Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 169
  1. #101
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    436
    I guess my main question is...why would anyone need 1250 watts or 800 watts?
    I guess if you were powering speakers for a large hall or something. But unless you were the Saudi King, you probably dont have a hall that large. Even in a normal banquet hall or something, chances are, VTL quality is not really required. Most concert halls just hook up some Cerwin Vega's to a car amp or something cheap like that. As long as it makes sound, its all good.

  2. #102
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    I don't think you understood my thread. The recordings were made out of doors (except for the pipe organ of course) so that no reverberation would get on the recording. That way the signal is as pure instrument and free of acoustics as possible. Upon playback, the speaker playing the tape alternates with the live musician. The acoustics of the location of the demo treat each the same. That way, you get the best comparison of how well the speaker can accurately reproduce the live instruments or more succintly, its accuracy. Were other speakers present? No why should there be. The demo was for the purpose of showing that AR speakers were accurate on an absolute basis against live musical instruments, not that they were superior in the same demo to someone elses model? If someone else has the guts to do the same with their equipment, they would do no differently.

    " can we say it sounds accurate in absolute terms."

    Yes that was the purpose of the demonstrations.

    "the most efficient speakers or speaker systems i've heard are great with dynamics and headroom.i've heard altec 604s and 605s in open baffles, several versions of ALTEC voice of the theater, SET tri-amped JADIS (a french brand) eurithmie of , Klipsch, Tannoy Westminster"

    RGA says Klipschorn is one of the ten best speakers in the world. If that is his opinon, there no point in further discussion. I've heard folder horn and folded corner horns like Klipschorn and A-7 many times. IMO, they are awful. So colored as not to be taken seriously as high fidelity sound reproducers.

  3. #103
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    "RGA says Klipschorn is one of the ten best speakers in the world. If that is his opinon, there no point in further discussion. I've heard folder horn and folded corner horns like Klipschorn and A-7 many times. IMO, they are awful. So colored as not to be taken seriously as high fidelity sound reproducers"

    Firstly the K-horn is considered widely to be on of the best speakers ever produced - they're not really my cup of tea - but properly set-up doing what you want them to do they're terrific speakers - and since they've been selling for 50+ years or so some people find them very pleasing. Can't handle that eh Skeptic - Same stupid dim bulbs who Like Rock/Folk/WorlD/Soul/Latin/Jazz and post 18th century classical music.

    And unlike your Bose 901's I bet most real engineers not tinkerers like yourself would take the K-Horn over the Kaka that is the 901. But hey you're entitled to love the 901 however totally innacurate it is People can like wildly different speaker designs - and different sounds - you know? I mean I know you have narrow minded views on music but on the sound as well. Yikes. How is it possible to like both a Boxed speaker and an electrostat - wow I guess I'm not monogamous when it comes to stereo systems. And the earth burned and the skies fell.

    Do you ever actually help anyone on these forums or just attack everyone's selections - like the poor fellow who bought the Def Techs below? need placement/setup help

    And heaven forbid engineers and music lovers like something different than Skeptic? -

  4. #104
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    I am not comparing a wega to a 30 year old television. What I am saying is there isn't something enw about a tube set today than there was 30 years ago or the principle behind todays VCR as opposed to one 20 years ago. The new ones are certainly BETTER.
    Well, you're trying to weave this argument that in the good ole days, products were about quality and service, and now everything's about profits and disposability first. How does that explain the fact that TVs now are far superior in performance to anything that was sold 30 years ago, more maintenance free, and much lower in cost?. I suppose if everybody had to pay the equivalent of $3,000 for a basic color TV, then the motivation for repairing as opposed to buying a brand new one might actually exist. The TV is fundamentally about a cathode ray tube (though that is changing very quickly), but the ancillary electronics that surround it have completely changed. What TV nowadays uses vacuum tubes, manual channel dials, analog tuners, and manually controlled vertical and horizontal hold?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Toole does not comment by giving a review but he does work for Harman - Harman has a speical interest in aqcuiring Toole to be on their staff - and when tests are conducted blind Harman speakers come out best. Excuse me for seeing some bias here. Some of those speakers do very well in the blind sessions at Hi-fi Choice(The Intermezzo 2.6 is a Rabos design and was awarded a Best Buy) so there is certainly merrit in them(i'm not saying buy Audio Note or nothing - but these were also awarded a best buy and recommended etc)
    If you actually read their white papers, you'll note that they discuss how to use blind testing in the design process, and how their listening setup is designed. It also discusses how in sighted listenings, the sight biases become the main determinent. Has it ever occurred to you that blind listenings are something that manufacturers mainly use to test evaluate their own designs with one another? I don't see anything about how Harman speakers rank higher than other speakers in their tests, and there's no indication as to what speakers they use in their tests. If Harman does tests like that, they certainly don't discuss that in their white papers, so I don't see where you get this idea that there's some kind of conspiratorial bias at work, or that those white papers are nothing more than biased fluff pieces. Your obsession with brand identity and condemning all things about marketing is leading you to make some pretty misguided generalizations about documents that I've used multiple times as a guide to setup my system. It's sound information, often very technical, but worth reading if you're at all interested in learning about how scientific concepts translate into everyday listening. If you equate that to Bose marketing pieces, then it's obvious that you've never bothered to read them.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    I like to see external listening sessions rather than those conducted by the people selling the speakers. B&W can do a blind test where B&W's come out on top and Harman speakers come out last and B&W can hire a team of world experts and George Lucas himself to imply that this is the best approach to building loudspeakers and that most people will choose our loudspeakers because their measurments dictate that they are the superior design blah blah blah- and all of that is fine because it helps make a sale much of the time.
    Like I said, I've never seen Harman put any listening results in their white papers, and for technical discussions like that, subjective product reviews are not the focus. EVERY speaker company wants to convince you that their approach is the best, but very few companies publish anything approaching the technical level of what Harman releases. It doesn't matter what speakers you own or like, those white papers present valid findings that can help anyone with an interest in seeing how scientific findings can help improve their own system performance.

