Upgraded to Audio Note J - and other musings.

[skeptic]

"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.

[benil]

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.

[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.

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.

[RGA]

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

[skeptic]

"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.

[benil]

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.

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).

[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

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

[RGA]

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?