Paradigm Studio 100 v.3 vs Axiom M80s.

[GeneticDrift]

I have the m60's and I really love them. When I originally ordered them I never expected them to meet my expatiations. I figured I would play with them for 30 days and send them back.

I knew within the first 15 minutes they would never leave the house. They have surpassed every expectation I had.

I think many get in the mindset of bigger is better and want the m80's but I feel the m60 will satisfy 99% of purchasers.

[RGA]

And where are the speakers positioned? And what are the absorptive properties of the walls? Is the floor on a slab or is it elevated? Where are the entryways located and low wide are they? Those are but a few of the factors that affect the sound quality.



ALWAYS a cop out? You really need to get out from beyond your dealer's "four rooms" if you think that they are representative of every possible configuration. If you really want a contrast, try out a set of speakers inside of an untreated room with hard surfaces all the way around, and see if it sounds different from a room with carpeting, bass traps, and acoustically treated walls and ceilings.

Just in my house, the sound of my speakers changed when I moved them from one room to another. The peak in the bass shifted from 70 Hz to 88 Hz. Depending on the source material, that produces a VERY different sounding bass. Brick and glass along two walls on a slab hardwood floor to a room with drywall and plaster on three sides and an elevated floor with carpeting, again very different acoustical properties and results in different imaging and somewhat different tonal cues. The difference between having the acoustical panels in place versus not having them, also very noticeable in listenings AND measureable.

If the B&W 705 won an award, obviously SOMEBODY liked them, so your blanket condemnations of that speaker are obviously not universally shared.

Yup I'm sure they do. But - I have heard the 705 in three dealers now different rooms - treated and not of varying size. A boring speaker that can not get anything remotely close to reproducing a piano - yeah it's a tough instrument but... expectations must be low and most of the 705's competition might be worse - so the best of a bad lot and people who have no ear for good sound.

[Woochifer]

It's easier to agree to disagree on what sounds good than argue over this. Geez, an audiologist friend of mine has shown me papers that prove that the shape of a person's ears will make a bigger difference on the perceived sound than any given piece of equipment...this could explain a lot...could explain some of Bose's claims.

Actually, the shape of the human ear is exactly why we hear things behind us differently than sources directly in front of us. Back when we were getting into knockdown skirmishes on this board about the merits of EX/ES encoding, Terrence repeatedly pointed out that the shape of our ears and diffraction from our ear lobes affect how we hear things behind us. (Believe me, when I was new to this board and multichannel audio in general, that was one of the first things that Terrence straightened me out on)

This is one reason why you're not supposed to position surround speakers directly behind the listening position the same way that a main speaker is positioned directly in front. The ITU multichannel speaker reference placement specifies 110 degrees off center for the surround speaker placement, which is only 20 degrees behind the listener. If we didn't hear things differently from behind, then the reference should be 150 degrees offcenter to match the 30 degree recommended offset up front.

It's pretty much a given that people hear things differently.

[kexodusc]

Actually, the shape of the human ear is exactly why we hear things behind us differently than sources directly in front of us. Back when we were getting into knockdown skirmishes on this board about the merits of EX/ES encoding, Terrence repeatedly pointed out that the shape of our ears and diffraction from our ear lobes affect how we hear things behind us. (Believe me, when I was new to this board and multichannel audio in general, that was one of the first things that Terrence straightened me out on)
.

Great, in addition to woofer KY Jelly, we can sell ear lobe rings to compensate for lobe shapes and standardize everyone's hearing to the audiophile norm. Sit down, put on your 'lobes, and turn the music up...
Of course, then some other company will offer them in water based gel format instead of latex, and claim that it reduces sibilance while enhancing soundstage...which of course we'll have to counter with the DBT card...

[rajx7]

Hey Guys,
I thought people come here hoping to get some answers. I started this thread hoping to recieve some help with my selection of the speakers but instead, seems like I have started a cold war. You guys seem to have gone off track from the main topic. Please don't say that in essence it is a part of it. No body gave me an answer about Von Shweikerts I had mentioned earlier. Could anyone please be kind enough to help me there.

Regards,
R

[bacchanal]

Von Shweikerts are really nice...I've listened to the Vr2's once and I really liked them. Of course, I didn't audition them or anything. My impression was that they were a little more articulate than my Paradigm studio 40 v2's, and the top end of the frequency didn't have the charactaristic paradigm studio series sound.
I am quite happy with my studio 40s, and I don't think I'll feel the need to replace them for quite some time, but I'll probably consider Von Shweikert when I do. The problem is that VS is going to be pretty hard to find, and I don't know if you can get them online, but even if you could, you would still want to listen to them first.
When I bought my studio40s, I only considered speakers that I could listen to in person. I spent several months shopping around and listening before I made a purchase. I didn't audition every speaker in the same room, and I couldn't always use the same equipment either, but I was able to get a feel for the generel charactaristics of each speaker. You have to weigh in your mind what you are hearing based on the listening environment and equipment. Obviously no speaker is going to sound as good in best buy as it will at a hifi audio dealer. The listening environments (and equipment) are totally different.
Listen to whatever you can. If you don't find anything locally that thrills you, give the axioms a try in home. If you like them...keep them

[newbsterv2]

Hey RGA want a laugh?? I've auditioned the 705's as well and let's just say that I gave them 15 minutes and I was really bothered by their reproduction of music. Too forward a midrange, too much treble. I tried a few different brand receivers as well as cdp's to make sure it wasn't the source. Anyway, the Parts Express DIY kit that goes by the name of BR-1 for a measly $140 shipped to my door is pretty damned good at reproducing piano. Better than the Axiom M3ti, Paradigm Monitor 7, and Magnepan MMG. If the BR-1 had just a wee bit more extension on top for the "airiness" in recordings and the midrange was just a wee bit more forward I think that speaker would be the best speaker I've ever heard. Call that insane or ridiculous or whatever but it just goes to show that you don't have to spend the $1,500 asking price of the B&W 705 to enjoy Glenn Gould playing Bach's 2 and 3 part inventions on that troublesome Steinway cd318 that "hiccups" some of the time. Gotta love those salespeople too. They really do give the impression that they don't use the restroom as mere humans do but they emit rose petals from their belly buttons when they gotta go. Happy listening!!!

