times) are king, and bullsh!t (like your fake sensitivity readings) gets smacked down hard, and often.

I know you would like to consider your speakers in the same breath as a Ferrari, but they're a better fit with a Yugo. Unsophisticated 60's tech at it's best!

So Geoff - how do you compare a Dodge Ram V10 to a Ferrari. Do you believe that both shoppers are after the same goal with said purchase? If you do you're clueless.

The person that buys a Ferrari is after a performance sports car - you SHOULD compare the Ferrari against all other sports cars - they are designed for speed and handling.

A person buys a Dodge Ram V10 for pulling a big ass trailer. USE A BRAIN and THINK! If you have a test that measures handling and speed the V10 will suck donkey balls. But nobody is buying it for that. Likewise the Ferrari isn't going to pull a fifth wheel.

You test the Car for which is was designed for. So you test the Ferrari handling ability and off the line scores and top speed. You don't really have interest in the tow ability because it can't do the job. Of course IF you are remotely intelligent then you KNOW this. That is why there are several different kinds of tests. You don't JUST have the speed and handling test and ignore the rest.

Get it now Geoff? A truck is designed for one type of task while a Ferrari is designed for another. Excellent analogy. And you test accordingly for the job it does. Speakers are speakers but automobiles are automobiles. Free standing speaker you test free standing - corner you test in a corner. That simple.

[bobsticks]

A poorer analogy has never been postulated!

Sure there has been...Melvin Walker did it with great frequency before his untimely departure

. And the people arguing against it merely have an axe to grind.

That may well be part of it but at the same time I'm sure others have some frustration over the fact that every thread that has the letters "A" and "N" within close proximity becomes a treatise on corner placement.

Clearly you have an immense knowledge about music and sound reproduction theory (as well as great many other things).This was a thread about the California show. Personally, I would've loved to have read about a wide variety of equipment...and in the beginning that wish was granted until the whole got squashed by the particular. Even I forgot the original intent of the thread...which is fine on occasion but it happens an awful lot...

Since we're making bad analogies, watch this and whenever the words "battling/have (prostate) cancer are heard substitute "like/support Audio Note"...and smile a bit, it ain't that serious...

[Mr Peabody]

Sure there has been...Melvin Walker did it with great frequency before his untimely departure




That may well be part of it but at the same time I'm sure others have some frustration over the fact that every thread that has the letters "A" and "N" within close proximity becomes a treatise on corner placement.

Clearly you have an immense knowledge about music and sound reproduction theory (as well as great many other things).This was a thread about the California show. Personally, I would've loved to have read about a wide variety of equipment...and in the beginning that wish was granted until the whole got squashed by the particular. Even I forgot the original intent of the thread...which is fine on occasion but it happens an awful lot...

Since we're making bad analogies, watch this and whenever the words "battling/have (prostate) cancer are heard substitute "like/support Audio Note"...and smile a bit, it ain't that serious...

LOL, that was good. Remember the Geore Carlin old west bit where he substitutes the word "kill" with another four letter word that begins with "f" and ends with uck?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

LOL, that was good. Remember the Geore Carlin old west bit where he substitutes the word "kill" with another four letter word that begins with "f" and ends with uck?

Oooooooooo, you said the "F" word in two pieces....I'm tellin on ya!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And I think your being way too generous. As you know (probably more than anyone here), ALL sensitivity readings are done at 1m anechoic. This is the industry standard and EVERYONE uses it except one funny little speaker company that thinks it's OK to measure their speaker in a way that adds many dB to the numbers. It's inaccurate to call these 98dB speakers when the way they measure them add 6-8dB or MORE (depending on frequency) to the readings.

I know Geoff, but I am trying to be nice....something I obviously have not been this week on this site.

[Geoffcin]

I know Geoff, but I am trying to be nice....something I obviously have not been this week on this site.

Foo-eee!! In any case this argument was leading the thread way off line, and I've already heard way too much about that one brand for one lifetime!

Thanks for posting your thoughts about the show. Sounds like it was a real blast!

[bobsticks]

I know Geoff, but I am trying to be nice....something I obviously have not been this week on this site.

Lolz...

[Feanor]

And I think your being way too generous. As you know (probably more than anyone here), ALL sensitivity readings are done at 1m anechoic. This is the industry standard and EVERYONE uses it except one funny little speaker company that thinks it's OK to measure their speaker in a way that adds many dB to the numbers. It's inaccurate to call these 98dB speakers when the way they measure them add 6-8dB or MORE (depending on frequency) to the readings.

The more I consider the actual design of the AN speakers, the more I realize that they are, objectively, nothing special. Just simple drivers with a simple crossover in a simple box-- hemp, silver, and Baltic birch notwithstanding. The bottom line consequence is a primitive design with primitive results. Indeed what AN is really good at is cultivating mystique.

Sadly, audiophilia isn't about accuracy at all -- the great efforts of people like Sir Terrence with the goal of accuracy are all in vain. It's about what sounds pretty to the audiophiles, (euphonic: smooth & bloomy). Further, they have no intention of learning the truth; to a remarkable degree they like what they're used to and/or what their audiophile gurus tell them is "organic", "holistic" or similar billsh!t. What can be said of AN, most generously, is that they have nailed this sound.

[RGA]

The more I consider the actual design of the AN speakers, the more I realize that they are, objectively, nothing special. Just simple drivers with a simple crossover in a simple box-- hemp, silver, and Baltic birch notwithstanding. The bottom line consequence is a primitive design with primitive results. Indeed what AN is really good at is cultivating mystique.

Sadly, audiophilia isn't about accuracy at all -- the great efforts of people like Sir Terrence with the goal of accuracy are all in vain. It's about what sounds pretty to the audiophiles, (euphonic: smooth & bloomy). Further, they have no intention of learning the truth; to a remarkable degree they like what they're used to and/or what their audiophile gurus tell them is "organic", "holistic" or similar billsh!t. What can be said of AN, most generously, is that they have nailed this sound.

It would be more credible if the stone wasn't being thrown by a guy who owns magnepans

[jpaik]

.. Indeed what AN is really good at is cultivating mystique.

Indeed. And there is a fanboy cult constantly oiling the AN mystique machine. The truth is an absent feature.

[PeruvianSkies]

Looks like no one cares when it involves certain people around here, interesting indeed.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Looks like no one cares when it involves certain people around here, interesting indeed.

PS, don't get your fanny in a crack on this. Let it be their issue, not yours.

[Feanor]

Looks like no one cares when it involves certain people around here, interesting indeed.

Truth is more admirable than hypocracy.

[Geoffcin]

Looks like no one cares when it involves certain people around here, interesting indeed.

Yes, I agree!

But,when you have a topic called; "First impressions at California audio Show" which starts off brilliantly, but then becomes a rant about one speaker in particular, a rant that we've all heard incessantly in numerous threads over and over ad nauseum, THEN you have even the most tolerant moderator on AR fuming that he has to wade through piles of "fanboy fiction" to get to hear what people who were actually THERE feelings about what they heard and saw.

[E-Stat]

The bottom line consequence is a primitive design with primitive results. Indeed what AN is really good at is cultivating mystique.Sadly, audiophilia isn't about accuracy at all...

Yes, but let's not throw everyone into a single AN pile! Most of us are not company disciples.

rw