• 07-09-2004, 04:50 AM
    skeptic
    In a sense, a piano whether a Bosendorfer or a Steinway is a work of art. A loudspeaker is a machine. No two pianos are exactly alike. I hope and expect that when I buy a loudspeaker, it is as exactly like the one I heard in a showroom as it can be made. BTW, that is what ISO 9000 so popular in Europe is all about.

    It seems to me that Peter Qtwerp has gone to every conceivable extreme to manufacture his loudspeakers in a way that makes them as expensive as possible. This works against the consumer. That the cabints MUST be manufactured by Bosendorfer is just further evidence that he doesn't give a damn about controlling his production costs. Who pays for it? The customer of course. Don't even suggest that there isn't a place in this world which cannot manufacture cabinets of equal quality for much less money. In fact, it may be difficult to find one that is more expensive.

    Even before 9-11 and certainly since, I avoid Manhattan in every possible way. In fact about two years before 9-11 I moved an extra 30 miles away from the place because I always felt it was dangerous. I don't go there unless I absolutely have to. Unless and until my government takes the draconian steps I fell are necessary to effectively protect American citizens from the kind of terrorit attacks we experienced on 9-11, I will not go near high value targets unless absolutely necessary. Unfortunately the measures I deem necessary in this time of war would violate most of our constitutional rights. But in a war of survival, sacrifices have to be made.
  • 07-09-2004, 10:56 AM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Woochifer

    Mate this is not an issue of loudness - Of course the AN's are more efficient - when you select the Monitor 5 or the N805 one turns the volume up.

    Of course it is if you're at all interested in eliminating the level as a source of bias. The question is how much do you turn it up so that the average SPL over the majority of the frequency spectrum matches up? If you have a 5 db differential between the two speakers, sure you will turn it up if you're at all serious about level matching. But, if you're doing the comparison without a selector switch of some kind, then you're relying on auditory memory to set the levels and that's not reliable. At least doing a measurement at the beginning gives you a benchmark to watch out for as you conduct the audition and mess around with the volume switch as you go along.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    With speakers the bass depth of the Audio Note is superior - if you're suggesting supressing the speakers bass response - then you are no longer listening to the speaker anymore because the entire design relies on the cabinet itself to vibrate in order to create the depth and openness - Do anything to interfere with that is simply wrong. One could merely use a sub and add bass to the K - but bass is not the only issue when moving up the line.

    Using a narrow band test tone to set the reference level for the comparison assures that you DON'T overly suppress the bass when doing the auditions. Bass is far more influenced by room acoustics than the midrange and highs, and as such the lower a speaker goes, the greater the potential for big peaks to erroneously drive the SPL reading. If the level is set according to something that's influenced by a large peak, then the average level for the midrange and highs are too low. And that includes setting the level by ear, since the ear will pick up on the bass peak more so than the other frequencies (threshold of audibility and how that varies by Q resonance is another concept covered in the Harman white papers).

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    But why we're discussing these issues is irrelevant - listen to them or don't listen to them - I could care less. I would have let the post die 50 threads ago - but AN is attacked from people who have never heard them - for being supposedly wrong? And yet the people on this thread who HAVE heard the speakers don't. Interesting. I am not saying EVERYONE or ANYONE should BUY the freakin things - but to listen to them. Dig out any recordings good bad or indiferent LP or CD - listen to an all AN 8 watt sytem and the other guys mega watt mega heavy speaker system - most dealers should carry one of those of competitors "right" designs. To ask audio hobbyists to listen to music on a stereo system :confused: what was I thinking.

    Well, you're the one who's using your personal preference for one particular approach as a soapbox for attacking every other approach. Everything that Audio Note does is right, everything that everybody else does is wrong. Audio Note is about quality, everybody else is about cheaping out the customer and maximizing profits. Your argument is basically about praising every approach that Audio Note takes, and attacking every other approach regardless of what the science says and what other people's opinions of those competing products might be.

