Quote Originally Posted by 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.

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.