Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 169
  1. #26
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    436
    Kit 2 is a power amp, but it has a volume pot so that if you have a source with a high enough output you can run it without a pre. The kit2 is built based on the Kit1 except that its the non-triode version running on 6550 pentode. The kit1 runs $1349 and is 300B SET, no feedback, directly heated running about 9 WPC. The upgrades entitle a "high-B" OPT, black gate caps, copper film oil caps, tantalum resistors, silver wiring, better pot). The preamp kit runs $699, as upgrades like the above, and as I said, a new chassis coming soon.
    BTW, they are coming out with some 211 monos soon, probably for the extra power or something. Also, a new integrated is in production. However, this will be a budget push-pull integrated probably much like the soro pp. Hence, even after these new products, the kit1 will remain their most popular amp. As you can see, I have asked Brian many many questions.
    In regard to the equipment needed, I think a soldering pen, solder, stripper, cutter and pliers is enough to get the job done. I think they include everything else. Plastic wire ties may be worth the extra 50 cents too as it will make everything nice and tidy. Just the soldering pen and solder would do...but then the result would look very messy amateur. Actually, I'm going to buy a new stripper just for this project as my old one is dull and no longer does the job well.
    Last edited by 92135011; 06-08-2004 at 03:11 PM.

  2. #27
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    I dunno RGA, I kinda like the earlier idea of going with the PSB Alpha's....I have some old Alpha bookshelfs in my garage I suppose I'd be willing to trade you straight up for your new AN J's...
    Whaddya say, buddy???


  3. #28
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by 92135011
    Kit 2 is a power amp, but it has a volume pot so that if you have a source with a high enough output you can run it without a pre. The kit2 is built based on the Kit1 except that its the non-triode version running on 6550 pentode. The kit1 runs $1349 and is 300B SET, no feedback, directly heated running about 9 WPC. The upgrades entitle a "high-B" OPT, black gate caps, copper film oil caps, tantalum resistors, silver wiring, better pot). The preamp kit runs $699, as upgrades like the above, and as I said, a new chassis coming soon.
    BTW, they are coming out with some 211 monos soon, probably for the extra power or something. Also, a new integrated is in production. However, this will be a budget push-pull integrated probably much like the soro pp. Hence, even after these new products, the kit1 will remain their most popular amp. As you can see, I have asked Brian many many questions.
    In regard to the equipment needed, I think a soldering pen, solder, stripper, cutter and pliers is enough to get the job done. I think they include everything else. Plastic wire ties may be worth the extra 50 cents too as it will make everything nice and tidy. Just the soldering pen and solder would do...but then the result would look very messy amateur. Actually, I'm going to buy a new stripper just for this project as my old one is dull and no longer does the job well.
    Well when the time comes I will go and listen to the ones built by the guys at soundhounds. this way I will actually get to hear the kit before I buy. If i like it I will build one.

  4. #29
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    I dunno RGA, I kinda like the earlier idea of going with the PSB Alpha's....I have some old Alpha bookshelfs in my garage I suppose I'd be willing to trade you straight up for your new AN J's...
    Whaddya say, buddy???

    thanks but after due consideration I will suffer with J's

  5. #30
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    436
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Well when the time comes I will go and listen to the ones built by the guys at soundhounds. this way I will actually get to hear the kit before I buy. If i like it I will build one.
    Soundhounds has the kit1 but they dont have the preamp. If you drop by vancouver, you can give it a try at my place if you wish. I havent built it yet, but will in due time.

  6. #31
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Listened to Magnepan, B&W, Audio Note on Friday as that was all that I could get time for. 7 hours of listening - minus a short lunch and a few cappuchino's and coffees provided by the great group at Soundhounds. However I have some musings on Totem, Paradigm Signature and Martin Logan as well

    The store was much leaner and less stuffed with gear this time around. They now have a dedicated home theater room with a giant front projection system and all B&W all around in one room. I didn't spend time in there but the picture of the movie ICE AGE was impressive to say the least. The store had set it all up becuase one of the top B&W guys is flying down in a couple of weeks.

    Please no flames this was my impressions of the speakers of the day and not an attack on other people's choices - not everyone is going to like the same things. Follow the bolded spots for discussion of a given speaker to the next bold for the next speaker.

    I was extremely excited getting in the store and seeing a set of Magneplanars in used because I have no problem buying used and people rave so much about them that it would have been nice to hear them before upgrading just to save myself future second guessing.

    The Maggies are not carried by my dealer though they were years ago and he even owned their top of the line for a short while. These were in on trade - looked like big White scratching posts. The model he told me but I forget - something with a 2 in it - it was supposedly the 2nd from the top. Quite large actually - wider than me and maybe ~5.5 feet high
    I had them hook it up to the top of the line MF integrated and a very nice and rugged looking Rotel CD player - have not been paying too much attention to Rotel - but they're at least "looking" better these days.

    I have to say it was a wildly different sound than the B&W and Audio Note speakers. If I stood up and walked toward them the sound became completely muddy like a towel had been put over the singer's mouth - so it is certainly very important to set them up correctly and and be seated at a reasonable height and distance.

    I tried a few discs from Dianna Krall, Tina Turner and Jesse Cook. What was good was an incredibly clear vocal band and a ton of air - I mean a ton of air - plenty of wetness to vocals. The top and bottom end presented some problems - I was not convinced by the location of instruments as if they were on the panel rather than on a stage and the bass while seemingly deep simply had no impact whatsoever - I mean almost zero - it just seemed that on the drum kicks it was just lifeless to me. The music was clear but lacked the full body. It did far better on lighter guitar.

