Speaker Characteristics and Why?

[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.

[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

[Geoffcin]

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

The plans were not passed because they were friends, because Mr Snell died suddenly and the company passed directly to his business partner. If anything the plans were copied and the rear tweeter deleted so as not to arouse suspicion, or more crassly, to save a buck.

The Snell E sold for about a grand and was probably worth it. I can't see anything in the modern copy that would make me think it would be worth any more. In fact without the rear firing tweeter it should cost LESS to produce.