Klipschorn ten times as efficient as Audio Note's best

[skeptic]

The two cars have little in common. And there has been increased costs in both labor and materials along the entire supply chain. I think the Canadian dollar has probably fallen against the yen as well. I'm sure it has fallen against the US dollar. Maybe Canadian import taxes have gone up too.

[bobsticks]

"The only reason to NEED more power is bad speaker design - Higher efficient speakers ALWAYS sound more dynamic more lifelike..."

RGA, today, 12:39 AM

ALWAYS? Then Klipschorn must be ten times more dynamic and lifelike than Audio Note's best. If A/N's best needs 10 to 20 watts, it is a comparatively bad design to one that only need one or two watts. At least that's the logic I just read from RGA.

BTW, while Klipschorn is ten times more efficient than Audio Note E and marginally more efficient than ten times compared to Audio Note J, it is nearly twenty-five times as efficient as Audio Note K. Twenty-five times more dynamic and lifelike? I don't know. Maybe there's something to that. Ever hear a pair of Klipschorns? Why not RUN RUN RUN right down to your nearest Klipschorn dealer and listen to a pair. Mabye you'll decide it's time for a trade in. I'll bet they'd even give you a couple of hundred trade in....if the cabinets are in good shape.

hehehe...hehehehehehehe....

[Ajani]

hehehe...hehehehehehehe....

Lol. Great thread. Thanks for reviving it.

[RGA]

Good times - thread from 7 years ago.

Skeptic with his Bose 901s claiming them the best speakers ever constructed in the history of loudspeaker design (but only his version).

I recently heard the Klipsch Lascala again here in Hong Kong - and they are more dynamic and have more dynamic ease than the AN speakers so on that count they are better.

And gee it seems I was right again (which is the frustrating part for the dimwits) since Klipsch is now selling new versions (umm the same versions) of their Klipschhorn, Lascala, Heresey, and Cornwall Heritage Home Audio-Loudspeakers-Klipsch

So apparently many people are running running running to buy the new old speakers.

And the more hilarious thing is that those people who bought the original AN E Sogon speakers with the 45kg of silver foil back in 2005 are selling the speakers for MORE than they originally paid - the price of silver skyrocketed. Tell me again which cars sold in 2004 and 2005 can be sold for $10,000 more than one originally paid? Or heck keeping apples to apples - which other loudspeaker sold in 2005 can be sold for $10grand more than the original price paid?

I have no problem buying stuff that I don't lose money on. I can sell my OTO and my AN J/spe for hundreds more than I paid. The turntable I will get in the ballpark.

Which other audio manufacturers can you make money owning on owning their gear again? (and all my stuff was purchased before being a reviewer so that is no dealer reviewer discount).

Har and Har

[Feanor]

...
And the more hilarious thing is that those people who bought the original AN E Sogon speakers with the 45kg of silver foil back in 2005 are selling the speakers for MORE than they originally paid - the price of silver skyrocketed. Tell me again which cars sold in 2004 and 2005 can be sold for $10,000 more than one originally paid? Or heck keeping apples to apples - which other loudspeaker sold in 2005 can be sold for $10grand more than the original price paid?
...

Stop with the silver already. It doesn't, nor has ever, justified the price of those AN speakers. 45 gm of silver today is worth $3.00 based on the current silver price of ~$32/troy oz. Or did you mean ounces of silver? Still only $1440.

[Ajani]

So the basic point is that in 7 years AN jacked up the price of their products so much, that persons who bought at the old prices can actually sell for more than what they initially paid.

[bobsticks]

And the more hilarious thing is that those people who bought the original AN E Sogon speakers with the 45kg of silver foil back in 2005 are selling the speakers for MORE than they originally paid - the price of silver skyrocketed. Tell me again which cars sold in 2004 and 2005 can be sold for $10,000 more than one originally paid? Or heck keeping apples to apples - which other loudspeaker sold in 2005 can be sold for $10grand more than the original price paid?

The comparison is rather maladroit given that a part of value has to do with the market value of a component of the product. It's not like the speaker sounds any better and the real value is potential, only realized if the speaker is disassembled and scavenged...which, apparently, many around here would describe as fitting...