    I do think I understand the appeal of em and why people like them and certainly I understand why some would gravitate to them - certainly against a lot of the boxed competition which are resonance inducers that tend to have a "thumpy" quality. Thus I can certainly understand why one would choose no bass impact over lousy bass impact - the latter is abnoxious - the former isn't missed if you don't know it's supposed to be there. There were qualities that reminded me of Electrostats and it did a lot of terrific things - in the end they're not for me. Not enough meat on the bones was a good analogy IMO.

    The rest of the audiotons were don in the same room, same stands, same electronics - with slight adjustment where needed to satisfy a better posoition for the speakers. Those electronics were as follows:

    Audio Note Meishu 8 watt SET amp - a lower end Audio note integrated running at $10,000Cdn - about twice as high as my 300 disc cd player and deeper by the looks of it.

    Audio Note level 3 cd player - not sure of price - all cabling was Audio Note - with very heavy duty looking power chords directly into high grade wall sockets. Skylan stands used for all speakers.

    Audio Note AN K/Spe was first up in line - this was to let me get accustomed to my speakers in a different room and with much superior gear. I listened for a good hour running through some selections from the discs I brought with me [Classic Yo-Yo, Dianna Krall "Girl in the Other Room", Tina Turner "Simply the Best", Santana "Shaman" and "Abraxas", Leahy "Lakefield, Acoustic Alchemy "Back on the Case", Sarah McLachlan "Mirrorball"(Live album), "Afterglow", CBC's After Hours Jazz Collection, Albinoni "Adagio Albinoni" Naxos 8.552244, Jesse Cook "Tempest", Madonna "The Immaculate Collection", Dido "No Angel", Natalie Cole "Unforgettable"]

    The sound of course was very good to the point where I began thinking "you know a nice B&W or Paradigm sub might work just fine." I came out of the room and the dealer just smiled at my thought and said yes you can add bass but it's not just about bass. Removing the K's he put up the

    Audio Note J/Spe's and within 2 minutes it was game over to thoughts about adding subwoofer(s). The AN K was a standmount that bettered every other standmount around it's size I had ever heard. The J/Spe I'm not sure can really be called a standmount speaker in this day and age to be totally fair. It is roughly 3 times the volume size of the K's and simply sounded much bigger and with far more sense of depth front to back than the K's could muster. The dealer said that Audio Note is trying to prove the diminishing returns theory wrong by having you go in and listen to a product at one level and then saying WOW at the next level - not oh i hear a bit of added bass. The sound was far more open and vocals were simply outstanding with the wetness and sense of air that I have only heard from the best speakers - usually a LOT LOT bigger speakers. The drivers are different in the J to the K as is the crossover and overall design of course - but it's to such a degree that youalmost can't go back - as good as the K's are already the J takes it all up a league in every regard - and they still manage to remain postion friendly despite rear porting.

    The Albinoni disc was the deciding factor - classical music is so tough to do well because hardness brightness can completely distract me from the music. Not so here - it was the first time I was moved to tears from a session at a store. There was no hint of grain anywhere at anytime and that is a tribute to well designed gear. Closing my eyes the stereo "system" was gone - the listening "for" sonic attributes dissapeared - leaving musicality at the top of the list. We can talk of dips and spikes in frequency graphs, box versus no box, SET versus SS, Audio Note arrogance, multi-way versus 2 way versus one way, Metal versus planar versus stat etc etc etc. The emotion the enveloping nature of the great systems have it ---- find yours - whether it's Audio Note or not is not important - LISTEN and wait for something to provide you some cort of cathartic listening experience.


    Rather than blathering on more I say go listen.

    I listened to a lower level J against the J/Spe on another thread. The Basic J/L is no longer made and was a terrific speaker and was probably selling for $4kCdn

    B&W N805 - I was going to go with the 705 - but really you'll see a billion of those reviews in the next months - So a look see at the favorite N805 again can't hurt and I thought was warranted considering it runs $3000.00Cdn - and more "In competition" with the K and J.

    The presentation was good old B&W but better than I have heard in the past expecially at the frequency extremes. The Meishu at a mere 8 watts had no trouble with the b&W playing at high levels while maintaining deep bass(well as deep as the 805 musters) and a smooth effrtless top end with a touch of hardness for the style of tweeter,crossover, woofer choices they have made. The N805 would be a pleasure to own and it's still a great speaker - but this amp/cd player combo would be my choice. The SET Meishu exhibited absolutely no noise whether loud or not nor at any time did i need to move the knob past 12 O'clock to get good levels - and there was plenty on tap for more. I would still take the presentation of the K over the N805 simply due to the more cohesive sound from top to bottom. The J/Spe or J/L simply embarrased the N805 - and they should given the cost. Though the J at soundhounds are last years model and cost $500.00 less - but this is a fluke deal. The J is simply giving you way more of what's on the disc with much much deeper and tuneful bass response and a top end that that was reminiscent of the openness and air of the Magnepans.

    Interesting thing I noted about the J's was that you almost NEVER see the woofer actually move even on demanding bass material. The E is like this as well though the woofer on the K would visibly move more. From Madonna's Vogue to Classical pieces at prettyhigh levels the woofer seems not to budge - at elast not to the naked eye. Presumably they will at very very high levels with very high bass content but I didn't see it. The dealer said that this is because the cabinet is not created to work AGAINST the driver like virtually all other box designs. It is indeed designed like a violin or guitar box were the entire cabinet is involved in creating the sound - the driver doesn't need to move very far to get the cabinet going and let it handle the rest. From that I was attempting to hear a box colouration because that "should" happen but nary did I find it.