    I've yet to hear the Audio Notes, and if I ever trudge my way down to Silicon Valley, I might even give them a listen. They might well be fine speakers. But, I seriously doubt that I will take one listen and then automatically view every other speaker out there as ill-conceived junk. That's where my line between praise and exaggeration stands, where truth and wishful thinking diverge. Even if something as great as the Dynaudio Evidence Master is brought down to an affordable price level, I would assert that those are the best speakers that I've heard. But, at the same time that doesn't mean that everything else is suddenly excrement by comparison. I could jot down every design approach that was used in that speaker, and praise it to high heaven, but does that automatically mean that therefore every other approach is therefore wrong?
  • 07-09-2004, 12:25 PM
    RGA
    Woochifer -

    Quite correct - not everything else is junk. They have their approaches - people obviously like them - so did I. I expressed why I went another route against similarly priced products. I am not an engineer and if you want to know about some of the technical process involved in the speakers they have been discussed on Audio Asylum (save the proprietary aspects of their measuring equipment)

    Audio Note builds speakers on a Frequency/Amplitude and signal Pressure model. He says that "energy is a combination of the frequency and pressure present in every signal.
    The overwhelming majority of systems deal only with the frequency/amplitude component." [He explains it more or less in full the way he matches speakers{well not quite} and is apparently based somewhat on a Bell Laboratories paper].
    He was dicussing on another forum with another speaker designer builder.

    These speakers are not to be mistaken as sounding like original Snells - other than cabinet shape and one other part of the Snell approach the two sound nothing alike apparently.

    If you do get to hear them reasonably well set-up somewhere it will be the latter model which you may hear separating them from the "type" of sound you hear from what is currently the majority of 2 way standmounts. A commonly noted trait I have read on owner responses and reviewers is a certain way they pressurize a room. Can't put it into words and Peter argues the standard measurement sweeps - his equipment does apparently but that would require taking his word for it - because he isn't going to let everyone else in on it. And he is well aware that he will be attacked for his approaches - but he stays on AA to answer those questions and skeptics and hides nothing. Since the skeptics are invariably those who have not heard the products - he won't likely change their mind - neither will I. Just listening apparently isn't good enough.

    When you hear them(J or E) you'll know why you won't be able to match them to a fellow standmount. Well you could - but you'll still be able to tell which speaker is which.
  • 07-09-2004, 12:29 PM
    Woochifer
    Btw
    Here's the Audio Note ad that I mentioned. Found it in last month's issue of The Absolute Sound (p.86).

    http://members.aol.com/sfwooch/images/ANadv.jpg
  • 07-09-2004, 07:01 PM
    RGA
    Nice advert - Actually I was going to say a couple threads back that I would take your word for it. The American distrubutor has advertised in the past and so does Triode and Company - who I believe is another newer distrubutor. So you beat me to it. The funny thing is they no longer sell transports(except the rest of what they have left) which is the first picture.

    And come to think of it I oppologise for saying they don' advertise - You should have called me on it way back because Peter presents to Audio Shows like Vegas etc - someone needs to here about the product to be able to hear the product - and that starts with the dealer. Soundhounds pretty much can carry anything they want - and how could they carry Audio Note and or Sugen like companies with ZERO advertising?

    I have notic that the prices of some AN gear has risen at Triode lately as well - the K/SPe went from $1950 to $2250.00US (maybe paying advertising etc?). And since that advertisement which lists 18 total dealers in North America there are now 25 dealers. I find that odd the more dealers would have the price rise - you would think they would go down as a result. Their bottom of the line P Zero line is now made in South Korea(which in itself means little) but again the price should go down. On the flip side they're giving 10 year fully transferable warranties on their tube amps.

    Incidentally I heard a nice enough speaker today - a $999.00 Polk Audio. You know I think it was actually quite a nice speaker for the money with good deal of bass - maybe a tad boomy but the room had them maybe 20 feet apart (too far) and need their matching center channel to get Don Henly's voice to the center. And the receiver Harman Kardon's flagship - may have had the bass cranked because congo drums seemed to thunder more than they do in life - and no drummer was drumming - Still the speakers for that much money and what is that about $700.00US? I could comfortably recommend these for an audition - Now I only listened to this for 10 minutes but I think I'm getting too anal about this stuff as stuff rather than - to steal a line from Gonefishin - just enjoying music.