    You lay all kinds of blame at Floyd Toole's feet without knowing what his actual function within the company is, or citing what about his writings you can refute. Your only response is that you don't like the speakers his company produces, therefore everything that he's written is marketing bull****. In case this point hasn't sunken in, Toole is NOT a speaker designer. Yet, you talk about him as if every speaker that you've ever hated was actually designed by him. Harman affiliate speakers aren't necessarily my favorites either, but I've put their publications to the test and found the information therein to be spot on.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Except the flaw in this is that that doesn't necessarily happen when I and a LOT of other people go and listen to the speakers.
    Yeah, and who among your LOT of other people has ever done any kind of unsighted evaluations? You mention that "doesn't necessarily happen", well if you're doing your comparisons under sighted conditions and you're comparing that to blind tests, obviously it's an entirely different evaluation. If you believe that you're capable of equally judging things under both sighted and unsighted conditions, then why don't you put that to the test? I used to do blind tests when calibrating tape bias settings for different cassette tapes (trying to identify the setting that was most transparent to the source playback), and the "night and day" differences that I thought that I had picked up on under sighted conditions turned out to be much more subtle and difficult to discern under blind conditions. Same thing occurred when comparing cables, so I'm well aware of the degree to which sight biases can have a tangible influence.

  5. #105
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    The point is moot anyway - Hi-fi CHoice is the only magazine doing anything resembling a blind test - they get around validity(which typical blind tests do not) far better than a test though because the differences are assumed and it's not actually a testing environment but an evaluatory one. Big difference between the two from a psychological perspective.

    As for Harman they have in fact done tests that according to them reveals that some journalists chose the S26 JBL over B&W 601's. And Toole conducted it - go read up - it was all nice and vague and done over short listening per usual - and plenty of weasel words like most of us chose the S26 on most tracks - not everyone and not on every clip - the S26 has a nice spike around the 1-2khz range - of course that is not mentioned as to why people chose the speaker in the short listening session. I assume this is the original 601 which was not a very good speaker really, but hey the implication works for Harman so whatever. Of course everything coming out of their research will put their speakers in the best light.

    Blind I have listened cd players and amplifiers blind. Speakers being so wildly different in sound is not a requirement - though I suppose if one was comparing metal tweeter slim line designs of general size then it might be a good idea. Name bias - Well all the biases available would have B&W way out in front of Audio Note: a name I knew, a product I owned and liked, tons of good reviews, expensive, great looking, well built - lots of technology - George Lucas uses them, world renouned, really big company, won't be out of business any time soon, good customer support Adio Note - never heard of them butt ugly paper freaking woofers - you gotta be joking -- despite all of these disadvantages when it comes to sound it isn't remotely close when one actually sits down and listens.

    So frankly I am uninterested in what the white paper thumpers are on about. I'll just say that I am not surprised AT ALL that other posters preferred the $550.00 AX TWO to the N805 at $2k.and this ilk. Frankly, after listening to AN it's pretty tough to buy into what companies like Paradigm, Energy and PSB put on their web-sites - sorry it's my opinion and that opinion - however others may disagree and hey there will be those - my opinion is a preference and to my ear those three are in Tee Ball playing AN's who would be the New York Yankees. Some of them make good speakers The N805 is very good - but...

    Your tv arguemt I already said about 8 threads ago so why you keep on about it I don't know - I already said that low price makes it not worth fixing because it would cost more to repair it - and I stated that because the price of things back then was so expensive it made it worth repairing because one could not afford to buy new. I conceded the point - The technology has improved - trying to bring that back to tube amps doesn't fly - once again people only need to go out and listen presumably to good equipment and it will be readily apparent. Well perhaps not to every listener.

    Old tube amps are in such high demand because people think the sound is better. Of course all of these people are all delusional naturally.

    Frankly - I really don't care - you folks want to be skeptical that is fine by me - you said you had other priorities than 2 channel no problem there. It's your money buy whatever you wish. AN will be to you just another one of those quaint little high end makers who tinker with old gear - know nothing of acoustics and charge too high a price and snowed everyone into buying - fine you all can believe that if you wish - no skin off my nose.

