Advice about speakers

[Florian]

Pardon this low-life's interruption, but truthfully Florian, you come across as a real elitist prick, did you know that? How sad for you little boy.

I am, no kidding! But dont worry at least i dont post about toys i ever never heard or owned like some others in here ;-)

[theaudiohobby]

I will chose fromynaudio C2,Dynaudio Saphire,countur 5.4,or B&W Nautilius 802/803,or Focal JM lab Alto Utopia or Electra 920.

Are these only models you have at your disposal, I ask because the Electra 926/936Be were very fine speakers for reasonable dough.

[theaudiohobby]

I could but Mr. Qvortrup is in your neck of the woods and was willing to have you sit down and talk with B&W engineers about their preferences in loudspeakers and while there could tell you about the "freebies" ...

In otherwords, it's just hearsay you do not have any evidence, who would have guessed? you da man!

[winston]

hello everyone, can i ask you all about (ENERGY SPEAKERS) their new models namely the C500

i wanted to say something more but something went wrong...ok i wanted to give a pair for xmas gift. i found a great price on PR.COM, it strikes a bell" as i did owned a set of the C6 for about 7 YRS i did not like the performance of the tweeter but that was the 90S. any input will help plz.dont let me be the bad (SANTA) THX ALL rgds winston. ok

[Mr Peabody]

I thought you said you auditioned the 2.1x, and you didn't ask any questions? I hope the Sony gear you show isn't what you thought sounded better. Either you like to post just to stir things up or your ears need some educating. Audio Note does "Direct From Disc" technology where they use no oversampling and no analog filtering. You can find numerous reviews of Audio Note DAC's and they all seem to be quite consistent in the DAC's attributes and characteristics.

http://www.deaudiofabriek.nl/audio_note_cd

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/Magazin...tedac21sig.htm

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...anmeetsmsb.htm

http://www.audionotekits.com/dac2_1.html

I don't know what Sharp sells across the pond but in the U.S. they would have to improve to be considered entry level.

[Florian]

In otherwords, it's just hearsay you do not have any evidence, who would have guessed? you da man!

The guy isnt even the brain behind Audio Note..... just the ex english importer. LOL ..... i see a lot of people with serious audio note japan equipment but none ever use the audio note uk speakers.... but who is willing to pay for 2 ****ty drives in a **** box with silver cables....... Hahahah.... break the rule of physics.

[Florian]

Only 3K..... low usage.... must sell...... beats 20k B&W

[theaudiohobby]

I am lost for words...trying to keep my cool so that the thread does not head south.

[theaudiohobby]

I thought you said you auditioned the 2.1x, and you didn't ask any questions?

What question should I have asked? Why should I have learn to about how a DAC works to assess it sound ? I thought the proof of the DAC is in the listening ?

I hope the Sony gear you show isn't what you thought sounded better. Either you like to post just to stir things up or your ears need some educating.

Emperor cloths, anyone? Ofcourse the Sony sounds better, miles better and more flexible to boot ..:

Audio Note does "Direct From Disc" technology where they use no oversampling and no analog filtering.You can find numerous reviews of Audio Note DAC's and they all seem to be quite consistent in the DAC's attributes and characteristics.

Should I have asked for a glass of audio note marketing before listening ?

http://www.deaudiofabriek.nl/audio_note_cd

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/Magazin...tedac21sig.htm

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...anmeetsmsb.htm

http://www.audionotekits.com/dac2_1.html

I don't know what Sharp sells across the pond but in the U.S. they would have to improve to be considered entry level.

It is not small irony that's you and RGA accuse B&W of marketing but have resorted to posting reviews and namedropped at every opportunity. At least B&W marketing is more successful as it's marketing has translated into more sales, just maybe their product is also better

Mr. Peabody you need to simmer down a bit because you and RGA seem all bent out of shape for no good reason cos whilst both of you are hyperventilating I am enjoying some very good music on my superbly organic sub-entry-level rig

[Mr Peabody]

To each their own.

[RGA]

To each their own.