    What I could not hear on the day:
    Paradigm Signature Series. I wanted too given the request - but the dealer brought the Signature Series in for several weeks and shipped them back. The problem was simply thay they felt the sound was simply too close to the Studio reference line and desipite the vastly superior cabinets and finishing in the signature models they felt the sound didn't live up to the levels of the money charged - not against what the store is currently carrying. They decide what makes the grade in their store. Don't shoot the messenger - this is what THEY said not me so don't get in a hissy fit at me about it. Indeed, this also indicated that they think highly of the Studio models in fact and might save Paradigm lovers from a looks over sound upgrade. Remember the B&W CM series is supposedly an upgrade over the 600 series but is JUST cosmetic.

    I also wanted to hear the Totem Rainmaker but alas the dealer said they will not be buyuing anymore stock though they will remain an ordering hub - if you want one you can order one kinda deal. The same deal with Martin Logan. The size and positioning price and sound to varrying degrees were tough for them to move.

    Canadians and Audio Note specific shoppers
    Musings about Soundhounds and Audio Note. The owner at Soundhounds who I met, while he was tweaking out a Juke Box :-) a fancy one at that, is in the works to have the speaker building done at Soundhounds to reduce costs - the entry Dacs are already being made in Canada. The owner of Soundhounds has bought one of the top E models and an all AN system - like all the other salesman - and is awaiting the new Ongaku-On integrated which is on the way.


    I asked about them laying the Audio Note "love in" on a bit thick. And he said that if we just sold Audio Note we would go out of business to be frank. Most People come in to a place like Soundhounds and they have a preset product in their mind to buy, usually their big name sellers - which I presumed was Boston Acoustics, B&W and Paradigm. There job is not to re-invent the wheel. Where they can sell Audio Note is when people spend a lot of time in there and are not too impressed with what they actually hear from their preconceived expectations. But if someone comes in and Wants Reference 3a or B&W they sell Reference 3a and B&W. He also noted that what do you always here us listening to in the main rig (which is the center of the store). It's always Audio Note despite the fact that they carry far costlier gear.

    I also thought it was interesting to meet a customer who re-wired his B&W speakers with Audio Note Silver wiring and was astounded by the improved results. He lives near the store and has been an audio shopper there for 28 years - never was impressed with the notions that cables made a different - brought them home never a change - until Audio Note. I'm personally very skeptical of cables but hey they will mail em to me to try and if I don't like em I can mail em back - or go and pick them up to ttry at home and bring em back etc - no cost - and the cables are not as obscene as I thought. Though $7.00Cdn a foot is still a lot more than $1.50 a foot - but many are $50.00 a foot out there so???

    I was also surprised they closed their store down and had all their staff down at CES in Vegas with Mr. Qvortrup - with picture on the Soundhounds site of their top gear.

    Personal Note to 92135011 I only upgraded from the K/Spe to the J/Spe because of the price you told me they were selling them for. There is no way I could afford a speaker this expensive normally. I am also happy that soundhounds reconsidered the initial trade-in value I was offerred and decided to give me 100% trade-in. I'm also glad I went to hear them and not thought it was just going to be about bass - in fact the added bass(which is considerable) is probably the smallest reason I went to the J.

    Incidentally, they said listening to the AN E/Spe for any period would likely have me wanting something I couldn't afford and steered me away from listening to one (I ran out of time anyway) - and they also did an LP experiment at CES with Audio Note's second best turtable - and a re-worked version of the Voyd Reference (largely considered the world's best turntable), on a set of high end E's. They got results of 16hz and even 12hz(but they had a term for this of which I forgot) - People who went into that room didn't believe there was no subwoofer running - including folks from B&W. They simply would not have it that an 8incher from a small box(smaller than a 9NT) could put out that kind of sound and also that kind of bass.

    The AN J stands were not in and are behind shipment as the company movied locations - so I have to use the 20 inch stands over the recommended 14-16 incher. Considering that they're still spankingly good on my Skylans.
    I'm glad you liked them.

    I'm not much interested in what you did NOT hear.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  7. #32
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    I'm glad you liked them.
    It's a good thing you quoted the entire work otherwise we wouldn't have been able to place your comments into perspective.

    rw

  8. #33
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    I'm glad you liked them.

    I'm not much interested in what you did NOT hear.
    I had a request to audition the line of speakers before I went - I could not so I relayed the reason why.

  9. #34
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Good overview of your listenings. Surprise, surprise, you decided to upgrade!

    Your impressions of the Magneplanars were pretty similar to my listenings with their 1.6 and 3.6 models. I thought they had more low end kick than a lot of other panel speakers I've heard, but they're at their best primarily with acoustic music. They very effectively disappear and image well when positioned properly (pulling them at least 3' from the front wall is a must; no idea if this also applies to the MMG and their newer wall-mounted models). But, they have a narrow dispersion pattern and their tonal characteristics change a lot when you move around the room.

    Interesting about contrasting the B&W to the ANs. Not sure what type of sound I would prefer. I have heard the N805s before and thought they were excellent all-arounders, but I could only compare them with other B&W models, so I have no idea how they would stack up in A/B sessions with competing model lines.

    But, when espousing the virtues of the ANs, I wouldn't go too far with trying to generalize the design approaches. Saying that the driver movement was minimal is not always considered a positive, since one of the more commonly cited design goals with subwoofer drivers is a high Xmax (maximum linear excursion).

    And the whole notion of a resonant wood box being a positive trait, I just don't buy it. I've heard way too many speakers over the years with poorly damped cabinets and the resulting resonance to believe that all of the companies that devote time and expense to minimize box resonances are wasting their time. Even though a guitar, piano, and violin are all hollow bodied instruments, they each have a VERY different sonic signature. Even though a violin sounds great with a bow or a pluck, I certainly wouldn't want percussion instruments to sound like they were pumped through a violin body. Are you saying that in order to best reproduce a violin sound, then a speaker driver should be mounted inside a hollow cavity that mimics the resonant characteristics of a violin? Or if you want to optimize a human voice reproduction, then a speaker designer should use a ribbon transducer and mount it inside a fleshy pipe?