    AN sure does not need me or anyone or themselves advertising their products. They sell just fine to people who simply listen to music. Why advertise when your product sells itself? - No need for white paper links - no need for product literature - no need to buy advertising space - No need to advertise a famouns name who uses your speakers - the only thing you need to do is put your speaker/product up against the other guy's speakers and let people listen. Simple approach.

    Be happy with whatever you want to own - so will I and we'll leave it there - everyone is happy with their choice - I no longer care about being right - I will follow 925011 well stated and simple response. I have a feeling I'm going to be quoted yet again in this thread - please just be happy with your choice - go on about the science and the white papers and the history of stereo and transistors versus tubes and the relative costs blather blather. I would buy into it - if to me the sound supported it - to some of you it does great - enjoy.
    Last edited by RGA; 07-03-2004 at 02:41 AM.

  6. #106
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    36

    foolish demo

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    I don't think you understood my thread. The recordings were made out of doors (except for the pipe organ of course) so that no reverberation would get on the recording. That way the signal is as pure instrument and free of acoustics as possible. Upon playback, the speaker playing the tape alternates with the live musician. The acoustics of the location of the demo treat each the same. That way, you get the best comparison of how well the speaker can accurately reproduce the live instruments or more succintly, its accuracy. Were other speakers present? No why should there be. The demo was for the purpose of showing that AR speakers were accurate on an absolute basis against live musical instruments, not that they were superior in the same demo to someone elses model? If someone else has the guts to do the same with their equipment, they would do no differently.

    " can we say it sounds accurate in absolute terms."

    Yes that was the purpose of the demonstrations.
    that sure sounds like the most illogical demo in AUDIO history to me. i don't think Qvortrup or Kondo-san would ever conduct such a foolish demo to sell any of their products.

    was the live performance amplified or not? did they use microphones ? If they did use mics, amps and speakers for the live performance, that would have sounded bad, distorted perhaps.

    also where was the source for the playback (using the AR gear) recorded? were they recorded at the same LIVE venue or in a separate studio?

    assuming the live performance didn't sound too bad, how would people know if AR beat any other brand or gear in reproducing the LIVE sound if everything that was demonstrated had the AR logo?


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    RGA says Klipschorn is one of the ten best speakers in the world. If that is his opinon, there no point in further discussion. I've heard folder horn and folded corner horns like Klipschorn and A-7 many times. IMO, they are awful. So colored as not to be taken seriously as high fidelity sound reproducers.
    If your reference speakers are indeed BOSE 901s, there is indeed no point in further discussion.

  7. #107
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "that sure sounds like the most illogical demo in AUDIO history to me. i don't think Qvortrup or Kondo-san would ever conduct such a foolish demo to sell any of their products.

    was the live performance amplified or not? did they use microphones ? If they did use mics, amps and speakers for the live performance, that would have sounded bad, distorted perhaps.

    also where was the source for the playback (using the AR gear) recorded? were they recorded at the same LIVE venue or in a separate studio?

    assuming the live performance didn't sound too bad, how would people know if AR beat any other brand or gear in reproducing the LIVE sound if everything that was demonstrated had the AR logo?"

    I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE PLAYING A GAME WITH ME BENIL OR JUST DON'T GET IT.

    High fidelity is not about amplified instruments. It is not about electric guitars, electric basses, electric organs, or singers with pathetic weak off key voices needing all the help a recording console and a recording engineer can give it, or screechers blasting your eardrums with their cacophony amplified through speakers.

    It's about real musicians with real instruments. You make a recording of them, the best most accurate you can, you bring it to where the demo will be. The musician plays his unamplified instrument. The speaker plays the same music which was earlier recorded. If they sound the same, the speker is accurate and has done its job. That is the goal of high fidelity. Period. If you still don't get it, I give up. There are some walls just too thick to be blasted through.

    "If your reference speakers are indeed BOSE 901s, there is indeed no point in further discussion. Online"

    It isn't. But in my recent project to enhance the original version with additional tweeters, further equalizaton, and biamplfication, I discovered that they could be improved enormously to where they can become part of a very fine speaker system. This is as I suspeced all along. As sold, they are not a particularly good sound reproducer. Capiche?" I made that very clear in my posting about it and you deliberately trying to twist my words around to change their meaning won't work.

  8. #108
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    RGA, here's your big chance. They are practically giving them away.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...sPageName=WDVW

    If you pass this one up, you'll never forgive yourself. Once in a lifetime opportunity.

  9. #109
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE PLAYING A GAME WITH ME BENIL OR JUST DON'T GET IT.

