Speaker Characteristics and Why?

[Feanor]

I chose the King Sound panel as one of the best rooms I heard at CES and Martin Logan was very close. I also very much like the Quad 2905. Contrary to what view. I have illustrated that in fact I like panels - at least some panels - just as I like some boxed speakers.

As for Audio Note and who copies them - well Audio Note copied Snell - Snell copied L.L. Beranek. I am not sure I understand the logic of copying. Since you can buy a kit and build it yourself a second company would have to start building them and undercut Audio Note - since msot companies are interested in appearance it's not exactly something to copy. And then you also have to copy it and make it better. I do not see too many people copying magnepan either but that does not mean that magnepan is "bad" it means that a company is better off producing their own stuff and differentiating themselves from the rest of the field.

Yes, you have praised the King Sound on occassion and it's a panel; I must concede that. In the post you deleted , you did seems to condemn ribbons unreservedly, but not all panels are ribbons nor all ribbons panels.

My point about copying, (emulating, or whatever), AN speakers is simply that it could be easily be done. Any why not if if were workth doing? It's not like ANs are all that cheap: somebody could rip them off at a much lower price, lower even than the kits.

See the sophisticated AN/E innards ...

[Geoffcin]

Yes, you have praised the King Sound on occassion and it's a panel; I must concede that. In the post you deleted , you did seems to condemn ribbons unreservedly, but not all panels are ribbons nor all ribbons panels.

My point about copying, (emulating, or whatever), AN speakers is simply that it could be easily be done. Any why not if if were workth doing? It's not like ANs are all that cheap: somebody could rip them off at a much lower price, lower even than the kits.

See the sophisticated AN/E innards ...

This is interesting. Do you think you could put together a list with prices? I really would like to see what it would cost.

[E-Stat]

See the sophisticated AN/E innards ...

A contemporary Advent.

rw

[Geoffcin]

A contemporary Advent.

rw

I'm glad you said contemporary! Henry Kloss would be rolling over in his grave if you called an thin walled un-damped cabinet with a hole in it his kinda speaker.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yes, you have praised the King Sound on occassion and it's a panel; I must concede that. In the post you deleted , you did seems to condemn ribbons unreservedly, but not all panels are ribbons nor all ribbons panels.

My point about copying, (emulating, or whatever), AN speakers is simply that it could be easily be done. Any why not if if were workth doing? It's not like ANs are all that cheap: somebody could rip them off at a much lower price, lower even than the kits.

See the sophisticated AN/E innards ...

Ouch!

[mlsstl]

I just want to thank everyone for reminding me why I don't post much around here....

Whew.

[E-Stat]

I'm glad you said contemporary! Henry Kloss would be rolling over in his grave if you called an thin walled un-damped cabinet with a hole in it his kinda speaker.

Well, I find there's a lot to like about the coherency of a nicely balanced two way. While most you find today use six to seven inch woofers, AN goes a touch bigger to make it full range. Which is similar to what Henry did with his high excursion ten incher in a twelve inch basket albeit with a different design. I confess that I'm not a big fan of stuffing speakers in a corner.

rw

[Mr Peabody]

RGA, as Sound Hounds carry both Sonus Faber and Dynaudio have you heard them enough to describe any difference? And, did you get a chance to hear the Octave? I was impressed but it was driving Confidence 1's, quite a load for a 40 watt amp. it did a formidable job though. I would still choose a more efficient speaker myself.

[Pat D]

Actually Pat that is quite fair enough - I did not intend to create a straw man here implying that you were saying they were perfectly accurate. And I also see that because JA did test other dipoles in the past that he would resonably conclude they would do better in room. I was looking more at the sound of the Quad and the magnepan and JA was looking at the overriding technology being a dipole design and noting the issues he has measuring them. So I'll eat my dose of humble pie.

[Geoffcin]

Well, I find there's a lot to like about the coherency of a nicely balanced two way.
rw

Actually my favorite speaker design after planars is a quality 2-way monitor. I currently have three different vintage examples of this design. The KLH Model 6, EPI 100, and the EPI 180, which is similar to a "stacked" 2-way array in one box. I also use the modest sized 2-way JM Labs Micron Carats in my computer rig. Anyone who thinks I'm a one-type-of-speaker guy is mistaken!

[RGA]

Yes, you have praised the King Sound on occassion and it's a panel; I must concede that. In the post you deleted , you did seems to condemn ribbons unreservedly, but not all panels are ribbons nor all ribbons panels.