    This kind of generalized analogy runs dangerously close to the Bose 901 edict that says that if you want to best reproduce a concert hall type of sound, then you must design speakers that have similar reflective characteristics. If the recording was done in a concert hall, then that ambient effect is already part of the recording. Last thing you want is for the speaker to further add to that reverberant effect. Same thing goes with wooden speaker boxes. A violin is played through a reverberant wood body, and that effect is already part of the recording. Why would you want to put the sound through yet another resonant body if the end goal is to reproduce the sound as closely to what you would actually hear in person?

  10. #35
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Just about hoit send an my computer deletes everything - stupid things.

    First ignore my analogy descriptions of the speaker because it's basically just that.

    Since they're designed differently, like a guitar/violin box, the guesswork begins. Naturally there is much more to it than that because I would not want to hear a trumpet through a guitar box - which would be a total disaster. Well except for the guitar I suppose.

    My limited knowledge of their goal is to take resonances and shift them to an inaudible region and let them escape as instantly as possible - rahter than a heavily damped box which stores them and eventually hampers the sound. Unless they're really really heavy cabinets.

    Now while Hi-fi Choice gave them the best in class rating - some members of the blind listening panel felt the J's were coloured(though they were not set up properly). No doubt some people's decay is another person's bloom. Though I can spot bloom pretty well since my wharfedale's have it. Bloom should also result in box resonances which should increase distortion - but the distortion is very low and the bass very tight - so I don't buy that. When an instrument say a piano is playing you get the sense it's a real piano and even with the Bass in Dianna Krall you hear the entire box and her voice never becomes muddy. The N805 for example will attempt the Bass but whne krall starts singing your ear shifts to her and the Bass seems much lighter in weight - it's hard to describe but it's as if the speaker has given up on doing both at once.

    I am no engineer don't claim to be - but upon listening - their speakers, to me, sound more like music than any other speaker maker I have heard.

    They don't advertise they don't have any product literature they look butt ugly and they've been selling on sound for 20 years. You just don't do that if you're selling a highly resonating box. Bose markets the hell out of everything and are horrible speakers.

    The only kind of technical description(which still isn't technical) is from the kit sites and only on the E - though the J is basically the same in that they use Foster tweeters and SEAS woofers.

    A lot of engineers have already questioned Q about these speakers - it's impossible to get bass like that from one woofer - it's impossible to get the sensitivity etc.

    The only technical info is from LL Beranek's "Loudspeakers" from 1940 with which all AN speaker boxes are designed. Though AN has their own crossover - different ports and wiring and box quality

    All I can find specifically about them is from a kit site:

    "All our speaker cabinets are made from different materials, front baffel is either plywood or soft chipboard, the wrap is dense MDF and the back is again either plywood or medium chipboard, no damping materials are applied to any part of the cabinet, whilst we use some bracing to distribute the cabinet resonances."

    Do I hear cries of "cabinet colouration"??

    Despite what you might think the guitar like structure of our cabinets greatly enhances efficiency, dynamics and sparkle and sounds less coloured than the alternative methods, which generally just move the resonans frequency and amplitude of the energy lower down in the spectrum, which in most cases is more audible, mainly because this also increases the duration of the resonances, our belief is that the shorter the duration of the energy is the less likely it is to interfere with the immediacy of the original transient.

    For this reason, we also use only a minimal amount of wadding, and it has to be a specific type, preferably well cleaned and carted sheeps wool, positioning is critical"

    Q once said to me that his woofers act differently in that they are not piston like but radiating like as well. Naturally efficiency is increased greatly if you let the box essentially become a woofer."

    Basically though all of this is tidbits of info here and there - but you listen to his speakers and directly compare them to your choice of B&W within reason - and IMO B&W is simply totally out of their league. And Hell to me B&W is a great company. But the mid-band on the B&W is compressed, smaller, and nasal in comparison - with more of thumpy bass - you hear the speaker box on bass lines not the instrument's box. Tough to verbalize.

    review of the E talking a bit about the sound and bass level.

    http://www.dagogo.com/AudioNoteGoldmundEffect.html

    And Maggie it's hard to really describe becaus they did many things really well and a lot differently than I've heard before and so some could think the difference is a lot better - sorta like Audio Note is to me. So I don't want to say anything really bad about them but they sounded kinda bright. Probably because of the lack of bass. They were a good 4 feet from the rear wall and 3-4 feet from side walls.

    The dealer didn't like them at all - and he owned the best ones way back when when it was sheik to have them. He said they were more of a discussion piece than good speakers. What was it that you didn't like about them? They seem to measure as if they would get good bass - but something is amiss in the measurements because they don't sound right to me - granted a higher end model might be much better.
    Last edited by RGA; 06-09-2004 at 06:59 PM.

  11. #36
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA

    The only kind of technical description(which still isn't technical) is from the kit sites and only on the E - though the J is basically the same in that they use Foster tweeters and SEAS woofers.
    you have an idea what exact SEAS woofer models are used for the AN-E and AN-J? how about the foster tweeters? my brother-in-law will be arriving in a couple of weeks from Illinois and i could have him ship some drivers from madisound.com.

    while i still have plans to get the used pairs of AN-J, am thinking of a US$300 DIY project on either the type-J or type-E. while i expect driver-matching problems peter Q mentioned with this experiment, guess its worth the risk. should i fail to get close to the AN sound, i can sure use them for HT front, surround or even center speakers

    cheers!