    High fidelity is not about amplified instruments. It is not about electric guitars, electric basses, electric organs, or singers with pathetic weak off key voices needing all the help a recording console and a recording engineer can give it, or screechers blasting your eardrums with their cacophony amplified through speakers.
    you just had to answer it. you didn't have to scream

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    It's about real musicians with real instruments. You make a recording of them, the best most accurate you can, you bring it to where the demo will be. The musician plays his unamplified instrument. The speaker plays the same music which was earlier recorded. If they sound the same, the speker is accurate and has done its job. That is the goal of high fidelity. Period. If you still don't get it, I give up. There are some walls just too thick to be blasted through.
    IT SEEM YOUR WALLS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE TOO THICK TO BE BLASTED THROUGH.

    you're the one who doesn't seem to get it. how do you know the recordings of the unamplified performance were done neutrally? the recording process may have been adjusted simply to make the demonstrated gear sound close (which i doubt) to the unamplified performance.

    please read this:

    it would be very useful if we had meaningful knowledge of exactly what is encoded on our recordings. Unfortunately, such is not possible. (This assertion may appear casually stated, but on its truth depends much if the following argument; we therefore invite the closest possible scrutiny.) Even if we were present at every recording session, we would have no way of interpreting the electrical information which feeds through the microphones to the master tape--let alone to the resulting CD or LP -- into a sensory experience against which we could evaluate a given audio system (bold letters mine). Even if we were present at playback sessions through the engineer's monitoring (read: "presumed reference") system, we would be unable to transfer that experience to any other system evaluation. And even if we could hold the impression of that monitoring experience in our minds and account for venue variables such knowledge would turn out to be irrelevant in determining system or component accuracy since the monitoring equipment could not have been accurate in the first place. -- qvortrup and norwitz

    If you need more clarification please keep an open mind and read this article first. audio hell

  10. #110
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Article Hell

    All other arguements aside, the writer of this article starts out with a logical contradicton.

    "But no matter what monitoring components are used, they can never be the last word on the subject, and it is entirely possible to achieve more realistic results with a totally different playback system, for example a more accurate one. Notice "more accurate," not accurate. It bears repeating that there is no such thing as an accurate system, nor an accurate component, nor an accurate recording. "

    If there can be no such thing as an accurate system, there can also be no such thing as a more accurate system because it would have to be closer to an ideal which cannot exist. Kind of like Zeno's paradox.

    If there was a point to this remarkably boring article, I didn't get it. The author philosophised about life and existance, Startrek, and said something about different kinds of recordings sounding different and not all the same. But I didn't get much useful out of it. BTW, I do use lots of recordings listening to audio equipment, they are not all of the same type, I don't waste my time listening to recordings of a type I'd never use the equipment for anyway, and I'll continue to use recordings I'm familiar with.

    This article was booooring and if that is what e-mag hell is about, then I've just been to hell and back.

  11. #111
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Article Hell

    If there can be no such thing as an accurate system, there can also be no such thing as a more accurate system because it would have to be closer to an ideal which cannot exist. Kind of like Zeno's paradox.
    i think it's actually possible



    if accurate > less than accurate > inaccurate

    then

    less accurate is more accurate than inaccurate even if accurate does not exist.

    this is just plain topology isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    If there was a point to this remarkably boring article, I didn't get it. The author philosophised about life and existance, Startrek, and said something about different kinds of recordings sounding different and not all the same. But I didn't get much useful out of it. BTW, I do use lots of recordings listening to audio equipment, they are not all of the same type, I don't waste my time listening to recordings of a type I'd never use the equipment for anyway, and I'll continue to use recordings I'm familiar with.

    This article was booooring and if that is what e-mag hell is about, then I've just been to hell and back.
    scientist read and write the most boringly written journal articles in the world, in my view. a scientist who writes a journal article has no concern for his writing style if he gets his message across with equations using multiple summations and differential calculus?

    why am i beginning to doubt that you are one?

  12. #112
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    This was not a scientific article. This was an article written for consumers. And a very poor one at that.

    Ever hear of Zeno's paradox? That's what this nonsense he wrote about accurate is, except reworded puttin it in a different form..

  13. #113
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    This was not a scientific article. This was an article written for consumers. And a very poor one at that.
    who said it was a science journal? all i meant was that if you could bear reading stuff like science journals that you could bear reading anything.

    btw, i didn't find their article boring at all.
    it was the AR demo which was complete non-sense. rope for AR's own hanging?

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Ever hear of Zeno's paradox? That's what this nonsense he wrote about accurate is, except reworded puttin it in a different form..
    zeno's paradox? no. is it about audio? you should at least admit that there were no contradictions in what the authors said because i'd really like to know if there were any.

  14. #114
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    I didn't read even one practical idea for test driving loudspeakers that made sense that I didn't know before. What ideas did you get out of this article that were new? What's wrong with listening to recordings that you are familiar with? Within the range of music I like, classical and jazz there is such an enormous variety that there is no reason for me to listen to other genres of music to test equipment. These two genres can challenge sound systems in every aspect of reproduction you could ever want. Furthermore, the best of them are made conscientiously to "document" a performance as accurately as possible. It is other types like pop and rock which are hokied up for special effects disguising the attributes and limitations of loudspeakers.

    The ultimate test of a "reproduction" of anything is to compare it side by side with the original. If that is beyond your understanding, there is no further point in dialogue between us. You should also think long and hard about what the term "high fidelity" actually means. One thing it doesn't mean and that is whatever it is you happen to like at the moment.