Yup I'm sure they do. But - I have heard the 705 in three dealers now different rooms - treated and not of varying size. A boring speaker that can not get anything remotely close to reproducing a piano - yeah it's a tough instrument but... expectations must be low and most of the 705's competition might be worse - so the best of a bad lot and people who have no ear for good sound.

[rajx7]

Thanks bacchanal. Finally somebody cared to say something, without being sarcastic. I have one dealer in my area for Von Shweikerts. I had the chance to listen to VR-4 Jr in stereo and man they sound so clean. But they are little too expensive for me. So thought of looking into a one lower model i.e VR-2. After researching online for those, read some nice reviews. Wanted to hear experiences from you guys.

[kexodusc]

newbsterv2...the extension in the BR-1's is actually there, it just starts to roll off and no longer falls within the state +/-3dB spec...but it's actually higher than the 18 kHz stated would suggest. Not that any of us can really hear that high.
Good choice, glad you like them...I'd put them up against the M3Ti's (I own) and Paradigm Mini Monitors (briefly owned) any day. A little tough on amps though...but great value.
There's a million and 1 tweaks out there too.

[RGA]

Newbster

It really is not totally surprising - it does not matter how much one spends on a speaker OR how much the company spends on drivers or materials - if it's a BAD design it's a BAD design.

[drseid]

So what do you guys think of Von Von Schweikerts VR-2 for fronts, LCR 15 for center and TS 150 for surrounds.

I think VS makes *great* speakers, both for the money and outright. I considered the VR4 SE Gen IIIs before I bought my current mains, and they were impressive.

Keep in mind, if you already auditioned the VR-4jrs and liked what you heard, you may be able to look for a used pair on Audiogon.com. You can get a lot more value for your money with used speakers (IMO), as many go for 50% discounts off list. A speaker you thought was "out of your league" pricewise may now be very affordable.

---Dave

[theaudiohobby]

Yes and I noticed that as well - but the reviewer kept the one he liked best - and that one was the Audio Note - and that is more important to me than recommending the B&W who's advertising keeps the magazine in business - The editor's choie is the choice of who gave them the most money - hell the guys who DESIGNED the freaking 700 series will tell you in person that the AN;s are better - and you being in Europe should take Peter up on the offer to have you hear it from the horse's mouth - since the 700 series is woefully flawed in dsesign with atrocious top of the midwoofer passband distortion due to their kevlar drivers as was pointed out graphically with full measurements of the kevlar driver problems - truth hurts - go read John Ashman's link again.

RGA,

What are you saying exactly? Who is the reviewer at Hifi Choice that owns Audio Notes, is that the only pair of speakers that he owns and when did he acquire them? Who are the guys at B&W that said ANs are better than B&Ws, care to provide any names, I do not think you can because it was a rumour started by PQ on AA ? As for John Ashman's comments, did you ever the read the entirety of Lynn Olsen's articles on speaker materials and crossovers, and/or other authorities on the subject before arriving at your position? Also, I noticed that you are accussing the guys at Hifi Choice of impropriety, yet on the other hand, quote their reviews when arguing in favour of AN, old tatics never change . What really hurts is the extent of your gullibility.

[RGA]

Audiohobby - Hi-fi choice has used the AN E/D as their reference speaker for the past 12 years - the magazine itself owns the speaker to judge amplifiers and other speakers against! Paul Messenger owns the speaker he reviewed. Though he may have returned the new one to Peter - because Peter unlike some makers does not give products to reviewers as a "token" of his appreciation - and since they already have the E/D I don't see why they would keep the new one - then again I don't know.

Rumour that PQ started? But you can verify since you are in England - you just needed to take him up on his offer which was a meeting with B&W designers who are presently working at B&W - you could meet with them listen to what they have to say - then after the meeting make a call to B&W reception and get them on the phone to make sure they "really" work there. You're afraid of what they WILL say because you have publically backed the 705 as a GREAT speaker. There are many companies who contract AN - Quad fairly recently.

AN I suspect doesn't bother HEAVILY in the marketing game because they're not deep pocketed enough to compete - why list all the recording studios that use their speakers or the who's who of people who own their stuff - it still doesn't mean anyone will like it better and Peter figures in the end if his stuff is good people will buy it based on sound - plenty of speakers I hate are used in recording studios - or are just not as good in normal listening rooms.

Yes I have read the entire article by Lynn - it's in my favorites - Lynn also happens to call the Audio Note amp the BEst sounding amp he owns(despite the measurements being inferior to some other amps he also owns) - all AN amps are designed and voiced(by ear and then modelled on computers to ensure the same sound) through their speakers - so AN can't be all bad as you're the one who likes to post Lynn's point of view all the time - well his POV is that AN is a great company - so you are quite selective eh? He's only right if he agrees with you? and totally stupid when he likes an AN product right? Wow this poor Lynn fellow must be a misguided fool? I hope he checks with you first. If AN built **** and Lynn likes it and it's his reference then follow the logic through. You don't like Peter Q's arrogance and thus you don't like his stiuff.

Lynn
"Case in point: I've lived with the Audio Note Ongaku SE211, as well as the Kassai PSE 300B and the Reichert SE 300B. I've also had access to my trusty Audionics CC-2 (not a bad transistor amp), a modern multi-kbuck Class A transistor unit, and a souped-up Dyna Stereo-70. They all sounded different, particularly to non-audiophile friends.

The Ongaku, by far, had the worst THD and power measurements ... 22W at 3% distortion. It also made the Ariel sound better than any electrostat I've ever heard ... in fact, the best sound I'd heard in many years. It certainly sounded better than anything I heard at the 1994 Winter CES. So what's going on here? Maybe THD is simply measuring the wrong thing."
(but then the Ongaku is considered in many quarters to be the best sounding amplifier made by anyone ever - look that up yourself) Doesn't mean you or I will agree I have never heard it because I don't have the $90k to buy it. (It bloody well better be for $90k.

...

"If it sounds much clearer, more natural, more true-to-life, that implies a problem (or type of distortion) has been removed. (Even if the problem cannot be measured with present-day equipment.)