    Skeptic
    The odds of another attack despite the fear mongering are low - you have better odds winning the lottery that you do of being killed by a terrorist - the terrorists threat was there since the ~1992 trade center attack and in all that time how many Americans have been killed by a terrorist. When you change your life completely around they win. May be easy for me to say since I'm in Canada and our lousy government probably has hundreds plus terrorists living on our welfare system - but don't let the bastards win by fleeing within your own country. I will still take vacations to the US if and when I can. The bloody media is responsible for scaring the hell out of everyone - and the government to a degree. Really do most Americantruly knwo what to do when your terror status goes from yellow to orange?
  • 07-10-2004, 05:37 AM
    gonefishin
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Really do most Americantruly knwo what to do when your terror status goes from yellow to orange?



    From my view, most of the actions that are taking place are done so without the public knowing (or at least not seeing all of it). The people may have been aware the the terror level has been increased, but I doubt they know all the protective measures that are being taken that aren't in plain view. When the level increases...Everyone should become a bit more aware of themselves and their surroundings...and they should also take note of places or events that they might be visiting. But it seems like this is taking place less and less with each passing day.

    But, on the other hand, I have been surprised how the HomeLand Dept is actually getting various equipment to local governments and protective agencies. No, not each and every city...but they're getting some nice coverage for widespread use from region to region...should something happen.


    take care>>>>>>>>>
  • 07-11-2004, 01:20 AM
    Pededrengen
    Sirs

    The AN speakers are based on the original ideas of genius Peter Snell.

    The original Snell speakers was made by pairing and listening to cheap componets, but pairing them with the ear. Thus creating a very good speaker based on a time consuming porces (and cheap components).
    the AN speakers use much more expensive parts, but are still faithfull to the Snell idea.

    So: If you want to know if AN is relevant for you, buy a 2nd hand Snell k (or K2) speakers. They are exellent!
    It will give you an impression of the basic musicality of the consept. And they can be had very cheap 2nd hand. imho by far the best 2nd hand value for money speaker).
    I myself own the Snell A and have heard rumors that AN plan to reintroduce this piece of art.
    An upgraded tuned and expensive equipped A, made with the ear as the original could become the best speaker in the world (again).

    regards.
  • 07-12-2004, 12:48 PM
    lattybuck
    My Taoist Sound Approach
    This is definately one of the most informative threads I have watched yet. Thank you all for that.
    Now for my worthless opinion.
    My Taoist approach - Everything effects everything else. It is just that simple. Cabinets or no, open or closed, tube or SS, longer or shorter cables, cuter or uglier sales people, less or more comfortable chairs to sit in while reviewing equipment, etc. It all plays a part and none of it can be discounted while reviewing equipment. Do specs matter, yes. But they are only a part of the picture.Once you get it home some factors become less important than others, but that is once it is properly set up at your home.
    So here is my take on this, be it stupid or otherwise. You need to start by understanding yourself and what you want to hear. Do you like more natural sounds, woods strings classical etc., or maybe more electronic sounds, pink floyd rap many others I am sure. Do you like the same sound everywhere in your room? No Maggies for you then. Are you less concerned with directionality, but love speedie sound. Try the maggis or logans or a few other which use the approach of minimizing moving mass to make sound. From an oversimplified but effective viewpoint the more mass you have to compensate for, the slower your reactions. Just another take on the "Every action has an equal and oppisite reaction" theory. This is not the only way to see it. Only an example of one way. Some people love the "horn" sounds, some the "lots of drivers" sound, some more exotic techniqes and some just a simple box that handles singing voices well.
    If you take a little time to close your eyes and relaxe while reviewing numerous approaches to recreating sound you will probably find the approach whitch appeals to you. Just relaxe and try a few diff types of equipment. Amps speakers etc. If you can carry your own music to listen to, so much the better. Once you know the approach you enjoy, focus on that.
    There are lots of options in all catagories of equipment available and many have very nice results. Find what works well for you and your situation. the buzzword's are relaxing and enjoyable. Everything else is hype. You can make sound with a tin can and a wire, but being able to listen to that for hours is another matter. Many of the newer approaches remind me of the theory people had in the 70's, and probably other times as well, of manipulating every nuance of sound, expanders equalizers all sorts of things, they could and it is best. That approach didn't work for me, but for some it did. I lean more towards what they used to call a wire a grain approach. Buta thats just me. And It took me a while to figure that one out as well. Find your approach, and focus on that. Not on another persons idea of what you need.
    Ok, thats my rambling on. Someone kill me now.
  • 07-12-2004, 08:15 PM
    RGA
    lattybuck

    You won't really get an argument from me. The best system I have heard was from a company that built every part of the audio chain specifically for every other part of the audio chain. From source to cable to soldering material to tranformer to source to amplifer to speaker. If "Everything effects everything else" then the guesswork is removed from hearing complete systems - Rega, Quad and Linn are some off hand that do this as well.