[cjpremierfour]

Just my opinion:

I occasionally get out to the "Audio Shows" where I get to hear some really high end horns and other speakers. I have also had experience with The Klipschorn @ 10 times. I can tell you, without any doubt, a person who thinks horns have dynamics, has not heard the MBL Radialstrahler 101E MKii. With it's 81db at 2.83v rating, it will kill any commercial sold horn as well as most ( all that I have heard) "Hi End" horns as far as reproducing music. It's really easly to produce high sound pressure, it's something else entirely to produce music and get the dynamics right.
Some years ago, I would have agreed with some of these statements, after hearing the MBL system break all the rules, only the MBL has it right. My favorite pair of horns are the JBL Hartsfields. They will play anything without breaking a sweat. They can match anything on dynamics, speed, bass power but they don't sound like music. It's quite fun to spend time with and I would love to take a pair home, but it's not musicial.
Those who disagree with me have never sat in front of pair of the MBL 101E's and I hope that one day you will. Just a while back, I was trying to figure out how to make a pair of Altec A7's work in my living room. Now, I'm not sure I want to go that direction after hearing that system. I know that the system is hideously expensive, but for reproducing music from a source, it's the best.

[Enochrome]

Not the Audio Note thing again!.......so since were talking AN J, my Snell Type J's are rated at 92db but I still have to crank the amp to the same level as my old Kef 103.2's which I believe were rated ata 88 or 89db. What gives? You think the caps are winding down? Should I buy some killer audio grade caps, or will I be messing with the magic even if I stay within .5% of the specs.

[Ajani]

Not the Audio Note thing again!.......so since were talking AN J, my Snell Type J's are rated at 92db but I still have to crank the amp to the same level as my old Kef 103.2's which I believe were rated ata 88 or 89db. What gives? You think the caps are winding down? Should I buy some killer audio grade caps, or will I be messing with the magic even if I stay within .5% of the specs.

There has been some debate about how AN sensitivity is measured. Are your speakers in the corners of your room or free standing? If they're free standing then 'maybe' placing them in the corners will be beneficial. Anyway, I'm sure real experts on AN like RGA will chime in to help you out.

[RGA]

"the price you quote is the spot price for silver in bars, not for foil, for your information the cost of specially heat treated 73 mm wide 0.023mm thick silver foil is far far higher than that, more like $ 350.00 - $ 500.00 a kilogram, dependent on quantity." (back in 2005).

Speakers use 45kgs of this kind of silver alone. Have not even started on the price of anything else. So back then theere was around $20,000 worth of silver foil. That is just the material - not any other part of the speaker or the cost of the silver cables. Now you may not be a cable guy or believe they make any difference to sound quality - fair enough - but that doesn't mean they don't cost anything.

The speaker had a less than 5-1 retail to cost ratio without even starting on the drivers, cabinets packaging shipping dealer mark-up or labor. Ask Soundhounds to name a single speaker maker they carry that doesn't operate on a 10-1 mark-up.

"Then the foil has to be wound into capacitors, assembled with copper casing, mylar film, and terminated with silver wire lead outs, because of the sheer weight of the silver foil, the wastage is high, about 25-30% (because of the height and weight of the stack on 1 in every 4 caps on average the stack collapses when it is taken off the machine).

Then there is the assembly of the speakers, the matching process, the cost of the speaker cabinets, the drivers, the chassis' for the crossovers, the packaging etc.

Do the sums now, and then tell me whether you think the price is that unreasonable, we all have to live in the real world, and just because my employees, dealers, distributors and I work in audio and enjoy what we do, why should we work for nothing??

I doubt you did."

This was Peter's reply to skeptic/soundmind on AA

[RGA]

The comparison is rather maladroit given that a part of value has to do with the market value of a component of the product. It's not like the speaker sounds any better and the real value is potential, only realized if the speaker is disassembled and scavenged...which, apparently, many around here would describe as fitting...

Yes the many people who have never heard one.