  12. #37
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "This kind of generalized analogy runs dangerously close to the Bose 901 edict that says that if you want to best reproduce a concert hall type of sound, then you must design speakers that have similar reflective characteristics"

    The idea of using the reflective surfaces of a room to cause sound to reach the listener from many more directions than you get from a speaker that aims all of its sound directly at you has nothing to do with Q's claim to use a speaker box as a resonant cavity to amplify sound which is exactly what the box in a stringed insturment does. This in effect is also what bi polar flat panel speakers like magnaplanar and electrostatic speakers do. They just use different types of vibrating membranes to launch their sound and the specific radiating patterns are different.

    The limitations of the Bose 901 IMO having owned a pair for the last 34 years among other speakers is its poor frequency response. This is due to its inability to reproduce the highest octave with 4 inch drivers and in models since series III the lowest octave. My experiments with using additional direct and reflecting tweeters and bi amping them with series one as well as additional equalization has yielded very satisfactory results. I am very pleased with the outcome.

    A/N gives little technical information about what they do or how they do it. I don't have any convenient way to hear these speakers for myself so at this point the whole discussion of them seems a hodgpodge of hype and hooey. There isn't even a consistant design philosophy with the K series being an acoustic suspension design and the J and E series being ported. Visiting their web site doesn't help any. It's worse than technobabble. It's just babble.

  13. #38
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    A/N gives little technical information about what they do or how they do it. I don't have any convenient way to hear these speakers for myself so at this point the whole discussion of them seems a hodgpodge of hype and hooey. There isn't even a consistant design philosophy with the K series being an acoustic suspension design and the J and E series being ported. Visiting their web site doesn't help any. It's worse than technobabble. It's just babble.
    Audio Note's philosophy which is described thoroughly in "Are You On The Road to Audio Hell?" is exactly the anti-thesis of the philosophy behind brands that rely almost solely on technical measurements and technical jargon to sell their products. Let's face it: appreciating music reproduction is hardly a technical experience.

    I think forums like this are a good way to begin our journey in seeking our own audio nirvana. however, we should ultimately decide on what's good and bad based on what we hear. if you're really serious in your search for your ideal 2-channel system, convenience should be no obstacle. after all, if there's a will there should always be a way.

    i learned that audio note products are great based on actual listening experience not on technobabble.

  14. #39
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Since "technical jargon" and "technical measurements" are just meaningless babble, perhaps audio equipment should be designed by musicians and music lovers and leave electrical and electronics engineers and scientists out of it altogether. Perhaps electrical lighting should be designed by people who like to read and refrigerators and stoves should be designed by people who like to cook or eat. Forget automotive engineers, cars should be designed by drivers.

    This is the kind of anti science garbage logic and reasoning that finds its way into the advertising hype of people who have nothing of real value to sell. Like audiophile cable manufacturers. Perhaps you should consider the Mini/Max preamp hyped elsewhere on the amp/preamp message board. No technical specs there either. No tecnical information, not even technobabble. Just babble. Just like Audio Note.

  15. #40
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Benil

    Don't think there isn't a strong technical basis for what they do - there is. One reviewer went through a tour to see how they design and build their speakers and they have in house mic measurements and a computer program they developed in house. Driver matching to .2db they do on all their K modesl and up somehting KEF can't even manage on their flagship Reference models.

    The difference here is Auio Note is first and foremost A SET maker - not a speaker maker. They are not big enough to build everythig in house. Peter Q bought the best available speaker designs and still may have them like the big Apogee's, Horns, Snells, Quads and a load of others. Obviously looking for speakers that would be well appointed to Single Ended relatively low power amps - though do note his SETs are not especialy low power many ~20-30 watts which is enough to drive most speakers.

    He chose Snell - and not really Snell but the same design that Snell used to improve LL Beranek's original loudspeaker design from the 1940's. By taking a proven good design and making it a lot better there is no need to re-invent the wheel. Quad and Magnepan have been around for 30 years and the new models are tweaked versions - lets try a ribbon lets make it bigger but the principle is identical.

    When Voyd went down Peter bought the rights and his second best turntable is now a modified Voyd Reference(already widely considered the best in the world). Well now maybe second best. DA converters are based off the very first ones that came out in 1982. But Sony and Phillips didn't have the engineering ability to make it work Peter and crew obviously have much better technical knowledge when it comes to solid state and digital technology because they managed to make it work and sound better. It is a frowned upon process by some - but it sounds better bottom line. Interesting for no times oversampling you can hit the machine and it won't skip. Why have error correction if you build a player that makes no errors to start with.

    The proof is in the sound frankly - he doesn't advertise that many magazines and mastering studios use his stuff - he doesn't advertise the specs - not even somehting basic like the watts - not even in the manual - he is selling to people who LISTEN to music - if you want to buy a spec sheet and 5 pages of technical discussion that's fine too.

    The speakers were chosen based on their sound in the first place - not a specific bias in design. The K is sealed to reduce their cost. Peter wanted to use a woofer with foam surrounds but in order to get the specific driver he wanted he would have to order 1000 units. So it's not his ideal woofer choice with rubber. OIf he was the size of B&W this would not be a problem and the K would no doubt be a much better loudspeaker - as it is it's already damn good.

    Ask 925011 about the kits - you could probably build an E to around 1/4 the price. The Audio Note Kits forum at Audioasylum can help you with building and how do it cheap. http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/au...ekits/bbs.html

    There are 25 Audio Note Dealers in the United States - and if you're in the UK and interested to hear his products - Peter will have you to his home to demonstrate his gear. Pretty nice guy

  16. #41
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "DA converters are based off the very first ones that came out in 1982. But Sony and Phillips didn't have the engineering ability to make it work Peter and crew obviously have much better technical knowledge when it comes to solid state and digital technology because they managed to make it work and sound better."