    You have to be comfortable with whatever choices you make - but do try and listen to as much of the approaches as you can. After all it is YOU who has to live with what you buy - it is not my place or anyone else's place to tell you to buy something.
  • 07-12-2004, 08:31 PM
    RGA
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Pededrengen
    Sirs

    The AN speakers are based on the original ideas of genius Peter Snell.

    The original Snell speakers was made by pairing and listening to cheap componets, but pairing them with the ear. Thus creating a very good speaker based on a time consuming porces (and cheap components).
    the AN speakers use much more expensive parts, but are still faithfull to the Snell idea.

    So: If you want to know if AN is relevant for you, buy a 2nd hand Snell k (or K2) speakers. They are exellent!
    It will give you an impression of the basic musicality of the consept. And they can be had very cheap 2nd hand. imho by far the best 2nd hand value for money speaker).
    I myself own the Snell A and have heard rumors that AN plan to reintroduce this piece of art.
    An upgraded tuned and expensive equipped A, made with the ear as the original could become the best speaker in the world (again).

    regards.


    Audio Note recommends against any which are not the very original designs - and you would need to make some significant adjustments to the J and E.

    They are considering re-making the type A - Many called it one of the best production speakers ever produced and it appears you are one of those. Peter Qvortrup has the speaker and uses it as a sort of a reference - so I asked him why he doesn't start building the Type A. As you know he's not a fan of three ways - he's heard all the major ones and dislikes all of them. I read that he has disconnected the awful rear firing tweeter of the type A - which may mean if he keeps that aspect he will change the tweeter or ax it alltogether.

    He has been working for 4years on an 845 SET powered subwoofer strictly to be used with the E. He is not a fan of subwoofers currently available. Finding ones that will match and go deeper than the E won't be cheap.

    I will be interested to hear a SET powered sub. If nothing else if it works well tube fans can state what I already know - Tubes know bass.
  • 07-13-2004, 04:26 AM
    Pat D
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Audio Note recommends against any which are not the very original designs - and you would need to make some significant adjustments to the J and E.

    They are considering re-making the type A - Many called it one of the best production speakers ever produced and it appears you are one of those. Peter Qvortrup has the speaker and uses it as a sort of a reference - so I asked him why he doesn't start building the Type A. As you know he's not a fan of three ways - he's heard all the major ones and dislikes all of them. I read that he has disconnected the awful rear firing tweeter of the type A - which may mean if he keeps that aspect he will change the tweeter or ax it alltogether.

    He has been working for 4years on an 845 SET powered subwoofer strictly to be used with the E. He is not a fan of subwoofers currently available. Finding ones that will match and go deeper than the E won't be cheap.

    I will be interested to hear a SET powered sub. If nothing else if it works well tube fans can state what I already know - Tubes know bass.

    Have you ever heard a Snell Type A? How do you know whether the rear-firing tweeter was awful or not? Or are you just taking Peter Qvortrup's word for it?

    What importance does Peter Qvortrup's opinions on speakers have, anyway, beyond his company, that is? Why should anyone care what they are or whether he likes 3 way speakers?

    I did hear the Snell Type A quite a number of years ago in Ottawa, and it was a very good speaker.
  • 07-13-2004, 05:30 AM
    gonefishin
    Pat, haven't you been reading? Everything has do do with Peter's opinion, or his line of thinking. If Peter has it on his website or in an article he's written...RGA has it memorized. It has little to do with anything else.
  • 07-13-2004, 06:07 AM
    skeptic
    It does get kind of tiresome after a while doesn't it?

    I've herd the A II extenisvely and it is a very clear and fine sounding speaker IMO. I also heard the A IIIi and liked it even better. One of its best attributes was the addition of its rear firing tweeter.