[RGA]

cjpremierfour

I think the thing with MBL is that due to their omnidirectional sound they have more trouble being consistent under show conditions - and that means they have more trouble presenting themselves as well as some others - I get what you say but I think their low sensitivity is a little understated due to their design type. So the LE numbers of these speaker or for that matter panels is not the same as LE direct radiating types. Ie - they sound louder than their low efficiency specs.

My problem with some of the HE horns is they sound flat - they have more sensitivity - and they can play loud - but you are correct that dynamics is not really about just the ability to play loud. The Horns can play rock loud with few watts - but most rock music doesn't have much of a dynamic envelope (it's compressed). I would like to hear MBL set-up well - I liked what I heard at CES 2010 but given the room and the price I could not really appreciate them as much as I would in a private session.

One reviewer who makes want me to get out and give them a serious try is Peter Breuninger (formerly of Stereophile and TAS) who likes AN E speakers but OWNS MBL speakers. I tend to feel that if the ears are good enough to get one they're good enough to get the other. He compares the sound of the MBL to the AN E which has me intrigued. Audio Note $1,000,000 loudspeakers.mp4 - YouTube

[RGA]

So the basic point is that in 7 years AN jacked up the price of their products so much, that persons who bought at the old prices can actually sell for more than what they initially paid.

And what you're problem be with that? Benefits the owner no? Or do you like to buy stuff that is worth 1/3 to 1/5 of what you paid 5 years ago. As an customer I know which one I want to buy. And the prices keep rising because people are willing to pay more and more and more. When you use materials that go up in price it costs more to make them.

The other thing that helps is that they don't change models every 2 years because they're whores to reviews.

As soon as the new model comes out the old model is worth half - assuming it isn't worth half when you walk out the door.

And it only works on some AN stuff. The gear that has had increases to the model prices and has not had design changes.

The problem for the owner however is that if I sell my AN J for example I get X dollars - but the replacement models have gone way up so I still fall significantly short in being able to buy a new AN model. So I would have to buy something else for the money I get for the AN J - and something else from everything else I have heard is worse. Say larvae.

[RGA]

Not the Audio Note thing again!.......so since were talking AN J, my Snell Type J's are rated at 92db but I still have to crank the amp to the same level as my old Kef 103.2's which I believe were rated ata 88 or 89db. What gives? You think the caps are winding down? Should I buy some killer audio grade caps, or will I be messing with the magic even if I stay within .5% of the specs.

The Snell J isn't an Audio Note J. The original Snell J was $645 back in 1980 (or $1685 if bought in 2010 inflation in) and was rated as 90db sensitive (according to the Snell website). Sensitivity ratings are somewhat tied to the way they were measured and typically don't account for the fact that each driver in a speaker has a much different sensitivity - a woofer may be 85db and the tweeter may be 97db. So the perception of loudness when you're listening to music will likely be in the 300hz to 2khz range - one speaker may sound louder to the ear than another that is more sensitive out of that range. All of that is a long way to say that you can't just go buy sensitivity ratings for perceived loudness levels.

The Audio Note J/Spe is rated as 92.5db sensitive in corners. Peter noted on a forum that away from corners expect 89 to 89.5db. Which is about Snell's spec. Further you should note that some speaker exceed spec - which may be the case for the Kef.

Snell also used deader cabinet materials than the AN J models and different port dimensions - the Snells were not designed to take corner gain into account - and their bass doesn't go nearly as deep as the AN J. I am also pretty sure that Snell used a more stifling to the sound dacron wadding inside the speakers. The drivers and wiring are also not the same - although the Snells at the time had the closest matching tolerance.

Lastly I am not sure about the tweeter. The stock tweeter made by Foster/Tonnegan has ferro-fluid cooling in the voice coil. Audio Note removes this because it lowers sensitivity and they feel it has a sluggish quality to the presentation. I don't know if Snell did the same thing but the sound in the treble should have the ability to sparkle and the transient speed should be right up with Quads and Horns. Basically anything to get away from a dead box sound. There are things you could look into to get them better - if you open them up though go to the ANkits forum at AudioAsylum because there is a trick to get the woofers out without damaging them - don't use a screwdriver I believe is the advice.

Foam surrounds in humid climates should be replaced every 10 years.