    Give me a break. What planet are you on??????

    20 odd years after AR and KLH, Snell reworked and tweaked Kloss' and Vilcher's 2 way 8 inch acoustic suspension design in the eighties and now 20 years later, Peter Q tweaks it again and offers it for 30 to 75 times price of the original versions as the A/N K series. Between his small production runs and his use of European materials and labor, he has the least efficient and highest cost manufacturing operation conceivable. Small wonder his products sell for prices that are beyond all belief.

  17. #42
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Since "technical jargon" and "technical measurements" are just meaningless babble, perhaps audio

    equipment should be designed by musicians and music lovers and leave electrical and electronics engineers and scientists out of it altogether. Perhaps electrical lighting should be designed by people who like to read and refrigerators and stoves should be designed by people who like to cook or eat. Forget automotive engineers, cars should be designed by drivers.
    i think you overreacted to what i said. all i said was that there are many immeasurable qualities in music reproduction that even the most sophisticated scientific tools cannot measure. brands that rely almost solely on technical jargon to sell their products will often just mislead consumers and fail to sell their products successfully in the long run.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    This is the kind of anti science garbage logic and reasoning that finds its way into the advertising hype of people who have nothing of real value to sell. Like audiophile cable manufacturers. Perhaps you should consider the
    Mini/Max preamp hyped elsewhere on the amp/preamp message board. No technical specs there either. No tecnical information, not even technobabble. Just babble. Just like Audio Note.
    on the contrary, technobabble can be used/abused to deceive audio consumers. take the case of the amplifier quality issue. the common philosophy we hear nowadays is that low noise, low distortion through high-power amplification, high damping factors, etc. are all it takes to make an amp sound good. indeed noise-to-signal ratios, distortion and clipping can be measured at different frequencies and SPLs. the result: people choose a path towards boredom and frustration ( i.e. audio hell!) buying megabuck megawatt amps matched with low impedance/ "strangled" speakers .

    let's face it: most "low-noise" gear can sound very dry and uninvolving. now tell me what technical instrument can measure dry and uninvolving sound?

    Truth is...the most captivating, involving, almost addictive systems i've heard are those that run on low-powered single-ended triode amps hooked up to efficient (high sensitivity, high and flat impedance) speakers. after listening to many different systems (including megawatt mark levinson+dynaudio types) using various type of material, I was convinced that the first few watts are indeed the juiciest watts! this is an anti-thesis of the "low-distortion-is-all" philosophy which is the mainstream philosophy- it seems-- and where a lot of the techie guys seem to thrive.

    Audio Note does not need to cite technical measurements simply because the difference between an audio system that sounds captivating or involving from one which is boring and (because they can be very expensive) frustrating to listen to cannot be measured. Honestly, the sound of "low-noise" megawatt-amp-based systems will sound so veiled and
    boring if you get used to many hours of listening to an 8-watt single-ended, zero negative feedback amp (like AN amps!) hooked up to a 93db pair of speakers (like audio notes AN-E/SPe speakers).
    Last edited by benil; 06-11-2004 at 05:37 AM. Reason: grammar

  18. #43
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    Your statements seem to me, to convey that you do not attempt to isolate the actual variables causing the different 'sound'.

    (1) It is true that more then measurable parmeters are involvded. It seems like you have ignored possible psychological influences.

    (2) It is true that many SET amplifiers will sound different from amplifiers that meaure well, even in controlled comparisons. It is not unusual for SET amplifiers to have measurable differences that are within known JNDs of human subjects. SET amplifiers typically have a high output impedance resulting in signficnat frequency response variations at impedance swings on a load, such as around the resonant spikes of the bass alignment and at the impedance swings at crossover points. Additinally, most SET amplifiers have levels of harmonic distortion(though, even order primarily) that can detectably effect the sound of the music. In this regard, it could be said that a solid state design that measures good could be considered to be missing something that a SET does not: audible harmonic distortion components.

    -Chris

    Audio Note does not need to cite technical measurements simply because the difference between an audio system that sounds captivating or involving from one which is boring and (because they can be very expensive) frustrating to listen to cannot be measured. Honestly, the sound of "low-noise" megawatt-amp-based systems will sound so veiled and
    boring if you get used to many hours of listening to an 8-watt single-ended, zero negative feedback amp (like AN amps!) hooked up to a 93db pair of speakers (like audio notes AN-E/SPe speakers

  19. #44
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    20 odd years after AR and KLH, Snell reworked and tweaked Kloss' and Vilcher's 2 way 8 inch acoustic suspension design in the eighties and now 20 years later, Peter Q tweaks it again and offers it for 30 to 75 times price of the original versions as the A/N K series. Between his small production runs and his use of European materials and labor, he has the least efficient and highest cost manufacturing operation conceivable. Small wonder his products sell for prices that are beyond all belief.
    BeforeI ge to this I should stay away from the hype - nothing can live up to the hype - you are not going to go in and be blown away - they are not the fireworks sound.

    The Snell K sold for ~$300.00US in 1980 through to something like 1982 (with the buying power of money factors taken into account over 20 years) and the Snells used worse parts throughout. How much would that speaker have risen when sent to the UK? One reason so few North American speakers get sent to Britain is the conversion shipping costs. They now go for 6 times that figure - well so do cars and most everything else these days. A movie was $2.00 then now here they're $12 to $14

    The Bryston B60 in Canada sells for $1900.00Cdn funds. The Sugden A21a which is a much better amplifier sells for $2500.00Cdn. OK this is pretty close right.