My point about copying, (emulating, or whatever), AN speakers is simply that it could be easily be done. Any why not if if were workth doing? It's not like ANs are all that cheap: somebody could rip them off at a much lower price, lower even than the kits.

See the sophisticated AN/E innards ...

Feaner

If you can try to listen to an AN Kit speaker - essentially a kit is exactly as you describe - a put your own version together - AN gives you the drivers and the parts. Take the best kit builder you know - or the best engineer you know and have him build it. Then side by side compare it to the finished product.

If there is an AN product that I have heard that didn't do it for me it was an Audio Note kit E speaker. Lot's of people think it's easy - but it's not.

Also if you are ever in Victoria you can have a conversation about this issue with Terry. It might interest you to know that Boston Acoustics also holds the rights on the original Snell Speakers. And now Denon owns the rights. But despite the fact that the BA owner liked the AN speakers more than his own offering he concluded that with their looks in today's market they would not be able to sell them in large enough quantities. Boston is now a different company so you never know - eventually a less expensive version may crop up in Japan.

The trick is that the company that tries to copy needs to be able to get the drivers, they have to have the necessary machines and programs to match the drivers - each one is hand matched and each one has the specifications to model number. And it is that process that AN has that a kit builder doesn't and to what I heard that is the whole ball game. The AN E Kit is a deader sounding product - based on the one sample I have heard. A different kit builder may do better.

There is not much to a lot of speakers and if you start pulling stuff apart and looking at parts and design nothing out there can't be copied. Even with Audio Note they talk about cabinet dimensions a lot but really AN gives that information away for FREE - you can download that off several of their sites. You can get Peter to tell you the model number of the woofer and tweeter that was used before they modded it. You can get the wiring and cap values.

In other words they are happy to give anyone all the information needed for almost everything they make. Even the Ongaku - you can get that amp's entire schematic and build your own. I wish more companies would give that info away - but you open yourself up to attack when they find out how much the parts cost when you look under the hood.

But looking at parts is a dangerous game. The parts inside one AN E kit versus the parts used for upper models look entirely different. The boxes look the same as you go up the parts quality dramatically changes.

[RGA]

Now this has risen to the level of slander (actually libel since it's in written form).

Since when has anyone supressed your opinions here? Your can be sure we've disagreed you on just about every point you've made but please show me where your opinions have been surpressed. Can't find one example eh? That's becasue NOWHERE has anyone moderated ANY of your posts for content, OR deleted any posts EVER?! The ONLY one who has deleted your posts has been YOU. Perhaps you think by deleting them that someone else will think that a mod did it? Was that the reason? Very poor behavior on your part, very bad indeed.

Umm some of my posts have been half deleted - some in response to tah. I went back and deleted the whole thing if it is going to be deleted in part.

post number 75 was edited for content and another one was edited and I elected to delete it so saying it never ever happens is not correct. Tube amp to hybrid switch

I delete my posts if I feel after reading them I was being insulting - sometimes I catch myself fast enough and sometimes I don't. People seemed to get overly worked up about my opinions on a speaker so I deleted them to preserve the peace. damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Geoffcin]

Umm some of my posts have been half deleted - some in response to tah. I went back and deleted the whole thing if it is going to be deleted in part.

post number 75 was edited for content and another one was edited and I elected to delete it so saying it never ever happens is not correct. Tube amp to hybrid switch

I delete my posts if I feel after reading them I was being insulting - sometimes I catch myself fast enough and sometimes I don't. People seemed to get overly worked up about my opinions on a speaker so I deleted them to preserve the peace. damned if you do and damned if you don't.

You know that's not what I meant. Obviously your posts are not inviolable, and I can only speak for my own use of the mod function. However, your assertion that in some way your posts in this thread were suppressed by a mod (me) are false. If you've deleted your own posts in order to remove insulting remarks I am fine with that.

[GMichael]

I just want to thank everyone for reminding me why I don't post much around here....

Whew.

Pull up a chair and have some popcorn. The show will be resuming shortly. Got any beer?

[Feanor]

Feaner

If you can try to listen to an AN Kit speaker - essentially a kit is exactly as you describe - a put your own version together - AN gives you the drivers and the parts. Take the best kit builder you know - or the best engineer you know and have him build it. Then side by side compare it to the finished product.

If there is an AN product that I have heard that didn't do it for me it was an Audio Note kit E speaker. Lot's of people think it's easy - but it's not.
...

I haven't heard any AN but certainly I'd like to. The most likely opportunity would be Toronto where there's a dealer, (Toronto Home of Audiophile), but I don't even get to TO very often, much less Victoria.