This is a difficult tag team duo in Florian and TAH - I must say it is interesting. TAH argues that if a company sells more it is better - well Bose is 10 times better than B&W because that's a low estimate of how much more Bose sells - and you'll even find Bose and JBL in recording studios. Genelec and PMC must be truly terrible because they are in less studios than B&W and TAH's QUADs that he loves or loved - he changes so many times it's hard to keep track of are in ZERO recording studios so they must be truly abysmal - More people buy Totem than Quad so they must be be better.

And the other part of the tag team is the exact opposite, Apogee, - they are the best speakers in the world so much so that nobody wanted them they could not sell them and went belly up - all their owners will tell you it's better than Magnepan though. So it's good because it sells more - or it's good because they went out of business and sell none.

So I wonder if Florian agrees that B&W is VASTLY better than Apogee because B&W is in more recording studios and sells far more. I also wonder if TAH thinks B&W is better than Apogee because of sales and lack of recording studio presence?

They sold more Ford Mustangs than Ferrari so it is clear as day that the Ford is a vastly better motor vehicle.

[audio amateur]

To each their own.

I think that sums it up nicely

[Feanor]

I think that sums it up nicely

Indeed, a matter of taste.

I wonder at RGA's passionate advocacy and defense of AN speakers (and AN products in general). It's almost pathetic when you think of it. RGA loves the AN sound; that's fine, but he can't accept it as a matter of preference. Instead he has to endlessly rationalize this preference and try to convince the rest of us the AN approach is certainly the best and possibly the only valid approach to speaker and component design.

But has he partially convinced me? There are couple of things I like to try.

First, as a DIY project, I think I'll design a pair of speakers along the AN lines. Really, the concepts are straight forward and easily copied:

• Under-damped cabinets
• Close to the wall or corner placement -- which certainly will reinforce bass
• Simple, two-way designs
• High-quality crossovers

For the sake of design simplicity and lower tuning sensitivity, I'll go closed-box rather than vented and provide quite low Qtc. The low Qtc ought to complement close to the wall placement as well as yiekl excellent bass transients as I understand it.

Secondly I'd like to try a non-oversampling DAC. What sounds interesting is one of the designs that parallels multiple DAC chips which as I understand delivers sufficient voltage that output op amps aren't required. There a quite a few of these, especially from China, for example the Gigalab Moon which can be order Pacific Valve & Electric in the US/

[E-Stat]

Indeed, a matter of taste.

Exactly.

[*]Close to the wall or corner placement -- which certainly will reinforce bass...

You can stop there for me. While corner placement may *improve* the bass response, my experience is that it sucks for imaging. Other speakers designed for such placement like the KHorn share the same issue. I perceive greater width when the speakers can radiate outside their placement. Only then can walls disappear.

Secondly I'd like to try a non-oversampling DAC. What sounds interesting is one of the designs that parallels multiple DAC chips which as I understand delivers sufficient voltage that output op amps aren't required.

Another op amp avoidance strategy can be found in the Manley Delta Sigma DAC. Somewhat dated, but uses an 18 bit Crystal chip set. Its *line stage* (with analog gain controls) uses a pair of 12au7 dual triodes sufficient to drive amplifiers directly.

Manley DAC

rw

[theaudiohobby]

I think that sums it up nicely

RGA evidently does not feel that way the chap is on a crusade to save the great unwashed.

[RGA]

Indeed, a matter of taste.

I wonder at RGA's passionate advocacy and defense of AN speakers (and AN products in general). It's almost pathetic when you think of it. RGA loves the AN sound; that's fine, but he can't accept it as a matter of preference. Instead he has to endlessly rationalize this preference and try to convince the rest of us the AN approach is certainly the best and possibly the only valid approach to speaker and component design.
/

Feaner - let it be clear that I like a great many products but yes I have a preference that does exceed the second choice. I have no problem with anyone who goes out and listens to the AN E and prefers the B&W D800 - you heard you prefer the latter fine - I know a fellow who preferred the Quad 2905 and on another forum who preferred the Westminster from Tannoy and the reason why makes perfect sense - and I understand why. Indeed in both cases we hear the same things - but our order of importance was different. The 2905 is a wider imager - the AN E was more dynamic - could play louder, better in the frequency extremes - but when it comes to wide soundstage the 2905 and holographic nature is difficult to surpass (One reason it's one of my 5 favorites). The Westminster hits harder is more powerful - macrodynamically superior - great bass cohesive sound and can hit live scale volume levels a full 10db+ higher than the AN E So of course I am not saying it is the best speaker or the best product. However both agree that the AN E is a better balance between the two extremes capturing "most of what their speaker preference does while also bringing far more of the other to the table.' Nevertheless - if you can't live without the absolute slam of the westminster or the holographic imaging of the 2905 then "Balance" is irrelevant.