    It is entirely possible that Peter Qtwerp does not have the skill to manufacture a 3 way loudspeaker which would be an improvement over the A IIIi. It is clear from his other designs that he feels comfortable with only the simplest of ideas.

    One of the fallacies a designer may come up against is ignoring the notion of "point of diminishing returns" and the notion of a brick wall. It does not necessary follow that improving on an idea by building it with better quality parts will necessarily improve the overall quality of it. Not only won't the improvement necessarily reflect the added cost, but by changing the design, you may pay in deteriorated performance in one area for an improvement in another. The idea which seems to swirl in Peter Qtwerps head that if you keep refining and refining by using better and more expensive parts, that you will reach utopia is a false one. Each idea has inherent in it a limit as to how far it can be taken and to lavish more and more money on one by taking a cost be damned point of view can be extremely foolish. Usually, ideas are slowly and relatively inexpensively refined and evolve gradually until they have been fully exploited. Then real improvement comes when the whole idea is tossed out and something revolutionary comes along to replace it. That never seems to happen in Peter Qtwerps world.
  • 07-13-2004, 08:38 AM
    RGA
    But I find it interesting that the last three posters are still reading this thread at all. Why do you care?

    The poster Pededrengen mentioned that Audio Note was considering re-making the A and I added information to that - which is that they are dumping the rear firing tweeter - should not have said awful - but obviously they feel they can build it better without it. PQ owns the AIII speaker and can easily design or backwards engineer with engineer Andy Grove a 3 way speaker. I should think their ability to design is well accepted or should be - since his little 2 way does things(many people like Skeptic would say is IMPOSSIBLE from a 2 way of their size) - perhaps since he has shatterred the IMPOSSIBLE and made it very possible and more to the point an actual factual product and done what most inferior designers building speakers 5 times as big and way way more expensive do not then his design team and the late Peter Snell get credit from me for knowing how to build a speaker(but then I've heard them directly against such supposed "more up to date" designs).

    Audio Note sells speakers ranging from $550 on up - Hardly a notion that nothing has cost constraints. A couple of people have mentioned that it sounds better thna the N805 (which in turn means it sounds better than anything PSB or Paradigm make) at $2000.00US - So I may give it a try - it would not be the first time an Audio Note speaker beat something 4 times the price. - ohh noting that this is IMO.

    I tend to believe in what Peter has to say a little more because he backs it up with the sound of his products. When Skeptic comes out with his TWEAKED Bose 901 or TWEAKED AR 9 and I can go out and listen to his new company's products if they blow me away I would tend to believe more in what he has to say. Patd - thanks I've heard the speakers you support - Gonefishin has an eclectic taste in speakers/systems which I tend to agree with more. The running theme here is who hears it the way I hear it is useful to me. If I like sweeping drama's I am going with the film critic who also loves them - not the guy from Fangoria magazine(unless he also likes the sweeping drama). When directly comparing Peter's "simple" system against the more "complex" Paradigm, B&W's etc he opened my eyes more to what what those speakers lack. And it opened my eyes - and ears.

    Then reading his web-site and why his speakers made those and considerably more expensive speakers sound like he states on his site - you say to yourself - well he backed it up with his product --- compared to the "Fashion Victim Designs" his product does exactly what he says and those others sound exactly like he says they do when directly compared. Harsh words, arrogance blah blah - but IMO he has reason to use harsh words and be arrogant.

    Too simple - too expensive for the amount of moving parts you get? Well there are saws and there are saws - there are chairs and then there are chairs there is $2.00 worth of pain in a Monet, and then there are piano's vs other pianos and 5 foot 5 150 pound singers and 5 foot 5 150 pound singers. Value is listening and comparing to the other guy's speakers.
  • 07-15-2004, 08:16 AM
    Pat D
    And how do you know my taste in speakers?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    But I find it interesting that the last three posters are still reading this thread at all. Why do you care?

    Patd - thanks I've heard the speakers you support - Gonefishin has an eclectic taste in speakers/systems which I tend to agree with more.

    Shooting from the hip again? I haven't kept track of gonefishin's taste in speakers, but here's a list off the the top of my head of speakers I have liked over the years. Is it eclectic enough for you?