They have my Turntable playing the room - Affordable Audio Note Top Audio Video Milan 2011 - YouTube



But you should get a fast open sound as much as possible.

[E-Stat]

Skeptic with his Bose 901s claiming them the best speakers ever constructed in the history of loudspeaker design (but only his version).

While he had some 901s with tweeters added, his main system used AR-9s. His unique "Arrogant-ignorance" style didn't go over very well where he eventually got banned both here and at AA for bad behavior.

I remember his fawning over the Klaus Peterson amp he used. Never heard of that before? That's because it was a Franken-amp made from leftover Dynaco parts for the ST-150 (designed by Harry Klaus) and purchased by a guy named Peterson who ran Stereo Cost Cutters.

You'll see him continuing to promote the magic of his AR speakers over at Classic Speaker pages. Where you'll also find one of the funniest exchanges between him and speaker designer Ken Kantor.

[Feanor]

While he had some 901s with tweeters added, his main system used AR-9s. His unique "Arrogant-ignorance" style didn't go over very well where he eventually got banned both here and at AA for bad behavior.

I remember his fawning over the Klaus Peterson amp he used. Never heard of that before? That's because it was a Franken-amp made from leftover Dynaco parts for the ST-150 (designed by Harry Klaus) and purchased by a guy named Peterson who ran Stereo Cost Cutters.

You'll see him continuing to promote the magic of his AR speakers over at Classic Speaker pages. Where you'll also find one of the funniest exchanges between him and speaker designer Ken Kantor.

I remember all that. It was quite surreal at times.

[E-Stat]

I remember all that. It was quite surreal at times.

Ooh, here it is:

SM getting slapped around

[RGA]

Personally I don't think he should have been banned because he often brought up excellent important points. And he said it well.

I enjoyed reading Ken Kantor and he did bring up an interesting argument about classical music. As a Lit Major I get his argument about classical music's relevance and that it was not lost via the quality of the reproduction which is Soundmind/skeptic's argument.

However, I disagree with what I perceive to be his de-valuing of classical music as an art form or that a stereo ought to be designed to be able to reproduce classical music. Classical music is the gold standard I use to evaluate the quality of audio gear - unlike many - it's not the only one - but it's the main one because it uses real instruments (not processors synthesizers) and generally speaking they are of the highest recording quality in terms of both frequency range and dynamics.

His argument seems to be on the popularity of classical music and he's correct on all his points.

"Give it up. Classical music is an anachronism. It's a dead art form, which speaks to fewer and fewer living people. Some of it may be beautiful, as some Baroque painting is. But, Art is all about change, not stasis. People want to hear music from their time, music that speaks to them about their life experiences, however abstractly. The audio manufacturers who maintained a reactionary allegience to old music were the first ones to go. Ones which embraced healthy creative evolution in the field of music, thrive.

I couldn't imagine being on the proverbial desert island with more than 2 or 3 classic music recordings, out of the dozens of works I want to bring. And live concerts? Yawn. Can humans get more pompous and stuffy? Classical audiences seem to forget that, oh, Beethoven was much like your typical rock and roller.

Audio equipment stopped being made for classical music after classical music lost its audience, not the other way around. Radio stations changed format. Record stores changed merchandising. Gradually, speaker companies got the message.

Classical music accounts for roughly 3% of the music business. What's so hard to understand about that figure? Even that 3% is mostly movie scores. It's dead. Kaput. Mort. This is not a value judgement or a philosophical argument. It's just the facts.

His argument also applies to much of classical literature - taking out the sales by students who are forced to take the subject and read the books/plays/sonnets I wonder how much Chaucer is purchased just for the joy of reading it.

I think where Ken goes off the rails is arguing essentially that because it's not popular with a wide audience it's bad. That can sometimes be true but often it comes down to exposure and while I agree with them that people today want art that speaks to them today what he fails to understand that art written in the past that survives still possess the same message and the same arguments that are fully applicable today. Dickens a prime example. Music pre 1900 that still survives because it was a cut above the rest of the stuff that didn't last.

[E-Stat]

Personally I don't think he should have been banned because he often brought up excellent important points.

His trouble was separating his opinion from reality. You'll note Kantor's reply to SM/Skeptic's pretension of fact.