  15. #115
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Comparison by contrast is to be able to be objective with what you are hearing - not using recording you are "familiar" with because you bring your own bias to the way the recording OUGHT to sound as opposed to the way it really DOES sound. And the best way to determine that is to listen to speakers/systems that are better able to highlight the differences. And it works for any kind of music and any listener can do it - blows the notion of golden ears out the door - which is as it should be. And the result is a lot of recordings are not nearly as bad as many manufacturers claim - "Our speakers are so accurate they bring out the weakness in the recording - BS those speakers are CAUSING the problems - especially if the problem on the disc is related to treble - why the RE would only screw that up is odd. So odd that it's untrue - revealing of poor disc that is a crock - good way to sell lousy products.

    For someone like Skeptic it still makes no difference - don't audition Pop and Rock then - listen to Classical/Latin/Acoustic Intrumental/Opera/ and maybe be adventurous and try some Folk and or Jazz. Still applies. The superior dynamic capability will reveal itself the tonality and timbral accuracy will reveal itself.

    That article has nothing to do with Audio Note directly except that it happened to be written by people associated with Audio Note and a way to help the average consumer (who when that article was written would never have been able to afford any Audio Note equipment most likely) who has been given the usual useless approach of listening to stuff they know or comparing to live music. The recording is not live there is no way to match - and people ready to believe it will - like people do watching magic shows. People believed the original phonographs were NO DIFFERENT than live music as well when asked in the 1930's - and no it was not close but people were so impressed and or polite to deny all the work the maker put into they played along with the magic trick.

    The most accurate system will reveal the most nuances from recording to recording(Not just make recordings bright and harsh and call it detail or revealing of bad recordings) - and it does not matter whether you're comparing $150.00 speakers to 2million dollar speakers.

    AN of course thinks their speakers & systems achieve this at a high level - and people who have got off their ass away from the computer and blind rhetoric and have actually listened will be able to hear it. Audio Note may be arrogant - but as owners and my good dealer says after selling gear for 25+ years - you can get away with being arrogant when you have reason to be. So arrogant that you don't need to advertise - all they need is someone to listen to them - and then it's game over for Harman and their ilk.

  16. #116
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "...blows the notion of golden ears out the door ..."

    Does it blow the notion that some people have better auditory accuity than others out the door?

    Does it blow the notion that critical listeners can be trained or train themselves to distinguish subtle nuances that untrained listeners can't hear?

    Does it blow the notion out the door that becoming familiar with the sound of live music and then using well made recordings to judge a sound system's accuracy is the best way to decide which audio components to buy?

    If it does then it should be ignored because it is wrong.

  17. #117
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Does it blow the notion that some people have better auditory accuity than others out the door?

    Does it blow the notion that critical listeners can be trained or train themselves to distinguish subtle nuances that untrained listeners can't hear?

    Does it blow the notion out the door that becoming familiar with the sound of live music and then using well made recordings to judge a sound system's accuracy is the best way to decide which audio components to buy?
    Gee skeptic, you are nearly quoting statements made by Harry Pearson of TAS thirty years ago.

    rw

  18. #118
    Forum Regular gonefishin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Joliet, Ill.
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Upgraded to Audio Note J
    Congrats RGA

    While I don't think I've heard that particular model, I have heard a couple of their speakers. Including the big boy silver deals. When I compared AudioNote to many other "audiophile" speakers out there...AudioNotes speakers are a real value when directly compared for overall sound and cost. They really sound good. The best I've ever heard? Well...that's a personal thing...and while they weren't the best...they are still good.

    Another comforting aspect of the AudioNote speakers is what you seem like your finding out right now...they mate well with tube amps. Depending on the size of your room and your listening preferences...you can feed you speakers only a few SET Watts or choose to go with a bit more PP tube or SS power. You've really got some good options ahead of you (if you choose).

    I would be careful not to under power yourself with some SET tube amps. You may be likely to get away with something even as low as a 45 amp (In fact I know you can)...but that does depend on other aspects (as I know your aware) such as your room, type of music played and how loud. (Hmmm...I say that as I've found that varying 45 amps weren't enough power for my 106db speakers...but again...it does depend on room, music and preferences too) Just make sure your being honest with yourself! Screw what the rest of us think The last thing you want to do, is choose a SET amp that just barley powers your speakers during normal listening levels. The closer you approach full power the distortion rating increases. So, if you can...keep this in mind. Even tho you may not be focusing on the amplifiers distortion measurments...you still don't want to normally run them high (near full power) if you don't have to. But again...depending on your room and levels...you could be good with one of the lower power amps . Also keep in mind that different output or driver tubes can make quite a difference in the same amp.


    well...I'm at work and it's time to eat...so I may post more later...

    (edit add Keep in mind too, I'm simply an audio enthusiast...and the above is what I've found that has led to my preferences thru listening experiences. That's all.





    but again...
    ...congrats on the speaker purchase!
    dan
    Last edited by gonefishin; 07-06-2004 at 11:16 AM.
    __________________
    I found the spoon
    __________________


    enjoy the music!