However that is quite different from someone who insists his ford festiva is better than a Bughatti when he's never tried either one. Or someone who makes an inference based on one speaker and then presumes to be able to apply it to all others. For instance the Magnepan 20.1 and the 2905 or both panel speakers and yet I find the latter to be vastly superior to the former - they're both panels but I would not tell people well it's a panel so it sounds like "X". I have heard the K-Horn and years ago Allison loudspeakers - they're corner loaded and have some strong points but they don't sound remotely like an AN E just because they happen to be corner loaded.

Corner loading is not just for adding bass depth - that is arguably the least important aspect of why Audio Note places the speaker there. Even free standing the bass is "good enough" to cover everything but pedal organs. Unfortunately, and I am arguably as much to blame as anyone, people are fascinated by numbers more than the listening. Bass depth is not the reason to be buying AN or any one box speaker - if bass depth and SPL were really all that critical you'd buy two big powerful subwoofers and that would be how you'd achieve the idiotic bass levels one could desire.

In my room free standing the AN J is more than enough bass - placing them in the corner was to improve tonal balance and reduce room induced colouration and some treble directionality do the listening proximity to the speakers. In the corners those issue are reduced to perceived inaudibility and yes there is a gain in bass but even there it is not really noticed unless the source material has it - as I don't listen to Organ music much the bass gain really isn't a huge selling point of why I would position them in the corner.

I've actually softened my stance on Audio Note speakers over the last year largely because I can see the appeal of other designs more clearly. Though it's not a lot to ask to listen before you bash. It was Art Dudley who made me give the 989 and 2905 a more serious audition. Having been so impressed by the AN E but still describing the qualities of the 989 I felt that I must have missed something because his ears likely could not be so right about one speaker and so completely wrong about another.

[Feanor]

...

Corner loading is not just for adding bass depth - that is arguably the least important aspect of why Audio Note places the speaker there. Even free standing the bass is "good enough" to cover everything but pedal organs. Unfortunately, and I am arguably as much to blame as anyone, people are fascinated by numbers more than the listening. Bass depth is not the reason to be buying AN or any one box speaker - if bass depth and SPL were really all that critical you'd buy two big powerful subwoofers and that would be how you'd achieve the idiotic bass levels one could desire.

...

Agreed, corner place will reinforce the bass, not necessarily add depth. Also it will, as you say, change the tonal balance making the bass more prominent. I'm sure you know that speakers designed to be place well into the room require "baffle step compensation", and more BSC is required as the front width of the front of the speaker gets narrower. Basically volume loss occurs below the frequency where the 1/2 wave length become longer than the width of the baffle; to compensate for this, the mid and high frequences must be attenuated -- this results in an efficiency loss of up to 6 dB It's no wonder that AN speakers are relatively efficient when placed as instructed.

It seems to me that closed-box systems are well suited to near- or on-wall placements. That's because the bass can be rolled off slowly, such that roll-off begins sooner but goes deeper. Thus near-wall placement with a closed box will compensate for the roll-off and also achieve deeper bass than a vented design. (AN uses both closed and vented designs however.)

[theaudiohobby]

Feaner - let it be clear that I like a great many products but yes I have a preference that does exceed the second choice. I have no problem with anyone who goes out and listens to the AN E and prefers the B&W D800 - you heard you prefer the latter fine - I know a fellow who preferred the Quad 2905 and on another forum who preferred the Westminster from Tannoy and the reason why makes perfect sense - and I understand why. Indeed in both cases we hear the same things - but our order of importance was different. The 2905 is a wider imager - the AN E was more dynamic - could play louder, better in the frequency extremes - but when it comes to wide soundstage the 2905 and holographic nature is difficult to surpass (One reason it's one of my 5 favorites). The Westminster hits harder is more powerful - macrodynamically superior - great bass cohesive sound and can hit live scale volume levels a full 10db+ higher than the AN E

Grrr !!! Quad 2905 and AN E are seriously limited speakers in comparison to the Tannoy Westminster and B&W 801. The B&W801 is 92dB and flat down to 20Hz (anechoic) which is some of the reasons it's a popular studio classical music monitor, it will fill a large room with solid low-distortion bass without any room support( see links above) and why it's less suitable as a domestic speaker as most domestic listening room are relatively small. The Westminster is 99dB/1m but with considerably less deep bass ~30Hz and it is aimed squarely at the domestic market. In comparison AN-E and the Quad are dynamically constipated.and no one will seriously consider either as credible classical music studio monitor.