I am hypothesizing (bear with me here) that the problem with analog transistor devices is actually non-linear Miller capacitance. You see, bipolar transistors, MOSFETS, and even diodes exhibit very significant changes in capacitance with applied voltage (possibly current and temperature as well). As capacitors go, it is my understanding that transistors are very poor quality, worse even than electrolytic capacitors."
by Mr. Lynn Olson

Ahh this seems odd that since you're a measurement freak yet Lynn supports a product which sounds more like music but measures (with the standard measurements anyway) the worst. And the article is so obvuiously talking about B&W kevlar since they're the first and biggest Kevlar supporter. Ashman showed you the measurements as well which you will never see from the likes of Stereophile. Most people are trained to think that this is acceptable sound quality - if most everything is bad then it's going to be really hard to tell what is good so you pick the best of a bad lot.

And I was not totally upset when thinking of the 705 at Hi-fi Choice - They generally try and review speakers within a certain budget range - and most of the competitors use practically a "clone" design cabinet shape and implementation - something's gotta win. And just so you know the B&W's got Editor's choice but umm 4 stars for sound quality in the case of the 703 http://hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=2783 The Signature 805 got 4 stars for sound quality http://hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=2770

The AN E with the supposedly lower Recommended rating here and a best buy in it's current form but on sound hmm 5 stars http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=475. Of course they like the E better for sound quality it is so obviously a better sounding speaker - Editors like to pick their choice - Who's your daddy? B&W and the mighty big corporations are your daddy. Hell What Hi-fi Choice awarded the Roksan Integrated the Super test award winner over the Sugden A21a (but even they said the A21a on sound quality alone was the best soudning amplifier of the group. But the game is not ALL about sound quality.

The A21a is not as compatible with as many speakers, has very few features and NO REMOTE, no LCD screen, runs bloody hot etc. The AN's biggest hit is no center channel you can not as easily or at all run a home theater system - positioning demands are odd - they don't look fashionable in appearance or design and they really do work better with SET amplifiers which almost no one has or is willing to buy - In some ways I can agree with them not being selected as an editor's choice because an editor's choice would be something to please and SUIT the most people - big bulky uglyish standmounts woith no matching center channel for home theater which work best with SET amps(which have no features unless a balance knob is a feature) won't suit the most people. The attractive looking Home theater package(though the CDM looked nicer to me) 700 series with funky shapes and more durable rubber surrounds as opposed to foam and that might work better on low grade amplification such as receivers - high WA facotor etc might make sense.


Stereophile uses the E to measure amplifiers which you can look through their online magazine when they measure lower powered amps - Art Dudly owns Audio Note products - a reviewer at Hifi news and/or Hi-fi+ owns at least a DAC(aslo measured and voiced on AN speakers), Paul Messenger who seems to get around owns AN, Steven Rochlin(editor of enjoythemusic.com is one of a number there who own products) and Bob Neil(positive feedback is one of a numebr who own AN gear) who is a reviewer and a dealer - Bob liked em so much he decided to become a dealer for them. Then there are reviewers at Stereotimes who deals with the ultra high end gear.

What more do you want? (Gee yeah Audio Note must suck right? All of these reviewers and competitor's designers and recording engineers must ALL be tone deaf except you) Because The Audio Hobby doesn't like Peter's Arrogant tone he must also build crappy sounding distortion boxes) Given the size of the company that's not bad.

Respecting the fact that this is a TASTE issue largely the current issue of Stereophile reviews the Paradigm Studio 60 and the reviewer(who I'm not familiar with but I liked the Studio 60V2 as well and have not heard the 60V3) owns the speaker or the previous one. So certainly many will (and reviewers are on a budget as well), like other sounds - Maggie, Electrostats, B&W, Elac, and yes Audio Note.

To me the 705 is atrocious for that kind of money - One could probably get the CDM 1NT or the Paradigm Studio 40V2 or the Dynaudio 42 or 52 AX Two used for about 1/3 the price and get MUCH better sound. But then that is just an opinion - if you like the sound who the F cares - you're money not mine.

[rajx7]

I think VS makes *great* speakers, both for the money and outright. I considered the VR4 SE Gen IIIs before I bought my current mains, and they were impressive.

Keep in mind, if you already auditioned the VR-4jrs and liked what you heard, you may be able to look for a used pair on Audiogon.com. You can get a lot more value for your money with used speakers (IMO), as many go for 50% discounts off list. A speaker you thought was "out of your league" pricewise may now be very affordable.

---Dave

Hi Dave,
I really appreciate your reply. I think I will consider buying used ones if I decide on going for VR-4s. But wanted to know if VR-2 sound as good as VR-4s. Since I am more interested in watching movies and some music so I was just wondering if VR-2 will produce pretty good sound movies.
Regards,
R

[drseid]

Well, they don't sound *quite* as good as the VR4jrs, but they do sound quite good. The 4jrs offer better bass extension and a bit better resolution in my opinion, but the VR2 is a great speaker in its own right (at least to my ears).

---Dave

[rajx7]

I should say Dave, you are a cautious writer. But thanks for you opinion. When I heard VR-4 jr. I thought it was one of the best speakers I have heard so far, but like I said earlier they are bit beyond my range. But I assume that all their speakers are timber matched as they do not set of center and surround speakers for VR-4 line up. They seem to have only one type center and surround speakers, that is LCR-15 and TS something. So I would assume if I want to create a 5.1 I will have to chose any set of 2 speakers and buy the 3 I mentioned abouve and they should be timber matched. I hope you understand where I am getting at?

[drseid]

Yes, the VS speakers should indeed be timbre matched, so mixing the VS types of speakers would not be a problem.

Just for clarification, I was not trying to push you into buying the VR4jrs, especially as you clearly stated they were out of your price range... I just meant that there were *some* differences between the VR2s and the 4jrs. So hearing one speaker was not a "shoe in" that the other would be what you are looking for.

That said, I think if you went with the VR2s you would not be dissatisfied.