    Dynaco A-25 XL
    Avid 103
    Kef 104
    Kef 104aB
    Kef 104/2
    Kef 105
    Dayton-Wright Electrostatic
    Celestion Ditton 15
    Altec 9
    Altec 19
    Klipschorn
    Klipsch Forte
    B & W 801F
    B & W 801 Matrix 2
    B & W 705
    Quad ESL
    Quad ESL-63
    Paradigm Monitor 5, v. 3
    Paradigm Studio 40, v. 2
    Paradigm Studio 100
    Paradigm Studio 100, v. 2
    Paradigm Studio 100, v. 3
    Paradigm Signature S2
    Paradigm Signature S8
    PSB New Stratus Mini
    PSB Stratus Silver
    PSB Stratus Gold
    PSB Stratus Gold-i
    IMF Monitor TLS 50
    IMF Monitor TLS 80
    Yamaha NS-1000
    Snell Type A
    Mirage M1
    Mirage M3si
    Sonus Faber Concerto Grand Piano
    Revel Performa M20
    Totem Mani-2 Signature
    Dali Helicon 400
  • 11-02-2004, 12:07 PM
    lattybuck
    A simple question, maybe
    On the subject of the AN box design, I am curious about the concept. I have met and talked with a few folks who made insturments, strings mainly but dome precusion/drums also, and they all focused heavilly on the way the material they used focused the sound in a certain way. All said that different materials and shapes had different sounds so you tuned for that when building them. I am not an insturment maker/designer but It seems to me that if these guys are correct than any box design would inherently hvae some "sound" they would be tuned for. So trying to isolate and eliminate that sound would create an overall more "neutral" sound. That said, and if i am reading this correctly, why would trying to utilizing the box's "sound" as opposed to trying to "neutralize" the boxes sound be preferable? Aren't you fine tuning the sound toward a certain "type" rather than the neutrality I tend to lean so heavilly towards.
    Maybe it's just me, but I want my crappy old 70' and 60's rock to sound the closest to the way they were recorded just as much as I want my old Gramaphone masters and newer recordings to sound. I would rather hear whats recorded as neutrally and accurately as possible and decide the music I enjoy more than I would like to decide what I enjoy listening to on a specific system. I know this is a pipe dream in many ways, nothing is that accurate or neutral. This has always been my approach to music. But maybe I am proceeding from a false assumption here. I always loved the Maggie sound and the ML sound nowdays partly due to what I percieved as maybe not as full a range but a less "colored" range or reproduction. Admittedly I auditioned some B&W 803's driven by Krell stuff last week and was floored by the tonality. They doubled in the deep base area some but were increadible for the 5k or so they sell for.
    So am I stumbling blindly here or are you saying that the sound speakers recreat has to be non-neutral so plan on it rather than trying to eliminate it?
    Your help is appreciated.
  • 11-02-2004, 02:45 PM
    RGA
    Lattybuck

    I don't pretend to be a speaker designer. Peter Qvortrup has answered a similar question as to why they chose the approach they do. I made an error stating that these speakers are undamped - they are damped but they sleect what it is they want damped instead of doing what virtually every single other boxed speaker maker does and damp EVERYTHING. Their arguement is that doing that invariably damps the bad resonances but takes away a lot of the good stuff as well. It shuts down the midband - sure one can make a clear case that the speaker is less coloured - but if it also hacks of a large segement of the musical information then it's not a particularly good approach - you throw the baby out with the bathwater. That was his complaint. You havd a speaker with flaws(they all do) and to gain in one area the new speakers ruined several things that were already very good.

    Don;t make the mistake in assuming that because the way they damp the speaker that it will only work for the set of frequencies of a given instrument - their analogy is for a layman to state that unlike a lot of speakers the cabinet cannot be completely ignored or that the only purpose of the cabinet is to house some drivers and not resonate - everything resonates. So you can store it which is what B&W cabinets do and try and dissipate them or you can try and shift the resonance to a different inaudible frequency and release it immidiately. (At least this is my general understanding as to what AN is doing).

    There is a lot of technical stuff going on with these speakers that are covered over by a ery simplistic looking box - the fact that for a start the speakers have impeccably low deep bass distortion and no matter what room they're in and in a corner you don;t get bass boom (you have to make sure the room size is appropriate and positioning in the corner needs a bit of fiddling) but it's pretty easy to set-up and you get consistant attributes from room to room.