    In Britain the Sugden is 999Gbp but the B60 is a whopping $1700Gbp. When British gear comes here it also gets a healhy increase in price - but the reverse is ridiculous. That's roughly $4500 - $5000.00Cdn.

    It isn't how much the speaker costs to build or anything else - it's how good it is versus the competition. I can't justify to you that any piece of stereo equipment should cost more than $500.00. But Peter Q can listen to all the $2000.00US models on the market and say well hell my K kicks the crap out of those speakers so I will charge $2000.00US for it. His speaker may actually cost LESS to build - but that is more of a credit to his choices is it not? And from a parts perspective they're better than what you will find in the N805. Like real wood and silver wiring. As for the drivers we don't know the cost involved because B&W does it in house. A good businessman is the one who can sell a superior product to his competition while making more profit on the deal.

    And AR and Snell should have been interested in building the best speakers not the best looking speakers - the garbage both put out today is no where near as GOOD as it once was - they decided to be businessman and put speaker quality last which is why both have practically non - existant presence today. It wasn't broke then - it isn't broke now. And they should have improved those designs not stopped production to make junk like the Snell B-Minor for 5K. That speaker alone probably had every dealer here drop the company - and AR - wow they have a few $199.00 HTIB speaker set-ups around and a bunch of also-ran products at higher prices. What happened!

    You pay a premium because Audio Note is a smaller company and they build in Britain and have a more expensive labour force? Yes that's likely true. Unfortunately quality labour costs more and hand built drives a premium. Can starting up a slave labour force in China do it less - yes and maybe just as well too. They have shifted lines to Canada and may move the entire production to Canada and even have certain qualified dealers building the products to reduce costs and prices. Having the speaker built in the actual market redices costs greatly.

    However despite these cost draw-backs of lower production runs and higher labour costs - they also don't have to pay millions and milllions and millions on a large labour forces, large overhead, huge marketing campigns or product literature and wining and dining reviewers or GIVING products to reviewers etc. Peter does pretty much all of it himself when it comes to getting dealers - not paying a 12 person marketing department. Which is why instead of plastic speakers you might actually get some quality parts. R&D is greatly redced because instead of trying t re-invent the wheel they take already the best design in his opinion and make it better. R&D is a funny thing manufacturers like to spout in order to justify high prices - hmm but does it sound good - it looks good on paper and ad campaigns but lets get the scost breakdown per speakers from an independant accounting firm. Try comparing a solid Oak table from 1980 to the price of a brand new solid Oak table today - yes you can go to wal-mart and get one that looks like solid oak I'm quite sure for $49.99.

    Now why the E goes from $2700.00 to a $40k version well yes that's nuts. Then again compare it to other $40k speakers and maybe it's not. I mean not in relative terms because speakers should not be $40k from anyone - these things are more statement products than things expected to sell. B&W, ML and Dynaudio have such speakers. TO be taken seriously you too must have such a speaker.

    Pricing is more about what the market will bare. I would be surprised if the actual cost of a speaker is 1/10 what the retail ends up being. Certainly the DM 302 for $300 Cdn would not cost more than $50.00Cdn to make - the thing was a plastic mold.

    The difference is Audio Note lets you build one yourself and you know where to get all the parts to make it cheaper. Most don't allow that.

    And in the end if the old Snell J sounded as good as the current AN/J Spe I can safely say that since the late 1970s early 80's NOTHING has been done in speaker technology that has bettered it musically. Mostly it has gone the other way. And for $3500.00US I'll run it up against the N801 at $14,000.00Cdn or the ~10k Martin Logan Oddysey. And then to myself and to you I ask "who are the real rippoff artists?

    I should not really hype them - people Audio Note based off of what they hear - without advertising and without fashinable looks and given the high prices and all the things they LOOK to be doing incorrectly - for some strange reason people buy them - oh perhaps it has somehting to do with the music - silly shoppers - who wants something to create that from audio equipment?

  20. #45
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by WmAx
    Your statements seem to me, to convey that you do not attempt to isolate the actual variables causing the different 'sound'.

    (1) It is true that more then measurable parmeters are involvded. It seems like you have ignored possible psychological influences.

    (2) It is true that many SET amplifiers will sound different from amplifiers that meaure well, even in controlled comparisons. It is not unusual for SET amplifiers to have measurable differences that are within known JNDs of human subjects. SET amplifiers typically have a high output impedance resulting in signficnat frequency response variations at impedance swings on a load, such as around the resonant spikes of the bass alignment and at the impedance swings at crossover points. Additinally, most SET amplifiers have levels of harmonic distortion(though, even order primarily) that can detectably effect the sound of the music. In this regard, it could be said that a solid state design that measures good could be considered to be missing something that a SET does not: audible harmonic distortion components.

    -Chris
    Part of this is why Audio Note likes you to hear their complete systems because their speakers are designed to compliment their amplifiers. They don't dip under 5ohms and are an average of 12 from low to high they don't swing more that 12 or 15 ohms. How their amps would do with other speakers is another matter of course. Their speakers though will be perfectly suited for SS amplifiers - but their SET's were not what I was led to believe by the SS is best camp. They're the first SET amps I have heard and there is no mid bass bloom and no bass and no highs. If you can get 16hz at room rattling levels from an LP and one 8 inch woofer and still be crystal clear in the midband and top end all from SET amplifier - then either people were hearing SETs from comapnies that don't know what they're doing or never actually bothered to listen to any and just looked a frequency graph.