However both agree that the AN E is a better balance between the two extremes capturing "most of what their speaker preference does while also bringing far more of the other to the table.' Nevertheless - if you can't live without the absolute slam of the westminster or the holographic imaging of the 2905 then "Balance" is irrelevant.

Another listener may come along and say the opposite, claiming it captures the worse of both speakers as a domestic user is free to select whatever 'balance' catches their fancy. Personally, comparing the Westminster to the Audio Note E is a bit of a joke , they are in a different league entirely.

[RGA]

It seems to me that closed-box systems are well suited to near- or on-wall placements. That's because the bass can be rolled off slowly, such that roll-off begins sooner but goes deeper. Thus near-wall placement with a closed box will compensate for the roll-off and also achieve deeper bass than a vented design. (AN uses both closed and vented designs however.)

The bottom line comes down to the listening experience more than the numbers - I have heard the 90db AN K/Spe mated with the 5 watt Sonic Impact amp the AN K was 5 feet into the room away from all room boundries with 15 foot ceilings and a 25X 30 room. Hardly ideal the speaker sounded a little thin and lightweight but there was enough power to drive it to fairly loud levels without huffing and puffing. In a 10X13room with 8-9 foot ceilings the sound would be as loud as any normal person could take. So might I add would a B&W N805 mated to an OTO.

Most people do not listen at 110db very often and our ability to distinguish problems at those spls is seriously diminished anyway.

[RGA]

Grrr !!! Quad 2905 and AN E are seriously limited speakers in comparison to the Tannoy Westminster and B&W 801. The B&W801 is 92dB and flat down to 20Hz (anechoic) which is some of the reasons it's a popular studio classical music monitor, it will fill a large room with solid low-distortion bass without any room support( see links above) and why it's less suitable as a domestic speaker as most domestic listening room are relatively small. The Westminster is 99dB/1m but with considerably less deep bass ~30Hz and it is aimed squarely at the domestic market. In comparison AN-E and the Quad are dynamically constipated.and no one will seriously consider either as credible classical music studio monitor.

Oh TAH you're so ridiculous - I have heard all 4 speakers and you've heard none of them. What's more my dealer carries thre of them and used to carry the Tannoys - I actually like the Tannoy more than most - but there is a reason the Tannoys are in the "used to carry" pile. For one the Westminster is a monster speaker. And umm you were waxing the Quads as the best speakers ever made - what happened - now you hate them? Quad is not good for classical music? Huh? So let me get this straight - you love the Westminster more than the Quad now? Well on that we agree I would prefer the Westminster too in a large room. And trying to make an argument over what I already said is odd. The Westminster is higher sensitive can play louder and has more impact - umm already said it. The N801 meets its spec in an enechoic chamber - the AN E requires corner gain and speced in room - the N801 can play louder to boot. And before you get on about the bass - frankly I'll be happy to say the N801 has 10hz more or do you want 50hz more at higher level? Heck let's say the N801 goes deeper by 30hz in room and is 30db more sensitive than the E and has a flatter frequency response - happy now TAH? So TAH what do you win? I've heard all four loudspeakers and to one degree or another like all four speakers. Reading the graph and looking at the pretty pictures of the speakers you post does not change my listening experience of the four loudspeakers.