I recommend auditioning a whole bunch of high-end brands... that is half the fun of the purchase (the hunt). :-)

Cautious writer.... Who me? ;-)

---Dave

[Jimmy C]

... you have an INCREDIBLE amount of time to type...lol. Hell, I'm home by noon and I have less time than you to spew rhetoric...lol. :*)

Again, I *briefly* read some of the previous lines, and, once agin, you have not heard what Harman can do. The (again) Circuit City and Best Buy JBLs, for eg. do NOT fall under the Harman (research) umbrella... TOTALLY different - not sure if you can soak this in at this point. AFAICR, you HAVE NOT heard the Revels and the S.O.T.A. JBLs... correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, why would you denounce the "White Papers" from them? After all, you havent heard what the white Papers are talking about. They have a HELL of a lot more experience than you or I...

And didn't you recently make disparaging (sp?) remarks regarding Art Dudley (yes) on another forum? BUT - he is OK now because he sometimes uses AN as a speaker to refer to? (S'Phile does) hhmmmm... Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

Believe me, I'm glad you have a passion that is relatively rare these days... but talk about things you are familiar with... don't pontificate!

[RGA]

Well Stereophile is a bit weird to start with - the reviewers like everything but JA slams some of them with the graphs - but problem is good or bad graph - the product usually sounds good to the reivewers - so how valuable are those graphs? not very, because measuring 10 things leaves out the other 1000 they could be measuring but don't know how or don't have the equipment. (Actually the last page of the most recent UHF has Regkind discussing - in veiled discourse Stereophile measuring. The industry measures those things that puts their products in the best light). You won't see those nifty Kevlar measurements in Stereophile or Soundstage bevcause they are special interest guides --- glorified advertisments.

I have problems with ALL review publications - I have LESS of a problem with certain ones and certain reviewers - but magazines are magazines becuase they have stuff to review - and if you give a bad review then your name gets out there. ALL of them including the so called skeptic mags like The Audio Critic and $ensible $ound - these guys are just hocking the cheap crap on the market and saying it's no worse - big deal - RCA has to get some good reviews somewhere and rather than being good you can blast the rest with some gimmick test.

I have not heard Revel M20- Anyone got a set I can put em in my room and A/B them against my current set. Metal tweeter? Described to me by an owner as analytical? Are two things that I don't want as descriptors of a speaker - but you never know.

[theaudiohobby]

I noticed that you danced around my questions without providing any definite answers , But I will help you along.

First, I have not read anywhere where Paul Messenger has said that the Audio Note E is his reference speaker, Do you have information that suggest otherwise, At various times, he has quoted the JBL K2 and the JMLabs as part of his reference equipment, but even if he owns the Audio Note, it is listed as part of his 'hundred others' . Secondly, I see no evidence anywhere that points to the fact that the E/D is part of Hifi Choice reference equipment,they might have used as a reference speaker for some comparative tests in the past but, I have last three editions to hand, the E/D is not mentioned anywhere as part of their reference setup. As for your remarks about Stereophile, Dick Olsher mentions the E/Spe as a 'loaner' speaker, his comments 10 years on are spot on and echo some of my comments about your sonic preferences and seeming preference for the OTO SE and the A21A. Also again I do not see any evidence, that the E/Spe is a reference speaker, though some of their reviewers may well own one and use for some listening tests.

Rumour that PQ started? But you can verify since you are in England - you just needed to take him up on his offer which was a meeting with B&W designers who are presently working at B&W - you could meet with them listen to what they have to say - then after the meeting make a call to B&W reception and get them on the phone to make sure they "really" work there.

Yes, a rumour that PQ started himself, Have a read.

You're afraid of what they WILL say because you have publically backed the 705 as a GREAT speaker.

I have never stated anywhere that the B&W 705 is a great speaker, however I maintain that it much better speaker than the Audio Note K in many areas. The 705 does not suffer the atrocious boxiness of the AN K, and to these ears at least the bass on the 705 is much more coherent even if it rolls off earlier, i.e. lean. I am yet to hear your arguments on why the use of Kevlar has adversely impacted the performance of the 705.

Yes I have read the entire article by Lynn..(SNIPPED - Off topic). And the article is so obvuiously talking about B&W kevlar since they're the first and biggest Kevlar supporter. Ashman showed you the measurements as well which you will never see from the likes of Stereophile.

You said that you have read Lynn Olsen articles in entirety, yet you did not make a single mention of any of his comments, but managed to say quote four paragraphs of unrelated material. How sweet , Secondly reread the thread on AA, John Ashman was unable to substantiate his comments with facts, neither were you, when I asked how the use of Kevlar adversely affected the design of the 705 vis a vis the CDM1NT, you drew a blank, how about revisiting that question?

And I was not totally upset when thinking of the 705 at Hi-fi Choice - They generally try and review speakers within a certain budget range - and most of the competitors use practically a "clone" design cabinet shape and implementation - something's gotta win. And just so you know the B&W's got Editor's choice but umm 4 stars for sound quality in the case of the 703 http://hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=2783 The Signature 805 got 4 stars for sound quality http://hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=2770

The AN E with the supposedly lower Recommended rating here and a best buy in it's current form but on sound hmm 5 stars http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=475. Of course they like the E better for sound quality it is so obviously a better sounding speaker - Editors like to pick their choice - Who's your daddy? B&W and the mighty big corporations are your daddy. Hell What Hi-fi Choice awarded the Roksan Integrated the Super test award winner over the Sugden A21a (but even they said the A21a on sound quality alone was the best soudning amplifier of the group. But the game is not ALL about sound quality.

Read the more recent review of the AN E, it did not get top marks for sound quality even at it's price point. Your comments about the A21A are really no surprise to me, because the measurements of the A21A and OTO SE are fairly similar, so it is no brainer that you like both of them. However, they gave the OTO SE four stars and the A21A five stars on sound quality which throws a spanner into your ratings logic. , there are other issues that explain this seeming discrepancy, but frankly it is a waste of time dwelling on them.

The Audio Hobby doesn't like Peter's Arrogant tone...

I have never stated that PQ is arrogant, however I have put it to him that some of his statements are plainly false , of which he has had no comeback.

And in your reponse, try and stick to the points discussed.

[rajx7]

Yes, the VS speakers should indeed be timbre matched, so mixing the VS types of speakers would not be a problem.

Just for clarification, I was not trying to push you into buying the VR4jrs, especially as you clearly stated they were out of your price range... I just meant that there were *some* differences between the VR2s and the 4jrs. So hearing one speaker was not a "shoe in" that the other would be what you are looking for.