    I'm not anti-SS at all - I very much like a whole bunch of them from Sugden to Bryston Rotel YBA etc over a lot of tube amps which do seem to wheeze out - and many speakers simply won't like tubes/SET. I'm sure it will be written off as just warmth or euphonic distortion - but in the Meishu's case higher resolution would be more apt - now where's that darm resoultion sounding more like music graph. Since someone going in and listening to them would not know since the amp is coverred and looks like a big SS amp and since the company doesn't advertise or produce any product literature and the stuff is relatively ugly - people are buying on sound alone.

  21. #46
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    The Bryston B60 in Canada sells for $1900.00Cdn funds. The Sugden A21a which is a much better amplifier sells for $2500.00Cdn.
    Whoah, brother, not to hijack this thread, but I had both of these in my own home for a few days...I will disagree with you here to the bitter end. Except in my neck of the woods they were both priced about the same.

    I really liked the Sugden, don't get me wrong, but you could roast a Turkey on the back of it. More importantly, the darn Sugden struggles with lower bass, something that was painfully evident to me on Diana Krall's "Live in Paris" performance. Put in some Therion (I use their cover of "O Fortuna", a very dynamic track) and the Sugden really reveals it's limited capacity for producing low bass and wide dynamic ranges. The B60 is terrifyingly real. Unbelievable piece of equipment.
    I'll admit the Sugden is quite musical, and it sounds a bit more natural than my Rotel integrated, but if you aren't in a bedroom, 12X16 living room, or something smaller, and you like classical music, it won't generate anywhere near the realistic presence the B60 does. Accounting for personal tastes, I'll stretch it and say the two amps were equal, but different, but there's no way the A21a can be considered "much better".

  22. #47
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    . I'm sure it will be written off as just warmth or euphonic distortion - but in the Meishu's case higher resolution would be more apt - now where's that darm resoultion sounding more like music graph. Since someone going in and listening to them would not know since the amp is coverred and looks like a big SS amp and since the company doesn't advertise or produce any product literature and the stuff is relatively ugly - people are buying on sound alone
    Sound alone? In this cases of evaluation at a dealer, their is no way to distinguish what is really a different sound vs. a psychologically induced difference. Let's say you compared amps E and F on speakers A at dealer Z's store. How did your dealer level match(human hearing is not linear vs. amplitude difference) the two amps? How is he switching them without you knowing? If you know, then you can not rule out psychological induced factors. Name, look, dealer's tone of vioce, etc. will have effect on your perception.

    -Chris

  23. #48
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    The Sugden requires good equipment - the Sugden is a full range amplifier - lack of distortion is often associated with less of something. I have heard both as well - with the speakers I was using there is no contest that the Sugden is a better sounding unit - the B60 is a more powerful amplifier. I'll grant you with less efficient speakers the A21a is innapropriate. But usually if the speaker is that tough the Bryston would be innapropriate as well. Class A is hot.

    http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_print.asp?ID=2745 VS
    http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=1933

    Though to be fair the Bryston is no slouch - and way better you're right I should not have said. Subtly better to my ear. But I would take the Bryston over most others -factor in the warranty and re-sale vale and it would make a great choice - now that Sugden pulled out of North America - maybe the best integrated under $2k is the B60 - to me anyway.

  24. #49
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    deleted by RGA

  25. #50
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    The Sugden requires good equipment - the Sugden is a full range amplifier - lack of distortion is often associated with less of something. I have heard both as well - with the speakers I was using there is no contest that the Sugden is a better sounding unit - the B60 is a more powerful amplifier. I'll grant you with less efficient speakers the A21a is innapropriate. But usually if the speaker is that tough the Bryston would be innapropriate as well. Class A is hot.

    http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_print.asp?ID=2745 VS
    http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=1933

    Though to be fair the Bryston is no slouch - and way better you're right I should not have said. Subtly better to my ear. But I would take the Bryston over most others -factor in the warranty and re-sale vale and it would make a great choice - now that Sugden pulled out of North America - maybe the best integrated under $2k is the B60 - to me anyway.
    Well, I don't know what you mean by the first line...unless Sugden has some way cool AI technology it puts into it's gear to see if the equipment it's working with meets it's standards before it decides to give 100% effort. There certainly wasn't a disclaimer in the manual or packaging that said "Warning, not for use with mediocre equipment, only good stuff here".
    Off-topic question: What's with you and hifichoice - you on the payroll?

    Oddly enough, the links you provide make ambiguous statments like "the success of the A21a will hinge on system matching and personal taste" but they give it a 5-star rating. How much system matching and personal taste does it take to give the Bryston a 5-star rating?
    Why not say "Regardless of what we think, some people will undoubtedly like the A21a - Five Stars!!!"

    Truth be told, I tried them both first with my Studio 40's. I know you don't like the Studio's but they're reasonably decent, versatile speakers. My living room is quite small, and the Studio's aren't the greatest below 48 Hz or so, so the result was very close.
    When I moved the amps downstairs, I ran them through some my cutom built Vifa driven floorstanders (man, I sound like a rich snob here) that are considerably more efficient and full-range than my Studio's. I'd put those up against my uncle's AN/E's anyday (I'd probably lose to the sweet midrange the E's have, but not by much!) It took about 30 seconds of "Les Miserables" to discover the Sugden only likes reproducing narrow ranges at any given time. Ideal for Blues or Rock maybe...not so much for more demanding music. Maybe that's not fair, I'd love to hear the A-48B which I believe is somwhere between 40-60 watts or something. I have my suspicions that lack of power (odd since it shouldn't cost too much to juice it up) was the culprit...Volumes were matched.
    The Bryston certainly was uglier. The Sugden's no beauty queen herself though.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... 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
  •