My dealer carries or carried all four of those loudspeakers. What is curious is that most of the people who have listened to all four (add the 20.1 from Maggie) hears it exactly the same way that I do - and everyone who works there does. Do you have an explanation for that? I make a very big allowance for why someone would like the Westminster or the 2905 over the AN E - but it is interesting that you can see no reason how anyone could like the AN E over those speakers. Why for example does a Quad or westminster or N801owner trade their speaker in for an AN E? Of course I have actually listened to the four and I know of he sonic strengths and weaknesses of the lot of them and know where the strength of the AN E can seduce the Westminster lover and would have them make the switch. I also know why someone would still choose the Westminster. The Tannoy upscale stuff is stuff I could live with long term - I don't consider the AN E to be a "better" speaker and frankly I wish Soundhounds had found a way to keep the line because I think it's better than some of the other stuff they carry. At this point in fact the Westminster is my second choice - and if I had a bigger room might be my first choice.

[theaudiohobby]

Oh TAH you're so ridiculous - I have heard all 4 speakers and you've heard none of them. What's more my dealer carries thre of them and used to carry the Tannoys - I actually like the Tannoy more than most - but there is a reason the Tannoys are in the "used to carry" pile..... Reading the graph and looking at the pretty pictures of the speakers you post does not change my listening experience of the four loudspeakers.

With due respect you are being silly...how do you know that I have listened to none of the speakers? Secondly, I am indifferent to your preferences, what get's my goat is your constant jarring commentary that somehow the Bowers & Wilkins 800 series are unsuitable as studio monitors and are only in studios because Bowers&Wilkins gives them away for free.

The fact of the matter is that nobody in their right mind will monitor a large orchestra recording on either an Audio Note E or a Quad 2905 because of their dynamic and bass limitations, they are domestic audio speakers. And listening to either speaker in your dealer's shop will not tell you how well they will perform in a large recording studio. Going on to claim that recording engineers that use B&Ws somehow do not know good sound and put out poor recordings is a tad tasteless and uncalled for, IMO.

I am not interested in changing your listening experience nor preferences. And those pesky numbers would immediately tell you that neither the Audio Note E nor Quad 2905 are suitable as classical music studio monitors.

[RGA]

The AN E is designed for home audio not a recording studio - and there are limitations to listening to recording studio designed speakers at home - there is a reason for their differences. The AN E is full range enough to cover everything but the pedal organ and even then only not capable at loud levels - Dynamics is not the same as sheer volume level.

Every single person I know who has made the switch from an 800 series B&W to an Audio Note E (and I know of zero on line or in person who went the other way) will talk about cohesiveness. The B&W's let you hear what the driver is doing - that may in fact be a desirable attribute for an RE but not for a music listener. And I am NOT even remotely close to being alone on hearing this "lack" of coehsiveness of B&W tweeter on top technology. The gap is audible and it completely destroys the belief that one is listening to an instrument but a speaker reproducing an instrument. It may very well be acceptable in a recording studio. It also may be that a lot of folks don't hear the separation or are less sensitive to what I hear as a major failing of the tweeter on top B&W's. Again TAH - this is subjective - If I hear it and it annoys me - and a lot of other reviewers and owners all complain about the exact same thing - then it's not just in our heads - it's actually a problem. However I admit that another 10 individuals either don't hear it at all or do hear it but the problem is less of nuisance to them.

I do not buy speakers for ultimate SPL or ultimate bass response. Full scale classical music is not done justice to except for the live event. The N801 or D800 with my classical music discs is no better produced in room than on the 2905 or Westminster or AN E. I hear an audible gap with B&W's which sounds nothing like the real thing. And I keep saying it but it may very well be a reason so many complain about so many recordings being bright, thin and generally poor.

The quality of reproduction on the 2905 is far better IMO but it is dynamically limited, the Westminster is a champ on the dynamics SPl and "scale" - The AN E captures 90% of what the Westminster does but simply requires a smaller room at lower listening levels. And it sounds "subbjectively" better on microdynamics and nuance and cohesivenes than the Westminster does - despite the dual concentric. Ultimately to say the Westminster is better - it is in some respects but the AN E is also better in other respects. I would rather listen to the 1812 at high levels on the Westminster over the AN E perhaps but Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata I would rather listen on a set of AN E's. And since much more music across genres is not like the 1812 then for me the AN E is more practical. In a studio I could see the choice being made for the speker that could handle the 1812 at 130decibals and obviously that is not the 2905.