His unique arrogant-ignorance style didn't fare well over at AA either.

[Feanor]

...
... Classical music is the gold standard I use to evaluate the quality of audio gear - unlike many - it's not the only one - but it's the main one because it uses real instruments (not processors synthesizers) and generally speaking they are of the highest recording quality in terms of both frequency range and dynamics.
...

You won't be surprised that I agree with this. The trick of reproducing real instruments in real space is what defines not only the highest play-back technology but also the highest recording technology. Play-back technology is weaker by the extent to which it ignores the demands of complex acoustic music.

Toughest of all to reproduce arguably is large-scale choral music; (how much of this does Poultrygeist listen to with his SETs and Fugalhorns?). But I've heard a vast range of results for chamber music too, and of course small ensemble jazz is pretty much the same as chamber music in that regard.

As for classical music itself, it's here to stay as niche genre least. It is isn't terribly important that the percentage of western populations that listen to it is shrinking somewhat when the absolute numbers are steady or increasing, which is definitely the case when you consider the growing appeal of classical, or if you prefer, "western art" music in, for example, China and Japan.

To say the classical music is archaic, of the past, has not kept up with the times, is to deny the past & current history of the form. Classical music has evolved, sometimes very rapidly, from it's beginning in early Renaissance to the 21st century. To say the it isn't changing or adapting to the times is to simply be unaware of 20th & 21st centrury composers and their music.

As a student, if you want a profound knowledge of music you must study "western art" music because is the most complex form that has evolved anywhere. To say "complex" doesn't imply "better" necessarily, however the complex forms allow composers the scope for greater creativity and personal expression that do simpler genres.

[Ajani]

Personally I don't think he should have been banned because he often brought up excellent important points. And he said it well.

I enjoyed reading Ken Kantor and he did bring up an interesting argument about classical music. As a Lit Major I get his argument about classical music's relevance and that it was not lost via the quality of the reproduction which is Soundmind/skeptic's argument.

However, I disagree with what I perceive to be his de-valuing of classical music as an art form or that a stereo ought to be designed to be able to reproduce classical music. Classical music is the gold standard I use to evaluate the quality of audio gear - unlike many - it's not the only one - but it's the main one because it uses real instruments (not processors synthesizers) and generally speaking they are of the highest recording quality in terms of both frequency range and dynamics.

His argument seems to be on the popularity of classical music and he's correct on all his points.

"Give it up. Classical music is an anachronism. It's a dead art form, which speaks to fewer and fewer living people. Some of it may be beautiful, as some Baroque painting is. But, Art is all about change, not stasis. People want to hear music from their time, music that speaks to them about their life experiences, however abstractly. The audio manufacturers who maintained a reactionary allegience to old music were the first ones to go. Ones which embraced healthy creative evolution in the field of music, thrive.

I couldn't imagine being on the proverbial desert island with more than 2 or 3 classic music recordings, out of the dozens of works I want to bring. And live concerts? Yawn. Can humans get more pompous and stuffy? Classical audiences seem to forget that, oh, Beethoven was much like your typical rock and roller.

Audio equipment stopped being made for classical music after classical music lost its audience, not the other way around. Radio stations changed format. Record stores changed merchandising. Gradually, speaker companies got the message.

Classical music accounts for roughly 3% of the music business. What's so hard to understand about that figure? Even that 3% is mostly movie scores. It's dead. Kaput. Mort. This is not a value judgement or a philosophical argument. It's just the facts.

His argument also applies to much of classical literature - taking out the sales by students who are forced to take the subject and read the books/plays/sonnets I wonder how much Chaucer is purchased just for the joy of reading it.

I think where Ken goes off the rails is arguing essentially that because it's not popular with a wide audience it's bad. That can sometimes be true but often it comes down to exposure and while I agree with them that people today want art that speaks to them today what he fails to understand that art written in the past that survives still possess the same message and the same arguments that are fully applicable today. Dickens a prime example. Music pre 1900 that still survives because it was a cut above the rest of the stuff that didn't last.

