Boston sound?

Printable View

  • 09-12-2004, 05:26 PM
    RGA
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Read my post again RGA, narrow baffles, all things equal, generally enhance soundstage depth, some say at the expense of width some say not. Hence, wider baffles can limit soundstage "depth". For all intents and purposes,givien the distances and the speed of sound, it's doubtful an AN versus Studio 100 or B&W 703' s baffle width is going to have any impact on soundstage or imaging.
    My main point was that an baffle/crossover modeling program will show the effect of the wider baffles and dimension of AN's cabinets on sound. Their baffle width isn't wide enough to do anything meaningful other than move the undesireable baffle step into the midrange where you don't want it.
    But that's not a big deal either because a crossover compensates for this.
    For all intents and purposes, AN cabinets ARE slim line designs, as the "width-to-driver size" ratios are not much different, not enough to make much difference in performance anyway. 6 inches even, isn't much when you start talking about wavelengths produced by a mid-woofer.
    That the depth is a smaller dimension than say B&W's or Paradigm's is irrelevant, as that's just a matter of limiting tangential and oblique mode reflections. Sure it looks different, and the cabinet's width is greater than its depth, but that width isn't enough to be substantial.

    Before I continue to make guesses - why not ask Peter directly - as they have their own computer system and computer program designers. The dfference in soundstage is not stamped onto everything like the Paradigms - The Audio Note's will show which one has a deep soundstage and which one doesn't - at least this is very abvious in direct listening comparisons. The Audio Note skeptic reviewer here http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue8/audionote.htm discusses the Stamped on sound versus the one telling you the way it actually sounds (and this is what they are all about).

    If you have questions on why they use and feel their baffle works to advantages and why the rest serve to ruin vocals ask them directly(listening it's easy to hear) then ask Peter Directly info@audionote.co.uk
  • 09-12-2004, 05:49 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Alot of designers I've spoken with tell me the wide baffle brings soundstage more forward (relative) at the expense of depth, but can be placed closer to a rear wall (helps bass), and is still atractive for this reason.
    So yeah, sounds to me like 2 different ways of getting to the same place. Definitely not a sound compromise for looks, but instead, narrow baffles make less work required in other areas.

    I think you're onto something here, because you've pretty accurately described the differences between the wide Boston A400 and its narrow tower T1000 replacement model. That A400 was a forgiving speaker for placement close to the front wall. Like other vintage "New England sound" speakers, the Boston Acoustics models of that era were acoustic suspension designs, but I distinctly remember the A400 as having a noticeably more forward sound than the bookshelf models in that series (which did not have the same wide design) and a more reinforced bass sound. It retained the tightness of the Advents and ARs, but had a punchier sound. I'll have to hunt down a shot of the A400s, but those are much wider than the ANs (as I mentioned before, they're almost as wide as a door, and probably less than 6" deep) and probably close to what you're describing as a wide baffled speaker.
  • 09-13-2004, 04:32 AM
    kexodusc
    RGA, I could ask Peter directly, I'm afraid I probably won't for the simple reason I wouldn't believe his answer even if it was true. I'd consider it too biased, with an "agenda" of some sort (he does have a vested interest after all). I have asked several other popular designers though, including some that build wide box speakers regularly.
    AN's not the only speaker still making fat boxes. A good speaker system sounds good regardless of box shape.
    My only beef with Audio Note is that their marketing communications (website, Peter's comments, etc) seem to put ideas and words into their fans mouths.
    I haven't noticed any "ruined" vocals in good "narrow baffle" designs, either. If you have, I suggest you haven't listened to enough "good" speakers. That's just to broad a generalization.
    The first time I ever heard the AN E was it was being played in a head-to-head comparison against a modified Klipshhorn of similar price. I don't know what version of the AN E it was, both were about $4100 or so (USD). The AN E was great, the K-Horn was just incredible. I couldn't afford either.
  • 09-13-2004, 05:42 PM
    RGA
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kexodusc
    RGA, I could ask Peter directly, I'm afraid I probably won't for the simple reason I wouldn't believe his answer even if it was true. I'd consider it too biased, with an "agenda" of some sort (he does have a vested interest after all). I have asked several other popular designers though, including some that build wide box speakers regularly.
    AN's not the only speaker still making fat boxes. A good speaker system sounds good regardless of box shape.
    My only beef with Audio Note is that their marketing communications (website, Peter's comments, etc) seem to put ideas and words into their fans mouths.
    I haven't noticed any "ruined" vocals in good "narrow baffle" designs, either. If you have, I suggest you haven't listened to enough "good" speakers. That's just to broad a generalization.
    The first time I ever heard the AN E was it was being played in a head-to-head comparison against a modified Klipshhorn of similar price. I don't know what version of the AN E it was, both were about $4100 or so (USD). The AN E was great, the K-Horn was just incredible. I couldn't afford either.