  19. #119
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Gonefishin

    When the time comes I will be sure to audition to make sure the amp has enough grunt. The speakers are relatively easy to drive but are not ultra high sensitive speakers. Most of the Audio Note amps themselves are in the 18 watt range to be able to power the K's and as you move up the amps move down - well depending which ones the Gaku-on are 60 watts.

    No they are not the BEST - that is a subjective evaluation and unless you hear everything you can never know for sure. Like I say if you're looking for specific attributes they can be bettered in those areas - the question I had to ask myself was can I listen to them at reasonable levels for long periods - is it better than what my HD 600s can offer me - is it musically rich - and will it move me emotionally. Simple criteria - yes to all of them.

    Skeptic - it does not require training to notice huge differences - if you are not noticing huge differences amongst the recordings then perhaps it is time to upgrade to Audio Note equipment

  20. #120
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "... it does not require training to notice huge differences ..."

    This is true. But the differences between some components may be subtle. Amplifiers are a case in point. Upgrading your A/N speaker from a J level 1 to a J level 2 may be another.

    Most listeners are likely inexperienced at critical listening, not because there is necessarily anything wrong with their hearing although exposure to loud noise such as discotheque and live rock bands can often cause permanent hearing loss but because they have not taught themselves to distinguish and remember nuances. Most people can remember the sound of the voice of someone they are close to and can tell if they have even the slightest cold or nasal congestion just by their voice. Can you tell the sound of a piano? Can you tell by sound alone a Steinway from a Baldwin or a Yamaha? Can you remember the sound of a particular Steinway? In the memory of sensory perception, Robert M. Parker may be among the all time champs. As the widely acknowledged world's number one wine critic, he claims he can remember the exact flavor and aroma profile of over 100,000 different wines. Remarkable. What can you teach yourself to remember in the nature of sensory perception. What good does it do to audition audio equipment if you don't know what live music sounds like? You can compare different recordings and different sound systems all year long and every one of them may be awful. Some people are so accostomed to the sound of recordings that when they finally do hear the sound of live music, they think something is wrong with it. If a sound system is a toy, then it doesn't matter. If it's a tool to recreate the enjoyment of live music, then live music is the ONLY reference that matters.

  21. #121
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    As for Harman they have in fact done tests that according to them reveals that some journalists chose the S26 JBL over B&W 601's. And Toole conducted it - go read up - it was all nice and vague and done over short listening per usual - and plenty of weasel words like most of us chose the S26 on most tracks - not everyone and not on every clip - the S26 has a nice spike around the 1-2khz range - of course that is not mentioned as to why people chose the speaker in the short listening session. I assume this is the original 601 which was not a very good speaker really, but hey the implication works for Harman so whatever. Of course everything coming out of their research will put their speakers in the best light.
    Yeah, and the DM601s have got their own anomalies and deviations. Having heard both speakers before, I can easily see the JBL S26 beating out the 601 in a listening test. I found the 601 inferior to both the 303 and the 602, and the S26 probably the most tonally balanced speakers I've ever heard from JBL.

    But, where does Harman post those results in their marketing materials or their white papers like you accuse them of doing? I did look it up, it's not there. A test like you describe was done years ago, and was part of a tour and demonstration for a group of audio professionals and journalists of Harman's new acoustically controlled blind test room and quick-change platform setup. I've never seen Harman ever post those results, even though they worked in their favor. I've read one article about that demo from a journalist who was there (and that sounds like what you're referring to), and from the sound of things it was more an informal demonstration of the methodology than a scientifically valid comparison. BTW, Toole was not the one who setup that demo comparison, so there goes that.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    So frankly I am uninterested in what the white paper thumpers are on about. I'll just say that I am not surprised AT ALL that other posters preferred the $550.00 AX TWO to the N805 at $2k.and this ilk. Frankly, after listening to AN it's pretty tough to buy into what companies like Paradigm, Energy and PSB put on their web-sites - sorry it's my opinion and that opinion - however others may disagree and hey there will be those - my opinion is a preference and to my ear those three are in Tee Ball playing AN's who would be the New York Yankees. Some of them make good speakers The N805 is very good - but...
    Just a fancy way of saying that you don't know what you're talking about when you accuse Harman of posting those white papers as biased marketing pieces, and equating them to what Bose does with their marketing? If you're so uninterested in Harman's "white paper thumpers" then why bring them up and accuse them of marketing "alla [sic] Bose"? If you actually read those papers, then you might realize that they are excellent resources and refrain from making baseless remarks that you can't back up. Before you go into an accusatorial tirade, try reading them first. Worst thing that can happen is that you actually learn something.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Frankly - I really don't care - you folks want to be skeptical that is fine by me - you said you had other priorities than 2 channel no problem there. It's your money buy whatever you wish. AN will be to you just another one of those quaint little high end makers who tinker with old gear - know nothing of acoustics and charge too high a price and snowed everyone into buying - fine you all can believe that if you wish - no skin off my nose.
    It's not your love of all things Audio Note that I'm pointing out, it's the way that you generalize that to mean that everything they do is the gospel way, and every other approach is worthless marketing-driven junk. If you're happy with what you own, fine be happy. Just don't try to convince people who made different decisions than yourself that their preferences are formed by marketing, short-term wow factor, and stats rather than a well informed knowledge of their own preferences.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    AN sure does not need me or anyone or themselves advertising their products. They sell just fine to people who simply listen to music. Why advertise when your product sells itself? - No need for white paper links - no need for product literature - no need to buy advertising space - No need to advertise a famouns name who uses your speakers - the only thing you need to do is put your speaker/product up against the other guy's speakers and let people listen. Simple approach.
    Yah, a product will just sell itself, and a business will just run itself too. I got news for you. Audio Note DOES advertise! They DO engage in marketing and selling! They DO post stuff about their approach! Kinda sucks that they operate just like any other profit-driven business, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Be happy with whatever you want to own - so will I and we'll leave it there - everyone is happy with their choice - I no longer care about being right - I will follow 925011 well stated and simple response. I have a feeling I'm going to be quoted yet again in this thread - please just be happy with your choice - go on about the science and the white papers and the history of stereo and transistors versus tubes and the relative costs blather blather. I would buy into it - if to me the sound supported it - to some of you it does great - enjoy.
    The only reason I brought up the white papers and the relative costs is because you were going on about how all things past were about quality and service, and now it's all about profits and disposability. And I'm just lending perspective to some of your more questionable rants. I brought up the Harman white papers because you seem to have this thing about attacking them as entirely marketing driven and equating them with Bose. And if you think that inflation adjusting the costs and doing real dollar comparisons is nothing more than blather, then I'm sure that approach will fly just fine in an econ course.