That said, I think if you went with the VR2s you would not be dissatisfied.

I recommend auditioning a whole bunch of high-end brands... that is half the fun of the purchase (the hunt). :-)

Cautious writer.... Who me? ;-)

---Dave

Hey Dave, I know that you were not pushing anything on me, just expressing you opinion. When I said that you were a cautious writer I was actually refering to the following line you had written earlier : "VR2 is a great speaker in its own right (at least to my ears)." If you had been reading earlier posts in this thread there is lot of hot debate going on and kind of whose speaker and ears are better. So when I read that, it kind of sounded funny. As if you were making it clear even before anyone can say anything, that it sounds great to your ears. Since I also loved Vr-4s I can trust your ears. So it shows that you have Tyle acoutics. Are they great speakers for the price they charge. What made you go for them and what all did you audition before you took them in.

By the way I totally agree the fun in the "hunt" part you had mentioned. It's the "process of achieving" is more entertaining than "achieving". That's the reason even when we have stuff which we like we are out here looking for more...isn't it wonder.. sadly but truly it never ends even if you think you have the best. I would love to go out and audition as much as possible but don't seem to have to many variety in my area. Recently came across another brand, LINN speakers. Heard of them?

Regards,
Raj

[drseid]

Hey Dave, I know that you were not pushing anything on me, just expressing you opinion. When I said that you were a cautious writer I was actually refering to the following line you had written earlier : "VR2 is a great speaker in its own right (at least to my ears)." If you had been reading earlier posts in this thread there is lot of hot debate going on and kind of whose speaker and ears are better. So when I read that, it kind of sounded funny. As if you were making it clear even before anyone can say anything, that it sounds great to your ears. Since I also loved Vr-4s I can trust your ears. So it shows that you have Tyle acoutics. Are they great speakers for the price they charge. What made you go for them and what all did you audition before you took them in.

By the way I totally agree the fun in the "hunt" part you had mentioned. It's the "process of achieving" is more entertaining than "achieving". That's the reason even when we have stuff which we like we are out here looking for more...isn't it wonder.. sadly but truly it never ends even if you think you have the best. I would love to go out and audition as much as possible but don't seem to have to many variety in my area. Recently came across another brand, LINN speakers. Heard of them?

Regards,
Raj

Well, obviously I am biased as I am an owner.... But I would argue that Tyler Acoustics offers some of the largest bang for the buck available in High-end audio.

My Linbrook Signature System speakers use Seas Excel drivers (very expensive) and Ty Lashbrook built them to order (as he does all of the Tyler speakers)... Mine came in a fabulous Rosewood finish. I picked them for their superior soundstaging, acuracy, overall slightly laid back tonal qualities (not to mention fabulous bass extension and resolution) and looks/build quality. Also, I had tried out the Tyler Taylo Reference monitors that are more in your price range first (so I had a good idea what the Tyler "sound" was like, before investing $4,500+ on a pair of built to order speakers). I loved the Taylos (that I bought used on Audiogon.com) so much that they now occupy the rear 3 channels in my sound system... I just could not part with them. Finally, I liked the fact that I was buying from a great guy who builds all of his speakers himself, and he is *very* down to earth. Just a little guy trying to make an honest living without being full of himself.

I did not mention Tyler previously because 1) they were not on your audition list, and 2) they are Internet direct, and it did not sound like that was a direction you would like to head in. I will say that now that Ty has a new addition to his web site where you can get the email of a local owner who has volunteered to let people listen to their various Tyler speakers, they might be worth a look if you are interested (I would argue they definitely are, of course). Ty Lashbrook's (Tyler's) web page is http://www.tyleracoustics.com just for reference.

Other speakers I listened to were the Legacy Audio Focus 20/20 (nice top to bottom sound, but a *bit* too bright for my taste), McIntosh XRT-28s (I *loved* these, but they are $18,200/pr. (too much for *my* price range ;-)) -- still I am glad I got a chance to hear them..., the Dali Helicon800s (which were unbelieveable performers in the just under $6000 price range (and they look *fabulous*), but not *quite* as good as the Tylers (for less money)), the Dali MS5s (I did not care for the sound or price ($12,400/pr. -- note: I listened to these right after the XRT-28s, so that may have had something to do with my displeasure)), and the Von Schweikert VR-4 Sig. Gen IIIs (very impressive, but again to not quite up to the Tylers).

I did hear the Linn Katans ($1000/pr.) just for kicks at one of the dealers, and I *loved* them. Quite frankly, for $1000/pr. new, I can't think of a speaker I would buy instead of them at that price. I did not get to hear any of Linn's larger speakers, as the dealer did not carry them. Sorry I can't be of more help there.

All of my auditions with the exception of the Tylers and the Linns were on all top-of-the-line McIntosh electronics. The Linns were on mid-level Linn electronics, and the Tylers were home demos on my own modest equipment listed below.

Hope that helps...

---Dave

[Jimmy C]

Well Stereophile is a bit weird to start with - the reviewers like everything but JA slams some of them with the graphs - but problem is good or bad graph - the product usually sounds good to the reivewers - so how valuable are those graphs? not very, because measuring 10 things leaves out the other 1000 they could be measuring but don't know how or don't have the equipment. (Actually the last page of the most recent UHF has Regkind discussing - in veiled discourse Stereophile measuring. The industry measures those things that puts their products in the best light). You won't see those nifty Kevlar measurements in Stereophile or Soundstage bevcause they are special interest guides --- glorified advertisments.

I have problems with ALL review publications - I have LESS of a problem with certain ones and certain reviewers - but magazines are magazines becuase they have stuff to review - and if you give a bad review then your name gets out there. ALL of them including the so called skeptic mags like The Audio Critic and $ensible $ound - these guys are just hocking the cheap crap on the market and saying it's no worse - big deal - RCA has to get some good reviews somewhere and rather than being good you can blast the rest with some gimmick test.

I have not heard Revel M20- Anyone got a set I can put em in my room and A/B them against my current set. Metal tweeter? Described to me by an owner as analytical? Are two things that I don't want as descriptors of a speaker - but you never know.