AN has a bewildering number of options for each product model, not the least the least for the AN-E. Even the kits run from US$1550 to $7000 plus $950 for Russian birch cabinets. The picture I showed above was for the $1550, Kit 02, model. The $7k model, (here), obviously has some exotic and doubtless costly drivers -- but note that the crossover is still a simple 2nd order.

The thing that we can say about the AN designs, apart from some exotic materials in some models, is that they are extremely simple in fundamental design.

On the face of it $1550 is exorbitant for the Kit 02. The drivers strongly resemble Seas Prestige series, (mid-range), drivers. A pair of CA22RNX paper cone woofers would be under $200; a pair of 27TDFC soft dome tweeters under $90. The simple crossover would scarcely exceed with $100 with mid-quality capacitors of which there are only two per side. Add hardware and damping material for say $50. As for the cabinets, birch plywood, (but maybe not Baltic), would run maybe $120 -- if you settled for MDF more like $30!

... but oh! I forgot: there's the AN voodoo you're paying for.

[Geoffcin]

The thing that we can say about the AN designs, apart from some exotic materials in some models, is that they are extremely simple in fundamental design.

On the face of it $1550 is exorbitant for the Kit 02. The drivers strongly resemble Seas Prestige series, (mid-range), drivers. A pair of CA22RNX paper cone woofers would be under $200; a pair of 27TDFC soft dome tweeters under $90. The simple crossover would scarcely exceed with $100 with mid-quality capacitors of which there are only two per side. Add hardware and damping material for say $50. As for the cabinets, birch plywood, (but maybe not Baltic), would run maybe $120 -- if you settled for MDF more like $30!

... but oh! I forgot: there's the AN voodoo you're paying for.

So your saying that you could source with similar drivers, and build an ANe clone for about $500, and AN charges $1500 for the cheapest kit?!

For about $1500 I could switch out the mid-level tweeters in the AN kit for the top-of-the-line ScanSpeak Revelator tweeter http://www.madisound.com/store/produ...oducts_id=1581 and a matching Revelator woofer. https://www.madisound.com/store/prod...roducts_id=949 and STILL have money left over to a top quality crossover and box.

Wow, they even sell a kit that nearly matches;

https://www.madisound.com/store/prod...oducts_id=8591

[Feanor]

So your saying that you could source with similar drivers, and build an ANe clone for about $500, and AN charges $1500 for the cheapest kit?!

For about $1500 I could switch out the mid-level tweeters in the AN kit for the top-of-the-line ScanSpeak Revelator tweeter http://www.madisound.com/store/produ...oducts_id=1581 and a matching Revelator woofer. https://www.madisound.com/store/prod...roducts_id=949 and STILL have money left over to a top quality crossover and box.

Wow, they even sell a kit that nearly matches;

https://www.madisound.com/store/prod...oducts_id=8591

Well that's pretty much what I'm saying. But then again ...

RGA scarcely needs anyone to speak for him, but he'll likely say that AN has closely tuned their under-braced plywood cabinet to resonate in just the right way to tweak the efficiency and overall sound of their designs, and that it is reasonable on their part to ask to be compensated for this development.

The question remains whether the AN "voodoo" is really necessary or as effective as it's claimed to be. A real AN "clone" would need to have the under-braced, lightly-stuff cabinet and the wider baffle. Also, it would need a crossover designed for near-wall placement -- but, it anything, that's easier because it omits "baffle shelf compensation"; the wider baffle helps with this too.

My amateur guess is that the AN crossovers are deficient in that they don't include a circuit to suppress resonances that many woofers have above their appropriate ranges, (this would be the case with the CA22RNX driver). Of course careful driver selection would mitigate this.

If I were designing a speaker to emulate the AN -- by which I mean mainly near-wall placement -- I'd try the following:

• Retain the wide baffle
• Omit baffle shelf compensation in the crossover
• Include woofer resonance surpression
• Select a lower xover point vs. the 2000 Hz of the AN, maybe 1500 Hz or lower, (but still 2x the FS of the tweeter)
• Choose a higher order xover, maybe 4th order.
• Build an MDF rather than plywood cabinet since it is easier to work plus less resonant and therefore of more predictable result without a lot of tweaking.

[RGA]

Feanor

There is a saying that goes a long the lines that a product can be more than the sum of their parts.