  22. #122
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    I didn't read even one practical idea for test driving loudspeakers that made sense that I didn't know before. What ideas did you get out of this article that were new? What's wrong with listening to recordings that you are familiar with? Within the range of music I like, classical and jazz there is such an enormous variety that there is no reason for me to listen to other genres of music to test equipment. These two genres can challenge sound systems in every aspect of reproduction you could ever want. Furthermore, the best of them are made conscientiously to "document" a performance as accurately as possible. It is other types like pop and rock which are hokied up for special effects disguising the attributes and limitations of loudspeakers.
    i don't remember the authors requiring that one listen to various genres when testing equipment. i could be wrong but my understanding is that so long as there is enough variety in the recording and mastering conditions of the titles one tests, the 'comparison by contrast' method should apply. Qvortrup himself listens mostly to classical stuff, i believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The ultimate test of a "reproduction" of anything is to compare it side by side with the original. If that is beyond your understanding, there is no further point in dialogue between us. You should also think long and hard about what the term "high fidelity" actually means. One thing it doesn't mean and that is whatever it is you happen to like at the moment.
    i understand what you say. in fact, i think that's what is generally understood as the "ultimate" test of reproduction. However, do you, at least, admit that some LIVE performances do not sound LIVE at all? if you can tell me that this statement:

    "Even if we were present at every recording session, we would have no way of interpreting the electrical information which feeds through the microphones to the master tape - let alone to the resulting CD or LP - into a sensory experience against which we could evaluate a given audio system. "

    is wrong, i will rest my case.

  23. #123
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "However, do you, at least, admit that some LIVE performances do not sound LIVE at all?"

    I have no idea what this means. How can something which is live not sound live? Each instrument
    has a characteristic sound. You hear that sound as the result of vibrations which travel from the
    instrument to your ears. Then you hear multiple reflections off of the surfaces of the room you are
    in. That is the role the acoustic play in increasing your enjoyment of it. Sometimes acoustics are
    excellent, sometimes they are poor. I don't know what else there is when you listen to live music.

    "Even if we were present at every recording session, we would have no way of interpreting the

    electrical information which feeds through the microphones to the master tape - let alone to the

    resulting CD or LP - into a sensory experience against which we could evaluate a given audio

    system."

    I don't know what that means either. Microphones have known documented electrical and acoustical characteristics. They have different sensitivity pickup patterns, different electrical frequency
    responses, different distortion characteristics all known and measured. At the current state of the
    art there is no ideal microphone and no standardized method to make a recording. Even when
    conscientious recording engineers try to make recordings which "document" a musical event,
    different engineers will use different equipment set up in different ways and get different results.
    Nobody knows how to accurately record the acoustics of a venue yet. And many recordings are
    made in recording studios, not at the venues they would be heard at. So engineers do the best
    they can with their equipment and their "art." And often the results are very good if not always
    outstanding. It is true that some recordings will sound better on some sound systems than on
    others. Too bad most so called audiophile equipment has designed out all facility to compensate
    for differences in recordings so that the listener can adjust the system to perform optimally with
    different ones. Human auditory nerves have electrical impulses which can be measured in response to various stimuli as well. You can measure the auditory nerve's electrical response to a saxophone playing middle C and you can measure its response to hearing a recording of the saxophone being played back through a sound system. Presumably if the electical response of the nerve is the same, the brain will interpret it in the same way and will recognize it as the same saxophone. To the degree it is similar the system is successful at reproducing sound. Whatever happens in between to get the job done is not important. What this has to do with the electrical information in microphones or on magnetic tape or the cd signal is beyond me. All I know is that if each step is optimized, the overall result will usually be the best obtainable and if there is a shorcoming in one step, it may be possible to compensate for it in another. Whatever this guy is trying to say, it makes no sense to me.