...yes, that is the best way to compare. When I wanted something better than my Paradigms, I listened in the stores, narrowed it down to my favorites and took them home. I knew what I liked and didn't like about the 60s, so I sorta used that as a reference. It's hard to find your favorites in ONE store, so...

The M20s "analytical"? Not sure... whoever says they're anaylitical might like certain colorations to give the illusion of smoothness or whatever... doesn't mean he's right, and there are too many variables to bother trying to nail down one description. I've heard them in 4 diff rooms, hundreds of recordings, different formats, etc. I would say they are the most honest to the source speaker I have heard. My 60s, for eg., tend to homogonize everything... the 20s will render things ars they are with an unusual amount of clarity. It's almost eerie at first.

Now take the 3A de Capos (didn't you have these? I know you're at least familiar with them). These struck me as having an upper bass/lower mid abberation. Once you get used to the Revels, it's easy to pick out things like cabinet colorations... and way later, S'Philes measurements confirmed my feelings. I would also say in comparison to the Refs, the M20 have deeper (but slightly fatter) bass and a more straightfoward, honest presentation. The de Capos are less software picky. Now, I'm not saying my speakers are the best, it's just that they have qualities that are important to me. I could easily have lived with the Refs.

The Dynaudio 1.3 (non-SE) were also nice, but didn't "do it" for me at the price.

I'm can't say my Revels will be my last speaker, but I haven't heard anything that would make me want to switch... even at twice the price. Maybe not the last, but I'll always keep them.

[RGA]

I noticed that you danced around my questions without providing any definite answers , But I will help you along.

First, I have not read anywhere where Paul Messenger has said that the Audio Note E is his reference speaker, Do you have information that suggest otherwise, At various times, he has quoted the JBL K2 and the JMLabs as part of his reference equipment, but even if he owns the Audio Note, it is listed as part of his 'hundred others' . Secondly, I see no evidence anywhere that points to the fact that the E/D is part of Hifi Choice reference equipment,they might have used as a reference speaker for some comparative tests in the past but, I have last three editions to hand, the E/D is not mentioned anywhere as part of their reference setup. As for your remarks about Stereophile, Dick Olsher mentions the E/Spe as a 'loaner' speaker, his comments 10 years on are spot on and echo some of my comments about your sonic preferences and seeming preference for the OTO SE and the A21A. Also again I do not see any evidence, that the E/Spe is a reference speaker, though some of their reviewers may well own one and use for some listening tests.

Yes, a rumour that PQ started himself, Have a read.
I have never stated anywhere that the B&W 705 is a great speaker, however I maintain that it much better speaker than the Audio Note K in many areas. The 705 does not suffer the atrocious boxiness of the AN K, and to these ears at least the bass on the 705 is much more coherent even if it rolls off earlier, i.e. lean. I am yet to hear your arguments on why the use of Kevlar has adversely impacted the performance of the 705.

You said that you have read Lynn Olsen articles in entirety, yet you did not make a single mention of any of his comments, but managed to say quote four paragraphs of unrelated material. How sweet , Secondly reread the thread on AA, John Ashman was unable to substantiate his comments with facts, neither were you, when I asked how the use of Kevlar adversely affected the design of the 705 vis a vis the CDM1NT, you drew a blank, how about revisiting that question?

Read the more recent review of the AN E, it did not get top marks for sound quality even at it's price point. Your comments about the A21A are really no surprise to me, because the measurements of the A21A and OTO SE are fairly similar, so it is no brainer that you like both of them. However, they gave the OTO SE four stars and the A21A five stars on sound quality which throws a spanner into your ratings logic. , there are other issues that explain this seeming discrepancy, but frankly it is a waste of time dwelling on them.

I have never stated that PQ is arrogant, however I have put it to him that some of his statements are plainly false , of which he has had no comeback.

And in your reponse, try and stick to the points discussed.

Send an e-mail to Lynn Olsen and ask him yourself what speaker he was referring to - B&W.

PQ already said he would back up his claim - take him up on it.

"Reviewed and Recommended way back in 1992, the Audio Note Type E has long been a favourite tool amongst Choice reviewers." Umm they use it to measure equipment - the opening lines of the thread I gave you. The E was used simalarly with Stereohile for measring amplifiers - you need a good measring accurate speaker in order to measure amplifiers with no?

You don;t see the forrest for the trees mate so i gorw weary - you don;t like the sound of Audio Note you prefer B&W fine. Ashman has already shown you the acoustic affects of the B&W woofers and Lynn Olson already says it in his article - you choose to ignore it that is fine by me. I bring up the other products because they are all voiced through Audio Note speakers - try thinking about that a little.

From Lynn
"At the present, though, even the best Kevlar, carbon-fiber, or aluminum
designs show at least one high-Q peak at the top of the working range,
requiring a sharp crossover, a notch filter, or preferably both to control
the peak. Unfortunately, this peak usually falls in a region between 3 and
5 kHz, right where the ear is most sensitive to resonant coloration."

B&W Corssover 4khz

"There are highly-reviewed (by the large-circulation "underground"
magazines) 2-way speakers that use 7" Kevlar drivers crossed over to
metal-dome tweeters. Technically, these loudspeakers operate with uniform
motion over the range of both drivers; in practice, though, the crossovers
are hard pressed to remove all of the energy from the Kevlar breakup region
between 3 and 5 kHz."

B&W Corssover 4khz.

"The reviews of these particular 2-way speakers go on at considerable, and
amusing, length about the trials in finding an amplifier that "revealed"
the full quality of the loudspeaker. In reality, the reviewer was forced to
use an amplifier that was particularly free of coloration in the region
where the Kevlar driver was breaking up. Since most audiophiles and
reviewers are unfamilar with the direct sound (and measurements) of
commonly-used raw drivers, they can't evaluate how much "Kevlar sound", or
"aluminum sound", remains as a residue in the finished design."

John Ashman did though by showing the measurements of the material itself and what do you know. Lynn was right. And incidentally what AN has been saying for decades.

"This is a problem, by the way, that plagues all current 2-way Kevlar,
metal, or carbon-fiber loudspeakers ... at the current state of the art,
the 6.5" or 7" drivers are forced to operate right up to the edge of their
working ranges in order to meet the tweeter in a moderate-distortion
frequency range."