My strong held opinions about Audio Note and B&W may irritate you but if you were in my shoes you would not see it that way. Whether the speaker is in a showroom or my home is completely 100% irrelevant because a speaker is supposed to be designed to operate in many rooms not any one single room. While it is true that at home one could "tweak" it to get the best from it - it is also true that most of the dealers I go to set up gear well, in appropriate sized rooms, putting them in the best possible light in order to sell them.

I have heard B&W for more than 15 years liked many disliked many. When I do the direct comparisons, and listen to other "customers" sitting in the room and in every single case every single time everyone comes to the exact same conclusion and with the guys selling both lines (with no inherent "stake" in either) all have the AN E in their homes and people bringing their B&W's in for Audio Note - perhaps you could understand a little why I get a bit the way I get. From my personal experience of everyone I see listening and know all confirm what I have felt in my listening sessions. It's difficult then to see how it could be heard any differently.

[RGA]

I apologize for this second reply:

This is for all the forumers here at AR who have been posting here as long as I - If you were here before this forum (I believe I was here even before Woochifer) was in this format then you may remember back in 1998-2003 or thereabouts when RGA was a staggering B&W fan. Almost as big a B&W poster boy as I am for AN - hard to believe but if you check the history here you can read up on the threads. I had at least the amount of posts on the old format as I do now.

And now I know how some of you felt because I am now reading the exact same arguments from TAH to me that I made defending B&W against those little companies I snickered at.

B&W is used in all the recording studios - They would not buy them if they were bad
B&W sells more so gee maybe they are actually better than the small time stuff.
B&W has deeper pockets so they can afford the best engineers
B&W can buy in larger quantities thus offering far more for the buck than any small makers.
And probably a whole pile more.

Yes fast forward a decade and I am being confronted with my own arguments so I suppose it's a healthy dose of my own medicine.

I shudder to think of my past opinions in most cases.

Some of my posts before 2003

First of all B&W is the biggest high end speaker maker in the world which makes them a target. I don't think it's a fair target because even though the B&Ws may not be to one's taste they don't have any truly bad habits and of all the big name speaker companies they are probably the best of the lot. For instance I always suggest a B&W speaker to go and listen to...sure they are not my first choice at every price point(sometimes they are) but they are usually always a speaker that are in the running.(What more can you ask for). And they certainly are built well and look nice to boot." December 10, 2002 AA

"The Thing I really like about most all of B&W speakers is that they start with the midrange and work out from there. 90% of music is in the midband...few budget speakers get it right. Some like Mission do as well, but they are not as dynamic for harder music or H/T. Some planars are better for certain things but take up more space and usually require a lot more money on amplifiers etc. The 600 Series does everything well, and IMO one of the very best "all rounders" available in the price point...perhaps THE Best(at least compared to what I have heard from Energy, Paradigm, Boston Acoustics, NHT, Klipsch, Jamo, Mission, Polk, Acoustic Energy, PSB, Mordaunt Short, Tannoy, Monitor Audio, Linn, Mirage, and a few others I can't think of off the top of my head. Some of these others from Mission, Monitor Audio and Linn have certain attributes I like better but as an overall all rounder...I'd probably buy the B&W 602S3 or 603S3.

Plus they are very good to build a H/T set-up around should you elect to go that route. Just get the top 600 Series Center channel as the other one is kind of lackluster."

"Well with the Nautilus 801(I like the Matrix better though). I heard the N801 with an 11 watt tube amp at low volume and they dissapeared...that is a neat trick for a speaker this gigantic.../...They are a world class speaker - I liked the highs better on the Matrix series though for some odd reason. Perhaps the Nautilus has a slight lilt to appeal to home theater...after Lucas is now using the 802 so ???"

"The N804 is a well made good sounding speaker. It isn't my personal choice but I think it's a safe one. It sounds good for the money - and it has some other nicities like good looks, easily resalability, long lasting drivers, a big corp so they'll be around in 10 years if something should fail...can you say that about MOST of the esoteric competition? Esoteric does not mean good, necessarily, either.

The N804s again are not perfect, there is some oddities about their sound, but that is hardly a knock compared to competitors who have downright nasty highs or lots of resonances or no bass etc."


However I did progress after hearing other speakers

To Layman
I have to admit that I definitely get a sense of what you're taklking about [with B&W]. The Reference 3a MM De Capo sounded seamless. I stood up walked outside the listening position...and whether I was one foot in front or 15 feet back(speakers about 7 feet apart) the sound was virtually the same all the time. The did seem to be a spearation between drivers with the CDM 1NT.