    I have heard plenty of slim line designs since they glut the market. After allt eh 100 is considered a good slim line design as are the B&Ws and JM labs - what exactly do you want me to listen to that will blow those to the weeds? They had better blow them to the weeds to get my attention. You don't have to "BELEIVE" what he says but I directed you to him simply because I don't want to further bastardize his stance which I don't really know since I don't work there.

    Asking other designers - well they have their own biases and what they THINK is right. The bottomline is that like I have said he swoms against the mainstream - If B&W, Celestion, Wilson, JM Labs, Paradigm and Energy, ML are right to you enjoy and be done with your foray into Audio Note - I think Audio Note is correct because I have heard some good samplings from those others and it is my opinion they are wrong. Khorns are not slim lines and I also loved the speaker - but they also have weakness like stange midrange colourations but superior dynamics. I think the AN is more balanced. This reviewer who has owned and loved the K horn did a number of comparisons.

    He is less biased and owns and loves all of the speakers he mentions in the article. TO be fair to Audio Note the E/D was by far the cheapest speaker he reviewed so take that in context. http://www.audionote.co.uk/reviews/s..._17-07-2k1.htm
  • 10-24-2004, 08:07 AM
    russwa
    Human speakers and EPI's
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    Still got my last set of EPI's, and you can have them when you pry them from my cold dead hands. I keep eyeing this Human dude's website, and wondering if it might make sense to try a pair for the bedroom. Lord knows I could use another set of speakers!

    I'm of the opinion that "if you like the way it sounds that's good". EPI's were the first set of speakers I bought, and I intend to keep them around for a while.

    Strangly, my Cambridge Soundworks T500's are voiced very similarly, harking back to the days of the "New England Sound." They got ripped by Stereophile for the laidback treble, but that's music to my ears especially when viewing a 3hr movie at theater level SPL.

    I too owned a pair of EPI speakers. After listening to Missions, B&W's, Polks, Paradigms, and Energy speakers, I was shocked by how limited these speakers were for the price. I ordered the a pair of Human 81's figuring that if they were only as good as my EPI 100's I would be getting a bargain. At $350 a pair, the 81's are superior to the old EPI's. The bass is much more refined and the highs are as smooth as ever. Paired with a NAD 320 BEE and a good recording, the sound is as good as anything in the sub $1000 range and better than many speakers that cost more. Like the EPI's, you will barely be able to listen to poor recordings, but that is the price you pay for accuracy.

    If you do order a pair, be patient; it took about 12 weeks to get my speakers, but it was well worth the wait.
  • 10-24-2004, 12:19 PM
    Geoffcin
    Fantastic review!
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by russwa
    I too owned a pair of EPI speakers. After listening to Missions, B&W's, Polks, Paradigms, and Energy speakers, I was shocked by how limited these speakers were for the price. I ordered the a pair of Human 81's figuring that if they were only as good as my EPI 100's I would be getting a bargain. At $350 a pair, the 81's are superior to the old EPI's. The bass is much more refined and the highs are as smooth as ever. Paired with a NAD 320 BEE and a good recording, the sound is as good as anything in the sub $1000 range and better than many speakers that cost more. Like the EPI's, you will barely be able to listen to poor recordings, but that is the price you pay for accuracy.

    If you do order a pair, be patient; it took about 12 weeks to get my speakers, but it was well worth the wait.

    I've been waiting for a someone to post a personal experience with these speakers. I am going to have to get myself a pair now. Thanks!
  • 10-25-2004, 05:45 PM
    russwa
    Let me know what you think of them when you get them.