When you look at most speakers and break it down to parts it does not equal the cost of the product - if you want to call out AN that's fine but you'll have to call out your own magnepans and other speakers - The guy at Soundhounds repairs magnepans - and every other speaker on the market - he bought Audio Note - you want to know the cost of the parts inside speakers you will be surprised that AN does very very well compared to most (and better than everything that Soundhounds sells) - so while it's nice to say it looks inexpensive - the rest of the stuff at soundhounds is even LESS expensive or has an even lower ratio than the AN E- so if the AN E looks cheap heaven help the rest of the stuff they carry. Peter operates on a cost to retail price of around 3:1 - My $300 B&W was pulled apart and had less than $30 in parts including the cabinet. 3:1 versus 10:1 And that grows worse the higher up the models.


They have tried MDF - but they don't sound good. The original Snell were chipboard and the early AN speakers were chipboard. They have been experimenting with every kind of wood (that make sense).

The comment about simple is I think fair. Everything they design is in some respects "simple" SET is simple - one of their amps is very probably the simplest amplifier that can be made with 2 stages. Their CD players are simple - there's barely anything inside.

AN speakers are slightly damped with carted sheep's wool.

At the end of the day it's still a business they have to make a profit to keep going as well. I think it's good that Peter has his roots in the kits and believes in increasing the knowledge base of users. But he like anyone else has employees - British paid union employees not slaves in China.

Musical instruments can go from $80 for a guitar to thousands - looking at them I don't see the money. Feeling them I get a better sense - listening to them it's obvious.

The issue is that people can look at graphs and they can look at the parts and draw conclusions - or they can listen. I know which one I choose to do. The AN's "magic" is in the cabinet, and the matching process and they would argue the cabling. Art Dudley's version of the E IMO probably represents the sweetspot in terms of bang for the dollar. Medium sized rooms easy enough to drive. Still I went to CES and heard mega systems - I didn't hear anything better than the $51k AN room. I may be biased but a lot of others felt the same way. I would have the big Acapella system and the Trenner and Freidl next. Trenner was also not using very expensive front end kit at times and so it might have ranked first spot - it certainly did for impact.

But back to parts - Once you start getting into high prices people seem to immediately look at drivers. Well one could buy a Cerwin Vega CLS 215 which is Huge - lots of cabinet - big huge 15 inch drivers with pink surrounds a mid and horn tweeter - nice connectors on the back - something like $450 on line. More drivers bigger drivers, more cabinet, weighs a bit. Must be more expensive. Take Burr Brown - they used to have a price list of their DAC chips. .60 for a cheap one and $1.80 for the top of the line most expensive ones. You buy a CD player for $600 and the top model would charge $2000 - Arcam did this - same exact transport and parts but a better DAC. The Movie The Corporation noted that Alpine Decks were made for $0.61 - they sell for $200. Alpine is often viewed as making the better budget car decks. So Sony and JVC and Pioneer probably cost half that to make.

And frankly the whole cost thing has been done to death. I buy based on the end result of what I hear. If AN can make a vastly better sounding product that costs them half what a competitor is using then good for them.

Stereophile

"A note on value: Just a short while ago, I saw a thread on AudioAsylum.com suggesting that Audio Note loudspeakers must be wildly overpriced, given their very plain appearance in comparison with most other expensive speakers. One savant noted the E's lack of a grille: a notorious scheme for cost-cutting by devious manufacturers, he said. I felt as if I'd stepped into a world where an expensive car would be criticized for lacking low-profile wheels, a rear-view videocam, a spoiler, and a fancy paint job—until it occurred to me that I'd never left that world in the first place. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

A product such as this confounds a mindset such as that. In addition to the happy prospect of buying a thing that sells for less than its predecessor and sounds at least as good, the latest version of the Audio Note AN-E/SPe HE offers the kind of performance that simply must be heard to be understood: more music than sound. Like its stablemates, the AN-E/SPe HE is not the sort of audio product that prompts its new owner to pull special record after special record off the shelves just to hear the bass depth on this one, the imaging specificity on that. Rather, the SPe HE is the sort of thing that will compel you to play every record you own, all the way through, without interruption—arguably because it does a better job than most of really connecting the listener with the dramatic, intellectual, and emotional intensities captured in every groove. I can't recommend it strongly enough.—Art Dudley

Frankly the E has gotten too much yak yak in this thread so you either audition it or you don't. If you are in New York then the best place to audition is Amherst Audio in Boston. Is that driveable? The Ontario dealer does not have a good listening space nor does he have the equipment - nor for that matter does he have current gear.