Gee he goes even further here and which incorporates all B&W loudspeakers and any other maker using kevlar with drivers tof this size.

"If you lower the crossover frequency, tweeter IM distortion skyrockets,
resulting in raspy, distorted high frequencies at mid-to-high listening
levels; if you raise the crossover frequency, the Kevlar breakup creeps in,
resulting in a forward, aggressive sound at moderate listening levels, and
complete breakup at high levels (unlike paper cones, Kevlar, metal, and
carbon fibers do not go into gradual breakup)."

Which is why they don;t sound very cohesive - I personally don;t have a problem with this too much because i frankly prefer B&W to most speakers in the class - but that does not mean that I donl't notice the problems - they are audibly and clearly there.

"I should add, by the way, that I like Kevlar and carbon-fiber drivers very
much ... but they are difficult drivers to work with, with strong resonant
signatures that must be controlled acoustically and electrically."

Yes and I like B&W better than most of their peers in the price ranges -but they have issues.

"As mentioned above, rigid cones have advantages, but are difficult to damp
completely. A different approach is to use a cone material that is made
from a highly lossy material (traditionally, this was plastic-doped paper,
but this has been supplanted by polypropylene in most modern loudspeakers).
The cone then damps itself, progressively losing energy as the impulse from
the voice coil spreads outwards across the cone surface. The choice of
spider and surround are then much less critical.

This type of material typically measures quite flat and also allows a
simple 6dB/Octave crossover; personally, though, I don't care for the sound
of most polypropylene drivers, finding them rather vague and
blurry-sounding at low-to-medium listening levels. Without access to a B&K
swept IM distortion analyzer, I have to resort to guesswork, but I strongly
suspect that this type of cone has fairly high IM distortion since it is
quite soft. In addition, it is quite difficult to make a material that has
perfectly linear mechanical attenuation; in practice, distortion creeps in
when you actually want a progressive attenuation of energy over the surface
of the cone."

So we're not saved by polyprolyne either - which explains for me why I don't like most of these speakers at lower volume - actually it doesn't explain jack squat - it just means I kinda hear it the same way this fellow does - so what? He isn;t the last word in Audio neither am I and neither are you.

And back to Kevlar -

"A unique and quite desirable property of the latest Scan-Speak Kevlar
drivers is a smooth rolloff region above the usual Kevlar peak. All of the
other Kevlar drivers (that I have measured and listened to) have chaotic
breakup regions; the Scan-Speaks are the only ones that appear
well-controlled in this region..."

B&W does not use Scan-Speak (Note the part ALL OF THE OTHER).

And Lynn Olson is at enjoythemusic.com - where the editor of enjoythemusic Steven Rochlin also owns dozens of speakers - his reference is what> a 10 year old Audio Note J/SPX? And also the Ongaku(which he had to sell due to finances). I e-mailed Rochlin and just so you know the J is the spekaer he uses as the reference speaker at the online e-zine.

Mate I'm not saying AN is the BEST stuff - even though i may come across that way - what I'm saying is that it serves the music properly - that does not mean other stuff does not. I have been impressed with lots of very unlike gear - the Dynaudio Audience and PMC gear is almost the antitheses of the AN designs and I like them a helluva lot for a start.

Hi-fi choice is also considering price - the OTO is much more expensive than the A21a - and again the OTO loses points on power - it won;t sound good on most of the speakers out there - you cannot give it 5 stars for sound becuase it isn't going to sound like 5 stars on 95% of the speakers on the market. If I was the publisher I would not give it five stars for sound either. How could i recommend the OTO to someone using 705's Just isn't going to work very well except at low to average volume. Then that guy is going to yell at the magazine - I did notice that they recently had the OTO SE as an award amplifier in a contest they were running. But even doing that is not going to work without the right speakers. And with AN the right speakers is AN - they are first and formost a system approach - it needs to be in an all AN system --- which makes the company one of the most impractical on the market. You take a DAC and put it in another set-up and could get disastrous results - the amps well tubes are fussy to start with but SET's are even more of a pain in the rear.

It is simply this - I come off to you as someone who thinks AN is best and everyone else sucks - that's not my intention - you come off to me as someone who thinks everything that Audio Note makes sucks and that nobody would or should like anything they make - so we both go back and forth trying to name drop well so and so uses it - but it only got a best buy tag instead of a editor's choice tag? Well it got a rave review, but the guy noticed this flaw, so i take a speaker you like and say well they liked it but noticed this flaw, well they scored this product really high - but this newer one they liked more, well this reviewer kept the speaker, well he has other speakers too.

Hell I've done it again in this reply Some people have taken me up on my advice went to soundhounds and listened for themselves. There is a fellow here who is going to get a speaker sent to him and he may hate them.

What I keep saying though is IF and I capitalized IF you are dissatisfied with the usual suspects then try another path - if you love the sound of the 705 and don't think the K is any good then there really isn't much to say - you hear it very differently than the way I'm hearing it.

[46minaudio]

Send an e-mail to Lynn Olsen and ask him yourself what speaker he was referring to - B&W.

PQ already said he would back up his claim - take him up on it.

"Reviewed and Recommended way back in 1992, the Audio Note Type E has long been a favourite tool amongst Choice reviewers." Umm they use it to measure equipment - the opening lines of the thread I gave you. The E was used simalarly with Stereohile for measring amplifiers - you need a good measring accurate speaker in order to measure amplifiers with no?

You don;t see the forrest for the trees mate so i gorw weary - you don;t like the sound of Audio Note you prefer B&W fine. Ashman has already shown you the acoustic affects of the B&W woofers and Lynn Olson already says it in his article - you choose to ignore it that is fine by me. I bring up the other products because they are all voiced through Audio Note speakers - try thinking about that a little.

From Lynn
"At the present, though, even the best Kevlar, carbon-fiber, or aluminum
designs show at least one high-Q peak at the top of the working range,
requiring a sharp crossover, a notch filter, or preferably both to control
the peak. Unfortunately, this peak usually falls in a region between 3 and
5 kHz, right where the ear is most sensitive to resonant coloration."