    For instance let's take the N803 and the AN E as two similarly priced loudspeakers. Firstly what you sort of hear with the B&W cabinet and those cabinets of the same shape and similar multiple stacked woofer approach is a localized presentation which is pretty tight and punchy and clear. moving to the E you get a breathy bigger presentation - tonaly on a piano or cello you hear the instruments box rather than just the guitar pick you get the overhang of the instrument(Decay). I can write on this until i'm blue but the fact is that until you hear it side by side against the N803 or N801 etc what I say means zip. B&W has asked Peter how he is doing what he is doing from his boxes and the answer he keeps giving them is to get their cabinets right. But in order to get them right B&W will have to make a butt ugly box and use much better wood quality - two things the accounting and marketing departments are not going to want - the engineers -- hell they KNOW but can it sell? This is not a slam to B&W - IMO they are shooting now at a different market. There are many reviews on AN - this guy seems to have been down a multitude of roads and maybe better explains it http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/rev...w&ModelID=2941

    Speakers are the least faithful thing in an audio chain - there is no such thing as a truly accurate or transparent speaker. They ALL make compromises and ALL like to tout their speaker as most accurate or more accurate transparent etc.

    I think there is too much argument over semantics that we lose sight of the point of this is to get something that pleases the individual. For insance I have heard good systems that I would personally not want to listen to long term but I respect the fact that a lot pf people feel is very transparent - I don;t but I understand why they think it is so - something along the lines of Bryston Monoblocks/preamp and PMC studio monitors. I feel the set-up might be pinpoint imagers in certain respects but I feel too much of the intrument's tonality is lost. There are other disadvantages - longjevity - foam surrounds deteriorate with time more so than rubber or other materials. So after 10 years or so you may need to get them refoamed especially in a humid climate. This thread at AA deiscusses it http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...+E&r=&session=

    I know the respected Lynn Olsen who seems very knowledgeable on speaker design noted that The Audio note Ongaku integrated amplifier of all the SETs he had measured the worst in terms of distortion and power att 22watts 3%THD - and this is a $90,000.00 amp "It also made the Ariel sound better than any electrostat I've ever heard ... in fact, the best sound I'd heard in many years. It certainly sounded better than anything I heard at the 1994 Winter CES. So what's going on here? Maybe THD is simply measuring the wrong thing." and that's the problem. TO me a more transparent system is the one that lets me hear more of the musical event - I get that with the J or E more so than I get it from the Paradigms and B&W's of the world.

    Frankly all you have to do is listen and decide for yourself. Not everyone hears things in the exact same way either - I'm not out to convince people I'm right or Audio Note is right. I know their speaker/systems is/are right for ME.
  • 11-02-2004, 03:13 PM
    lattybuck
    think maybe i see your point
    So if i am seeing this correctly, AN makes their boxes to resonate at a non-audible frequency and then dissipate and/or dampen that out thru the speaker. I understand that. That is what I was wondering about. I know the B&W has really perfected the time honed "if we don't want it kill it" approach. Both approaches seem to be very good sometimes. Although I haven't heard any AN's many claim their transparancy is very good. Wish there was an AN dealer around Tulsa, OK or close I would go hear em.

    Also, i presume you have 1 or more cats by your posting's. Do you have any occasional probs using AN's w/o grills of any kind? I notices some adds of their's claim they have no grills/covers and are specifically made that way. None are available if you did want em. Sometimes the kitty just has to test things. I lost my old Pans that way. That was pre-declawed kitty. Even declawed open paws on open drivers seem like it could turn into a questionable deal. Maybe I am paranoid after the great Pan episode here also.
    Your opinion is appreciated. I will try to find some AN somewhere to try out soon.
    Thanks
  • 11-02-2004, 07:12 PM
    RGA
    Lattybuck. I no longer have cats as both died at 17 years. My AN J's are last year's model and they do have grill cloths - they are meant to be played with the cloths and Peter didn;t want them audtitioned with the cloth - some dealers even have one cloth on and one off when demoing - this no grill cloth stops that practice...of course they are less protected I suppose from cats.

    My old cat sprayed my Wharfedales - and the damage to the metal rings have left permanent stain on them = damn cat.

    You can put moth balls at the bass of speakers - cats hate moth balls.