I personally didn't find it to be bright though, nor did I get the sense of an ETCHED high frequency...But, perhaps if I owned the product longer term that separation might become fatiguing. I usually associate fatiguing with the very TOP of the frequency response(well the top of my hearing) and a LOT of metal tweeter have that harsh sounding ping ping sound on cymbols etc...it literally sounds like tin cans banging away. Since the B&W CDM 1NTs don't do that it is highly possible that I have ignored the seamless issue because although not perfect it's better than the competitors' problems.

Of course i have not heard all the competitors...and as you note the Reference 3a and Audio Note don't have the problem whatsoever.

I have never been too impressed with Vandersteen...but it was mre because the speaker was kinda lifeless overly, polite...but it was a long time ago.

The Audio Note actually seems like an old school product...reading their big philosophy essay of speaker design...it's certainly interesting. Sort of based of 70s snells. My question has always been ... Why fix it if ain't broke? Perhaps why Sugden still sells their A21a since 1989. Why screw with it?"

But then I read some stuff from a poster named layman and a few others

It's interesting you mention Audio Note. After auditioning them against B&W - I have to say I understand where you come from when you're against B&W. The Audio Note AN-K level 3(their entry speaker) sounds big and full and frankly awesome compared to the N805 that quite frankly I'm shocked. Sure I like B&W against a lot of speakers...but then a lot of speakers have the same kind of design.

I think the best advice is to look for speakers that perhaps don't get the mainstream press but still seem to survive. Until about 11 months ago I had never heard of Audio Note...they went under my radar because all the magazines talk about Paradigm, B&W and big gigantic corporations like Harman etc.

But there is a reason why companies like Audio Note, Reference 3a, Sugden(and the companies you list) last for 20 and 30 or more years. Amazingly both Audio Note and Sugden make ugly componants relative to others, neither is mentioned much...both still survive and do well without the need to heavily, if at all, advertise.

What is frustrating is that B&W's N805 SHOULD be vastly superior to what Audio Note can put out. B&W has huge resources, can buy parts and build far more cheaply than a smaller company and sell in bigger numbers to further be able to lower their margin. And Yet, to be frank, there is simply no contest...the AN-K sounds like a full range stand mount. It isn't of course - but at least it gives you that impression...for the $3000.00CDN...the N805 just doesn't cut it.

And the N805 used to be my favorite standmount. B&W needs a completely new design approach to replace this series...they need a bigger sounding speaker - and a less separated sound. And the N805 should drop to a $1,000.00 a pair price point.

I want more for 3k than "well it sounds good" For that money I want to be floored. "

"Layman took a lot of flack from people including me when he brought up several problems with a midrange suckout in B&W speakers(and they have high prices too). Listening to the B&Ws again this time against deifferent brands I understood what Layman was talking about."

Referred problems that Layman was talking about to put my above quote in context

Above: Horizontal Response graph for Nautilus 801, which clearly shows the progressive loss of output at 2 kHz as you move off the speaker's reference axis. The 7-inch FST drivers clearly beam.

If the kevlar drivers behaved as B&W claimed then they would not beam at the top of their passbands, but measurement data clearly show that they DO BEAM at the top of their passbands. The kevlar drivers are not behaving as claimed. They appear to behave as a rigid, homogenous material.

The only difference that I can see between the measured behavior of kevlar vs. the measured behavior of metal (another rigid cone material) concerns the Q (amplitude) of the first break-up mode. Metal drivers exhibit high-Q (high amplitude, narrow bandwidth) break-up when driven past pistonic motion. The narrow bandwidth mode is rarely audible to the human ear. Kevlar drivers on the other hand exhibit low-Q (low amplitude, wide bandwidth) break-up. The wide bandwidth 1st break-up mode is EXTREMELY audible and this is what users are reporting when they describe the extra detail, analysis and zip of the kevlar drivers (which fatigues over time).