B&W Corssover 4khz

"There are highly-reviewed (by the large-circulation "underground"
magazines) 2-way speakers that use 7" Kevlar drivers crossed over to
metal-dome tweeters. Technically, these loudspeakers operate with uniform
motion over the range of both drivers; in practice, though, the crossovers
are hard pressed to remove all of the energy from the Kevlar breakup region
between 3 and 5 kHz."

B&W Corssover 4khz.

"The reviews of these particular 2-way speakers go on at considerable, and
amusing, length about the trials in finding an amplifier that "revealed"
the full quality of the loudspeaker. In reality, the reviewer was forced to
use an amplifier that was particularly free of coloration in the region
where the Kevlar driver was breaking up. Since most audiophiles and
reviewers are unfamilar with the direct sound (and measurements) of
commonly-used raw drivers, they can't evaluate how much "Kevlar sound", or
"aluminum sound", remains as a residue in the finished design."

John Ashman did though by showing the measurements of the material itself and what do you know. Lynn was right. And incidentally what AN has been saying for decades.

"This is a problem, by the way, that plagues all current 2-way Kevlar,
metal, or carbon-fiber loudspeakers ... at the current state of the art,
the 6.5" or 7" drivers are forced to operate right up to the edge of their
working ranges in order to meet the tweeter in a moderate-distortion
frequency range."

Gee he goes even further here and which incorporates all B&W loudspeakers and any other maker using kevlar with drivers tof this size.

"If you lower the crossover frequency, tweeter IM distortion skyrockets,
resulting in raspy, distorted high frequencies at mid-to-high listening
levels; if you raise the crossover frequency, the Kevlar breakup creeps in,
resulting in a forward, aggressive sound at moderate listening levels, and
complete breakup at high levels (unlike paper cones, Kevlar, metal, and
carbon fibers do not go into gradual breakup)."

Which is why they don;t sound very cohesive - I personally don;t have a problem with this too much because i frankly prefer B&W to most speakers in the class - but that does not mean that I donl't notice the problems - they are audibly and clearly there.

"I should add, by the way, that I like Kevlar and carbon-fiber drivers very
much ... but they are difficult drivers to work with, with strong resonant
signatures that must be controlled acoustically and electrically."

Yes and I like B&W better than most of their peers in the price ranges -but they have issues.

"As mentioned above, rigid cones have advantages, but are difficult to damp
completely. A different approach is to use a cone material that is made
from a highly lossy material (traditionally, this was plastic-doped paper,
but this has been supplanted by polypropylene in most modern loudspeakers).
The cone then damps itself, progressively losing energy as the impulse from
the voice coil spreads outwards across the cone surface. The choice of
spider and surround are then much less critical.

This type of material typically measures quite flat and also allows a
simple 6dB/Octave crossover; personally, though, I don't care for the sound
of most polypropylene drivers, finding them rather vague and
blurry-sounding at low-to-medium listening levels. Without access to a B&K
swept IM distortion analyzer, I have to resort to guesswork, but I strongly
suspect that this type of cone has fairly high IM distortion since it is
quite soft. In addition, it is quite difficult to make a material that has
perfectly linear mechanical attenuation; in practice, distortion creeps in
when you actually want a progressive attenuation of energy over the surface
of the cone."

So we're not saved by polyprolyne either - which explains for me why I don't like most of these speakers at lower volume - actually it doesn't explain jack squat - it just means I kinda hear it the same way this fellow does - so what? He isn;t the last word in Audio neither am I and neither are you.

And back to Kevlar -

"A unique and quite desirable property of the latest Scan-Speak Kevlar
drivers is a smooth rolloff region above the usual Kevlar peak. All of the
other Kevlar drivers (that I have measured and listened to) have chaotic
breakup regions; the Scan-Speaks are the only ones that appear
well-controlled in this region..."

B&W does not use Scan-Speak (Note the part ALL OF THE OTHER).

And Lynn Olson is at enjoythemusic.com - where the editor of enjoythemusic Steven Rochlin also owns dozens of speakers - his reference is what> a 10 year old Audio Note J/SPX? And also the Ongaku(which he had to sell due to finances). I e-mailed Rochlin and just so you know the J is the spekaer he uses as the reference speaker at the online e-zine.

Mate I'm not saying AN is the BEST stuff - even though i may come across that way - what I'm saying is that it serves the music properly - that does not mean other stuff does not. I have been impressed with lots of very unlike gear - the Dynaudio Audience and PMC gear is almost the antitheses of the AN designs and I like them a helluva lot for a start.

Hi-fi choice is also considering price - the OTO is much more expensive than the A21a - and again the OTO loses points on power - it won;t sound good on most of the speakers out there - you cannot give it 5 stars for sound becuase it isn't going to sound like 5 stars on 95% of the speakers on the market. If I was the publisher I would not give it five stars for sound either. How could i recommend the OTO to someone using 705's Just isn't going to work very well except at low to average volume. Then that guy is going to yell at the magazine - I did notice that they recently had the OTO SE as an award amplifier in a contest they were running. But even doing that is not going to work without the right speakers. And with AN the right speakers is AN - they are first and formost a system approach - it needs to be in an all AN system --- which makes the company one of the most impractical on the market. You take a DAC and put it in another set-up and could get disastrous results - the amps well tubes are fussy to start with but SET's are even more of a pain in the rear.

It is simply this - I come off to you as someone who thinks AN is best and everyone else sucks - that's not my intention - you come off to me as someone who thinks everything that Audio Note makes sucks and that nobody would or should like anything they make - so we both go back and forth trying to name drop well so and so uses it - but it only got a best buy tag instead of a editor's choice tag? Well it got a rave review, but the guy noticed this flaw, so i take a speaker you like and say well they liked it but noticed this flaw, well they scored this product really high - but this newer one they liked more, well this reviewer kept the speaker, well he has other speakers too.

Hell I've done it again in this reply Some people have taken me up on my advice went to soundhounds and listened for themselves. There is a fellow here who is going to get a speaker sent to him and he may hate them.

What I keep saying though is IF and I capitalized IF you are dissatisfied with the usual suspects then try another path - if you love the sound of the 705 and don't think the K is any good then there really isn't much to say - you hear it very differently than the way I'm hearing it.

Here again RGA the AN SHILL fails to produce facts.The only reviews that are worth a ****( RGA APPROVED) are the ones that back his opinion...SHILLLLLL