I think he hit the nail on the head in that quote re classical music. One of the reasons our hobby fails to attract more persons is the very notion of audiophile approved music. I remember too well some of the snotty reactions I got from salesmen when I carried my favorite CDs (of popular music) to do auditions. As much as I respect the artistry in jazz and classical, I'm far more interested in how a system will handle Usher or Michael Jackson since those are artists I regularly listen to.

[Feanor]

I think he hit the nail on the head in that quote re classical music. One of the reasons our hobby fails to attract more persons is the very notion of audiophile approved music. I remember too well some of the snotty reactions I got from salesmen when I carried my favorite CDs (of popular music) to do auditions. As much as I respect the artistry in jazz and classical, I'm far more interested in how a system will handle Usher or Michael Jackson since those are artists I regularly listen to.

Can't say I buy that. Of all the reasons that distract people from good sound, potential buyers' aversion to classical music is the one I observe least often.

And as for hi-fi retailers, it's hard to find any these days that has any selection of classical for audition. At my local emporium, (which I visit very seldom), the attitude towards classical music is overtly contemptuous.

[E-Stat]

You won't be surprised that I agree with this. The trick of reproducing real instruments in real space is what defines not only the highest play-back technology but also the highest recording technology. Play-back technology is weaker by the extent to which it ignores the demands of complex acoustic music.

Toughest of all to reproduce arguably is large-scale choral music; (how much of this does Poultrygeist listen to with his SETs and Fugalhorns?). But I've heard a vast range of results for chamber music too, and of course small ensemble jazz is pretty much the same as chamber music in that regard.

As for classical music itself, it's here to stay as niche genre least. It is isn't terribly important that the percentage of western populations that listen to it is shrinking somewhat when the absolute numbers are steady or increasing, which is definitely the case when you consider the growing appeal of classical, or if you prefer, "western art" music in, for example, China and Japan.

To say the classical music is archaic, of the past, has not kept up with the times, is to deny the past & current history of the form. Classical music has evolved, sometimes very rapidly, from it's beginning in early Renaissance to the 21st century. To say the it isn't changing or adapting to the times is to simply be unaware of 20th & 21st centrury composers and their music.

As a student, if you want a profound knowledge of music you must study "western art" music because is the most complex form that has evolved anywhere. To say "complex" doesn't imply "better" necessarily, however the complex forms allow composers the scope for greater creativity and personal expression that do simpler genres.

What you just said!

One of my mentors, JWC who wrote for TAS in the 70s and 80s, has been a member of the Atlanta Symphony Chorus for over thirty years. He studied for years under Robert Shaw and had quite an influence on my love of classical music. If you listened at his home, that's what you heard. That was a lot of what I heard in my late teens and early 20s. Sure, I enjoyed pop music, but I also enjoyed more complex music, too.

One of my favorite concerts at the ASO was Orff's Carmina Burana which has awesome power and dynamics. The good doctor was in his usual spot singing bass.

Also, I'm not really much a fan of 19th century romantics. My favorites are Russians like Prokofiev and Stravinsky along with Copland, Holst and Strauss. I also enjoy a lot of current film scores by Williams, Horner, Desplat and Zimmer.

[Ajani]

Can't say I buy that. Of all the reasons that distract people from good sound, potential buyers' aversion to classical music is the one I observe least often.

And as for hi-fi retailers, it's hard to find any these days that has any selection of classical for audition. At my local emporium, (which I visit very seldom), the attitude towards classical music is overtly contemptuous.

1) Audiophile approved music is not limited to classical. It includes Jazz and lots of "old" one of a kind live recordings from way back in the day. It generally excludes anything relatively current and popular.

2) The issue is not that non-audophiles hate classical or other audiophile approved music. The issue is the stink attitude and contempt shown by audiophiles towards non-audiophile approved music.

I've seen persons post questions on HiFi forums asking whether it makes sense to upgrade their system if they only listen to rock or pop. The thought process being spread to them is that unless you listen to certain types of music then you won't benefit from a better system. Which is complete rubbish.

Go to a dealer or a HiFi show and see (or hear) how many of the dealers play any popular music.

The point is that you can't expect to appeal to more of the masses if all you do is insult their music. That spreads the very false notion that only certain types of music are worthy of a HiFi system.