Based on measurement data, the kevlar drivers are not behaving as B&W claim. The beaming of the drivers past 1 kHz indicates that their operational area does not shrink (as B&W claim) with increasing frequency. The break-up data show that kevlar behaves like a very stiff material whose characteristics place it somewhere between metal and polypropylene. The measured behavior of B&W's kevlar drivers show that the cones behave like any other rigid material that breaks up and distorts (like all rigid materials) when driven past the point of pistonic motion.

I see no MEASURED advantage from operating kevlar drivers past the point of pistonic motion into break-up (which is common current B&W practice).

Notice the hump (low Q peak) at the top of the FST kevlar driver's passband in the model CDM9NT in the attached link (courtesy of Audio Ideas Guide). The reviewer's description of a papery, forward coloration of vocals and sounds that overlap the peaked up upper band of the FST kevlar driver is no coincidence.

Reference (courtesy of Stereophile):
B&W N801:
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?207:9 "

I would like to point out that the above was posted by a different forumer and in fact I like the sound of the N801 more than he does despite the fact that I do hear a lack of cohesion with B&W's. But I understand why he and such a huge amount of listeners like him have long term problems with B&W speakers that incorporate Kevlar. I have not owned them so I do not know if long term they would rally bug me - though i suspect they would for me personally.

[theaudiohobby]

The AN E is designed for home audio not a recording studio - and there are limitations to listening to recording studio designed speakers at home - there is a reason for their differences.

Then why whine about RE not listening to it?

The AN E is full range enough to cover everything but the pedal organ and even then only not capable at loud levels

Well not in my book…it lean midbass and upper bass is not to my taste. It’s limited LF capability would certainly take a toll on dynamics.

Dynamics is not the same as sheer volume level.

Not sure your point here, but the B&W801/800 is more dynamic, moreso in the bass where the E is bass challenged.

The B&W's let you hear what the driver is doing - that may in fact be a desirable attribute for an RE but not for a music listener

That’s a copout, So the RE is possibly more interested in the sound of speaker drivers rather than the music they are recording, c'mon now?

I do not buy speakers for ultimate SPL or ultimate bass response. Full scale classical music is not done justice to except for the live event.

So we should all give up and buy dynamically challenged speakers like the Audio Note, isn’t it? No thank you. I can think of a couple of speakers without their limitations. You do not need a Westminster to understand their limitation. A Kef iQ5 handily showed up the shortcomings of the J.

I hear an audible gap with B&W's which sounds nothing like the real thing. And I keep saying it but it may very well be a reason so many complain about so many recordings being bright, thin and generally poor.

Funny that, your comments mirror my opinion of the Audio Note J, I cannot bear to listen to many otherwise decent recordings on the J because of its leanness and overly aggressive midrange, seems like you need to listen to a more balanced speaker. The Audio Note K/D? is a more balanced speaker in that respect but it’s a small sealed standmount with limited LF capability. And totally but understandably falls apart on full-scale symphonic music.

the AN-K sounds like a full range stand mount. It isn't of course - but at least it gives you that impression

Like a fullrange? The AN-K sounds exactly like what it is, a standmount with limited low-end

My strong held opinions about Audio Note and B&W may irritate you but if you were in my shoes you would not see it that way.

I don’t think so…the Audio Notes I have heard did not cut the mustard. I cannot think of a single area where the Audio Notes excel except their low power requirements but they give up too much to achieve that.

Whether the speaker is in a showroom or my home is completely 100% irrelevant because a speaker is supposed to be designed to operate in many rooms not any one single room.

That rather contradictory isn’t it? You just finished saying that a Tannoy Westminster may be more suitable than an Audio Note E in a larger room and conversely the E in smaller room

While it is true that at home one could "tweak" it to get the best from it - it is also true that most of the dealers I go to set up gear well, in appropriate sized rooms, putting them in the best possible light in order to sell them.

Which include setting up a B&W801 in a domestic sized listening space , I hear you.

I am not surprised that Audio Note speakers are not big in the UK, the ones I have heard fare badly against the competition IMO. Tannoys, Kefs and B&Ws of all shapes and sizes run rings round them.

[RGA]

TAH

Soundhounds has the AN E and the D800 - anyone on this forum is welcome to audition the two on full tilt classical music at volume levels capable of damaging your hearing.

As a long time B&W fan, lover, supporter, owner, and nearly Nautilus series owner I am well aware of what B&W can do and what the AN line-up can do.