Bob Neil is the guy to talk to. http://www.amherstaudio.com/

[RGA]

So your saying that you could source with similar drivers, and build an ANe clone for about $500, and AN charges $1500 for the cheapest kit?!

For about $1500 I could switch out the mid-level tweeters in the AN kit for the top-of-the-line ScanSpeak Revelator tweeter http://www.madisound.com/store/produ...oducts_id=1581 and a matching Revelator woofer. https://www.madisound.com/store/prod...roducts_id=949 and STILL have money left over to a top quality crossover and box.

Wow, they even sell a kit that nearly matches;
https://www.madisound.com/store/prod...oducts_id=8591

It's worse - the AN Kit does not include the cabinet. They will send you the cabinets for $950 but that's an optional extra.

[Geoffcin]

Well that's pretty much what I'm saying. But then again ...

RGA scarcely needs anyone to speak for him, but he'll likely say that AN has closely tuned their under-braced plywood cabinet to resonate in just the right way to tweak the efficiency and overall sound of their designs, and that it is reasonable on their part to ask to be compensated for this development.

.[/LIST]

I would say it's reasonable if they did any of the development themselves, but the design dates back to the work of late Peter Snell. It's interesting to note that the Snell type E had a rear firing tweeter in addition to the front. Can anyone say di-pole?(actually bi-pole) Even more remarkable is that the older Snell type E measured BETTER than it's two lettered imposter.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloud...ll/index4.html

I expect it sounded better too.

[Geoffcin]

It's worse - the AN Kit does not include the cabinet. They will send you the cabinets for $950 but that's an optional extra.

And how are they going to justify the "matching" cabinet cost when it's obvious that the one thing they can claim, the "tweaking" of all the parameters of the build cannot be done on a kit before hand?

[Geoffcin]

Well here's something funny; After reading the review of the Snell E on Stereophile I'm digging on these speakers! Probably my penchant for funky "New England" sound speakers coming through. I'l have to add this to my list right after I find my minty pair of AR3a's

[theaudiohobby]

I would say it's reasonable if they did any of the development themselves, but the design dates back to the work of late Peter Snell. It's interesting to note that the Snell type E had a rear firing tweeter in addition to the front. Can anyone say di-pole?(actually bi-pole) Even more remarkable is that the older Snell type E measured BETTER than it's two lettered imposter.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloud...ll/index4.html

I expect it sounded better too.

That's the price of progress , What I find most amazing is how the differences in the measurements of the two designs validate Hoffman's law, the Audio Note E sacrifices bass output of the original design to achieve 1.5dB increase in senstivity. That said, given the popularity of the speaker state-side, it would seem that Audio Note made the right call, afterall the reports from the California Audio Show have many listeners raving about it's transparency, tight and 'extended' bass. The whole episode speaks volumes about the inability of many seasoned audio enthusiasts to determine a neutral sounding speaker. I suppose folks should remember that the maxim goes "If it sounds good, it is good" rather than "If it sounds good, it is accurate and good".

[RGA]

I would say it's reasonable if they did any of the development themselves, but the design dates back to the work of late Peter Snell. It's interesting to note that the Snell type E had a rear firing tweeter in addition to the front. Can anyone say di-pole?(actually bi-pole) Even more remarkable is that the older Snell type E measured BETTER than it's two lettered imposter.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloud...ll/index4.html

I expect it sounded better too.

expecting things to sound better and actually bothering to audition them are different - well to me anyway. Peter and Peter were very close friends. Partly why Peter Q has the rights to the line. That does not mean that they agreed on everything. Part of the reason the AN E is not the same as the Snell E - quite a lot of things different really. All of the parts and cabinet material, the fact that one is corner loaded the other isn't with different port dimensions. Snell didn't invent the cabinet dimensions either. Snell came up with the Wave Launch and part of the matching process. The progression has gone on for years.

Good luck

[RGA]

And how are they going to justify the "matching" cabinet cost when it's obvious that the one thing they can claim, the "tweaking" of all the parameters of the build cannot be done on a kit before hand?

Peter mentions this on the site. You are not getting the matching process when you buy the kit - and he says it's highly doubtful you will be able to equal the sound of the production units. So you are not getting a speaker in the kit that is as good - but then you're also paying less than half the price - so it's up to you. People have free will to make their choice. My choice would be not to buy a Kit E. The other kits fine but not the speaker kit. Now if I was not comparing the Kit E to the production Kit and I was just comparing the Kit E to other $3-$5k production speakers it is still good - but it doesn't get me raving up and down.

Cheers,