  24. #124
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    "... it does not require training to notice huge differences ..."

    This is true. But the differences between some components may be subtle. Amplifiers are a case in point. Upgrading your A/N speaker from a J level 1 to a J level 2 may be another.

    Most listeners are likely inexperienced at critical listening, not because there is necessarily anything wrong with their hearing although exposure to loud noise such as discotheque and live rock bands can often cause permanent hearing loss but because they have not taught themselves to distinguish and remember nuances. Most people can remember the sound of the voice of someone they are close to and can tell if they have even the slightest cold or nasal congestion just by their voice. Can you tell the sound of a piano? Can you tell by sound alone a Steinway from a Baldwin or a Yamaha? Can you remember the sound of a particular Steinway? In the memory of sensory perception, Robert M. Parker may be among the all time champs. As the widely acknowledged world's number one wine critic, he claims he can remember the exact flavor and aroma profile of over 100,000 different wines. Remarkable. What can you teach yourself to remember in the nature of sensory perception. What good does it do to audition audio equipment if you don't know what live music sounds like? You can compare different recordings and different sound systems all year long and every one of them may be awful. Some people are so accostomed to the sound of recordings that when they finally do hear the sound of live music, they think something is wrong with it. If a sound system is a toy, then it doesn't matter. If it's a tool to recreate the enjoyment of live music, then live music is the ONLY reference that matters.
    Actually I agree with you. And that is a point Peter makes about room acoustics being overplayed. If Perlman is playing his violin in your bedroom or your kitchen it is Perlman - regardless and so should your speaker be easily adabtable. It does not matter where I hear Sarah Mclachlin I know it is Sarah McLachlan.

    Some piano's or voices are recorded very poorly though from recording to recording. I do recommend one listen to their local symphony or at their local college's music department to get the sense of what a piano sounds like the overall tone and decay of the instrument in its glory. I have nothing against that approach. By all means - IMO they'll still buy AN over the competition I heard it against. Nothing has done Albinoni Barber or good ol Corelli as well. This is what I've been on about with decay(perhaps the wrong word) but the body of the instrument doesn't seem utterly hacked off as it is with comparable Paradigm and B&W's.

    And if you can bring the Audio Note's to a BETTER level by adding rear-firing tweeters - then bonus.

  25. #125
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Woochifer
    Hey I only attack Harman because speaker makers that emulate the approach and their own products sound to me like crap. Simple.

    Advertising from AN - none. They have a web-site so you can purchase kit and speaker parts - and after you go into a store and listen to them and the dealer tells you yes these speakers are called Audio Note you can go home and look it up - they were not pre-sold to you. Other than the chat I've been providing them - most buyers heard the product before hearing about the company. And speakers are one of the smallest thing they do. Amps and Dacs are their big things.

    They don't spend money advertising - the alternate web-sites are dealer run or fan run.

    The Harman research I have no faith in when their products may as well be a clock radio in comparison. The proof will be in the sound - and they failed in their proof - easy to prove it against other speakers that are also trying to design home theater speakers - let's get them real competition. But if that happened something might beat what they sell. SO they will handpick what are the competitors - and they don;t list the speakers in the white papers I've read - just because something is expensive doesn't make it good. Choosing a speaker with obvious detriments for all I know. I want the specific speaker so that I can run the same blind test - without that it's in house for them and so what good is it to a consumer? Harman is the one you can read all about - Harman sells all these speakers - the implication is what? It's all wonderous until you listen to them - and even then if the competion is similar which most of it is - you can't really be sure which is better in most stores - so hey lets go back to the Harman research - it must be correct - it sounds all scientific - almost but enough so for the average Joe.

    But hey I don't really care - sheesh you try and give a little company a voice in a sea of marketing because I'm like wow why can't the big boys make anything like that(err in fact they can they choose to sell looks). And before I get nailed for just re-stating what Audio Note says - I re-state it because that is in fact the way it sounds. It is either they are designing with looks as a main focus or their speakers are utterly inferior because of their designers - either way the proof IMO is in the sound - and why I'm so ready to believe in Audio Note's position is because upon hearing their gear reading their statements about the competition - hearing both sides products - then it is obvious to me who is correct - at least correct in the terms of the physical representation of their approach - perhaps the theory is correct and just very badly executed.

    It may also be the case that I fall into the minority like those in the listening sessions that do not in fact choose those speakers they say MOST people in their sessions select. And Hifi choice measured the E and said that the above 800hz the speaker's measure about as good as speakers can get(with a slight recession from 2khz to 4khz). From 200hz -800hz they are a "shade strong" - below that is the speaker's strength with deep bass and very low distortion(All this measured where the manufacturer believes is the worst possible position - 1 meter from walls and no corner). Looking at JUST Soundstage measurements there would be no need to buy a speaker above the Paradigm Monitor 5 - and frankly to me there damn well is.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •