Upgraded to Audio Note J - and other musings.

[RGA]

I am not saying one needs to buy an Audio Note to get good music - nor am I saying they're the best - They happen to be the best I've heard since 1992 when I started to pay attention to audio - but the list of what I have not heard is extremely long. Looking over older designs by Acoustic Research many of their speakers look to be very similar to the original Snell designs - wide baffles highish sensitivity - two way designs with good bass.

The only difference I see is that AR gave up using quality materials and cabinetry and went to making a pile of crap like most others and are now a "nothing" company on the world stage - AN continued to improve and improve what was already the basis of great music makers to make them the best they possibly can - and obviously when peole listen to them without letting sight be a bias in the blind panels of hi-fi choice people are still selecting these over this weeks $5,000.00 models.

The Snell B-Minor is a total disaster and is obviously based off the AR 9 and if the new AR's were better you would have them - but you're sticking to the AR9 of old. Why? Surely in 20+ years they've improved speakers - uhh no - and if they tried to build a $2k model from them using quality woods instead of particle board or plastic you'd pay $10k+ today for it. I don;t blame AR for cheaping out - it's a business for "most" first and foremost.

It is really quite simple - they're 60 year old cabinets and good quality materials are beating the ever loving crap out of the brand spanking new - advertise the crap out of it - change every 4 years Harman international models which sell for as much or more money. The can claim every technical thing they wish with their NRC blind tests and white papers - but in the end when I went out to listen none of that helped Harman or B&W - and independant blind auditions Hi-fi choice isn't backing those claims up either(Certain models perhaps). It's just marketing spin alla Bose.

UHF made the statement that in the late 70s early 80s 25 watts was considered a beast of an amp. The idea of low efficiency was to gain bass depth - but the E or the J or even to a degree the K is proof that that that is total BS.

The only reason to NEED more power is bad speaker design - Higher efficient speakers ALWAYS sound more dynamic more lifelike than something like the Totem Model 1 and virtually ALL slim line design speakers. While these do have certain sonic advantages - music isn;t one of them.

Looking at the overall picture of the AR 9 I seriously doubt you would think much of the Paradigm Studio 100 or its ilk -- all of which are supposedly superior technological advancements and will have a stream of engineers will tell you this new "truth." It's all true of course until you catually play some music on them and realize the "emperor has no clothes"

As for SET versus SS I can't comment because i've not heard enough of the former to make a general comment and have really only heard SET with spekaers built for SET. Though the Meishu handled the B&W N805 with ample aplomb.

I understand full well your skepticism because Peter says he's right and everyone else is wrong - well which companies state don't imply that? Magnepan Quad, B&W, Harman all imply the same thing and it's not true for any of them including Mr. Qvortrup. It's only true to the person listening. If I picked Magnepan then I would be like the person on here who says Magnepan is the only company that can pass the Live test recreating instruments the only true way. He obviously hears it differently than me. On another forum if it isn't an electrostat then it's unlsitenable - Fair enough - you think Classical is the only thing worth listening to and that a speaker needs to be some sort of omnidirectional or multidirexctional to be any good - so no front firing system can possibly be acceptable to you regardless of design or price.

It's called a preference.

Disposable society does not apply to 70's North America but to current North America. People used to shop for things like service and quality - two things Future Shop Best Buy and Wall Mart know nothing about and sell to consumers who are only about price. This explaoins buying speakers over the internet unheard - these people don;t really CARE about what it sounds like - they read reviews and can get a "Deal."

They know the price of everything but the value of nothing. Value is how good it sounds -that is the only point of a stereo system. If one speaker puts $900.00 worth of materials etc into his $1000.00 retail speakers while Audio Note puts $400.00 into their $1000.00 speakers knowing this means the first is better - but if the latter sounds ten times better - it's the one I'm buying. The former I view as an idiot for not getting way more out of their speaker. Plus if something goes wrong with the former it will cost way more to repair - all that for worse sound - no thanks.

[RGA]

I found a small essay on the history of the 300B and Single Ended amplifiers in the US. Some of this goes to what I was saying about why there are big power amps today offerring no real gain in music reproduction:

http://www.republika.pl/mparvi/300b.htm

[Woochifer]

It is really quite simple - they're 60 year old cabinets and good quality materials are beating the ever loving crap out of the brand spanking new - advertise the crap out of it - change every 4 years Harman international models which sell for as much or more money. The can claim every technical thing they wish with their NRC blind tests and white papers - but in the end when I went out to listen none of that helped Harman or B&W - and independant blind auditions Hi-fi choice isn't backing those claims up either(Certain models perhaps). It's just marketing spin alla Bose.

And which "brandspankingnewadvertisethecrapoutofitchangeevery 4yearsharmaninternationalmodelwhichsellfor asmuchormoremoney" models have you actually compared to these "60yearoldcabinetsandgoodqualitymaterials" speakers that you are speaking of? Blind tests and white papers are just marketing spin alla Bose? And how does Hi-Fi Choice contradict what's written in those white papers? Better question, have you ever READ the Harman white papers? Your generalization is so full of holes, presumptions, and wishful thinking, it borders on delusional.

UHF made the statement that in the late 70s early 80s 25 watts was considered a beast of an amp. The idea of low efficiency was to gain bass depth - but the E or the J or even to a degree the K is proof that that that is total BS.

That assertion is BS. The wattage wars between different amp manufacturers was in high gear by the late-70s. 25 watts at that time would have been well below average for a typical mid-fi receiver. And those output ratings for that era were very conservative because by then the FTC had cracked down on the fallacious and "creative" output ratings that various manufacturers were quoting by the late-60s.

The only reason to NEED more power is bad speaker design - Higher efficient speakers ALWAYS sound more dynamic more lifelike than something like the Totem Model 1 and virtually ALL slim line design speakers. While these do have certain sonic advantages - music isn;t one of them.

And I suppose that all those panel speakers that practically need a dedicated circuit to drive to moderately to high volumes are just as poorly designed as those slim line speakers that you love to hate?

Looking at the overall picture of the AR 9 I seriously doubt you would think much of the Paradigm Studio 100 or its ilk -- all of which are supposedly superior technological advancements and will have a stream of engineers will tell you this new "truth." It's all true of course until you catually play some music on them and realize the "emperor has no clothes"

Hmmm, the "emperor has no clothes"? I get it. Technology is bad. Music is not technology. Therefore speakers with no technology are good. Nice logic.

It's called a preference.

Disposable society does not apply to 70's North America but to current North America. People used to shop for things like service and quality - two things Future Shop Best Buy and Wall Mart know nothing about and sell to consumers who are only about price. This explaoins buying speakers over the internet unheard - these people don;t really CARE about what it sounds like - they read reviews and can get a "Deal."

For someone who didn't even follow audio until the early-90s, you sure know a lot about how people lived and shopped in the 70s. Let me clue you in something that you may not be aware of. People in ANY era are going to look for the best product for the best price within their budget range. I don't know where you get this twisted idea that service and quality were things that people were more willing to pay for back then than they are now. People were just as cheap back then as they are now. It's just that back then fewer of them could afford anything beyond a basic record changer or portable cassette player.

The thing about Future Shop, Best Buy, and all those low priced products that they sell ... guess what, the majority of people back in the 70s would have paid the same amount (inflation adjusted) for audio equipment. But, instead of getting a receiver or HTIB system for a low price like they can today, they would have settled for a boombox or an all-in-one system (complete with BSR record changer and 8-track player). In inflation-adjusted terms, the performance that a consumer can get right now in those entry level categories is FAR greater than anything that was available at that time.

The first record player my family got cost $50 in 1972. The thing was a GE folddown record changer with detachable speakers, it sounded like crap, and the tonearm had such poor tracking that we needed to tape a penny to the headshell. At an inflation-adjusted rate of $225, you means to tell me that a CD mini system that sells that that price today sounds worse than that $50 record changer from 1972? The lowest priced stereo boomboxes in the late-70s almost all cost more than $100. Inflation adjusted, that would now cost about $260. I doubt that even you would find fault in a $260 mini system of today in a direct comparison with that boombox from 1979. If you're talking about price and value, yeah EVERYTHING in the 70s was about quality and service. What bull****.

And your generalization about internet speakers is equally ridiculous. People who buy things factory direct over the internet are looking for the best performance for the best price. What makes you think that they DON'T care about the sound quality? They're trying to get a higher level of performance than what they typically see at their price point. THAT'S why they go the mail order route. I went with a mail order subwoofer because the performance and design that I was looking for WAS NOT available at my price point with the retail options that I was looking at. The fact that an option was available through an internet direct company was worth trying. And as it stands, my bass setup far exceeds anything else I've heard in this price range.

They know the price of everything but the value of nothing. Value is how good it sounds -that is the only point of a stereo system. If one speaker puts $900.00 worth of materials etc into his $1000.00 retail speakers while Audio Note puts $400.00 into their $1000.00 speakers knowing this means the first is better - but if the latter sounds ten times better - it's the one I'm buying. The former I view as an idiot for not getting way more out of their speaker. Plus if something goes wrong with the former it will cost way more to repair - all that for worse sound - no thanks.

Once again, you're making wild accusations about people's motivations and what they are looking for when they buy things. Value is a personal judgment. Something that you view as low value, might have higher value to someone else because that particular product meets THEIR needs. And those two-channel only Audio Note systems that you might think are the best things ever, have no value to me because if something cannot do multichannel, it's irrelevant to my purposes.

And, you're making baseless guesses about the material costs and profits and business models, etc. Can you even think of any real world examples that fit that hypothetical scenario that you're painting out? Stick to what you know. If you claim to know what an idiot is thinking, then the last thing you want to do on this board is leave yourself open to questioning about why you have such a strong grasp on that perspective.

[92135011]

This is genuinely the worst thing about internet forums. Too much talk, not enough listening. If you guys like your technologically superior transistor amps, well that's fine. Why is it important if I like it? If you like the classic valve amps, thats cool too. What does that matter to me. Maybe transistors are superior; maybe valve amps are. It's all about perception. It's all relative - not absolute. Not that I care too much if you like either type anyways as long as you dont extend your arm into trying to influence me into liking exactly what you like.
Woochiefer's point about value being subjective is well taken. If that holds at least some truth, then it should hold true to everything. As I have said before. Who cares if you like expensive cables? Who cares if you like CD over vinyl? Who cares about any of other peoples business? It don't bother me.
Don't get me wrong. Discussing is cool. Expansion of knowledge is great. But if it isnt asked, then it dont need to be answered. Everyone has their own passion. RGA loves Audio Note, as do I. Skeptic doesnt like tubes. But RGA seems to like them. Not that it bothers me.

Should it bother you?

[RGA]

This is genuinely the worst thing about internet forums. Too much talk, not enough listening. If you guys like your technologically superior transistor amps, well that's fine. Why is it important if I like it? If you like the classic valve amps, thats cool too. What does that matter to me. Maybe transistors are superior; maybe valve amps are. It's all about perception. It's all relative - not absolute. Not that I care too much if you like either type anyways as long as you dont extend your arm into trying to influence me into liking exactly what you like.
Woochiefer's point about value being subjective is well taken. If that holds at least some truth, then it should hold true to everything. As I have said before. Who cares if you like expensive cables? Who cares if you like CD over vinyl? Who cares about any of other peoples business? It don't bother me.
Don't get me wrong. Discussing is cool. Expansion of knowledge is great. But if it isnt asked, then it dont need to be answered. Everyone has their own passion. RGA loves Audio Note, as do I. Skeptic doesnt like tubes. But RGA seems to like them. Not that it bothers me.

Should it bother you?

Frankly the best advice - buy whatever the hell makes you happy - is that not the point? To dervie happiness out of what you get - the forums here are to bring attention to different perspecitves. Give them a try and decide for yourself.

Now who will be the first to post number 100 on this thread? LOL.

[RGA]

That assertion is BS. The wattage wars between different amp manufacturers was in high gear by the late-70s. 25 watts at that time would have been well below average for a typical mid-fi receiver. And those output ratings for that era were very conservative because by then the FTC had cracked down on the fallacious and "creative" output ratings that various manufacturers were quoting by the late-60s.

Skeptic said it first - UHF mentioned it in a book. I notice you don;t quote Skeptic to correct him - you have proof of course too right? Receivers are not high end products. So I really am uninterested in what they claim they can produce.

And I suppose that all those panel speakers that practically need a dedicated circuit to drive to moderately to high volumes are just as poorly designed as those slim line speakers that you love to hate?

The 10 watt Sugden A21 was a popular match for the low impedence but stable Quad electrostatic panels - the fact that the ML is hog might be because they aren't as good.

Hmmm, the "emperor has no clothes"? I get it. Technology is bad. Music is not technology. Therefore speakers with no technology are good. Nice logic.

Quite the reverse - technology that offers zilch to make music better then yes the emperor has no clothes. Math was math in 1940 - the difference was they did not try and cheap out and invent excuses to make garbage and pass it off as being superior technology - alla Bose etc.

For someone who didn't even follow audio until the early-90s, you sure know a lot about how people lived and shopped in the 70s. Let me clue you in something that you may not be aware of. People in ANY era are going to look for the best product for the best price within their budget range. I don't know where you get this twisted idea that service and quality were things that people were more willing to pay for back then than they are now. People were just as cheap back then as they are now. It's just that back then fewer of them could afford anything beyond a basic record changer or portable cassette player.

Back then people would have their toaster or stereo or tv etc repaired if it broke down - the mentality of many people not all was that you don't waste something that can be fixed - just like people who don't like to have their kids waste food and make them eat every scrap - I seriously doubt that today's young parents do that - no one I know would be like that today with their kids - but man even my folks made me sit and eat those freaking Brussel sprouts. Today something brweaks and you dump it and get another one. Most of this is price - obviously if you paid $1000 for a VCR and it breaks in the 13 month you're going to pay $100 to repair it - but today a VCR is $49.99 and you can get another one - hell we went through 3 in the last year because they're so dismally built.

The main reason Bryston does so well has hardly anything to do with the fact that they are any bit superior to most quality power amplifiers - the 20 year transferable warranty and incredible customer service is what makes them king of the hill. There are many people who value these so I'm not saying no one does - but they sell largely because of this aspect - because many others don't - the people who seek out Build construction and after market care as priorities will seek out Bryston - look how many threads disscuss this as an advantage when it comes to Yamaha - people are willing to pay extra for it. So I concede the generalizion was unfair.

The first record player my family got cost $50 in 1972. The thing was a GE folddown record changer with detachable speakers, it sounded like crap, and the tonearm had such poor tracking that we needed to tape a penny to the headshell. At an inflation-adjusted rate of $225, you means to tell me that a CD mini system that sells that that price today sounds worse than that $50 record changer from 1972? The lowest priced stereo boomboxes in the late-70s almost all cost more than $100. Inflation adjusted, that would now cost about $260. I doubt that even you would find fault in a $260 mini system of today in a direct comparison with that boombox from 1979. If you're talking about price and value, yeah EVERYTHING in the 70s was about quality and service. What bull****.

Oh but you're comparing the boom box then to now - I never said everything. They had gimmicks in the 1970s as they have gimmicks now and they had cheap junk then as they do now - and they even tried to use advertising extolling the scinence of superiority as they do now. Your toaster today breaks it's in the garbage bin the next day you bu a new one - that was less apparent in 1970 and earilier - which is why there are so few repair outlets. Even until the early 90s in my town there was a place that repaired TV's. It's gone. It's cheaper for the manufacturer to replace the item. Granted today's television LOOKS better with advancing technology in that regard though it is still based of the original principle a TUBE - but the build construction of those Wega's is garbage. SET's have also utilized the NEW technology of today improve those designs. The difference is that they also kept the build quality and betterred it to go along with the superior technological parts advances.

And your generalization about internet speakers is equally ridiculous. People who buy things factory direct over the internet are looking for the best performance for the best price. What makes you think that they DON'T care about the sound quality? They're trying to get a higher level of performance than what they typically see at their price point. THAT'S why they go the mail order route. I went with a mail order subwoofer because the performance and design that I was looking for WAS NOT available at my price point with the retail options that I was looking at. The fact that an option was available through an internet direct company was worth trying. And as it stands, my bass setup far exceeds anything else I've heard in this price range.

I seriously doubt that this is the case - certainly they are attempting to get more for their money buying off the net - whether that ends up being the result or not is another matter. An unknowable one except to the individual - not everyone who bought the Axioms on the threads I've been on are any happier with them than what they could get at B&Ms or nOhr etc. But i'll concede the attempt was there.

http://www.republika.pl/mparvi/300b.htm

[skeptic]

Here are some facts about the horsepower wars of the mid 1960s to mid 1970s.

The most conservatively rated amplifiers of the mid 1960s were made by McIntosh, Marantz, and Dynaco. The last of the big tube models popular for the richest audiophiles were Dynaco MK III which were 60 watt monoblocks, MC275 also available as MC 75 monoblocks, and Marantz model 8 which cold be configured as a pentode or triode amplifier and so had different power ratings but was in that range. McIntosh also offered 300 watt tube monoblocks. These same ratings would probably have applied after the FTC ruling. They were for continuous power per channel with both channels driven over a specified bandwidth with a given maximum harmonic and IM distortion. In 1968 Crown introduced the DC 300 which put out a whopping 185 wpc under the same conditions. Phase Linear followed shortly with the Phase Linear 400 and Phase Linear 700 presumably with 200 and 350 wpc. A tier below was the IHF method of meausrement which was 25% higher. Most receivers were in the 15 to 50 wpc rms in the early to mid 60s but were rated slightly higher by the IHF (Institute of High Fidelity) method 20 watts RMS = 25 watts IHF. I don't think the manufacturers had to even use the same power supply as came with the amplifier either, they could substitute a lab bench supply of the same voltage. Then there was the EIA power. This usually doubled the IHF power and allowed up to 5% distortion. Finally there were amplifiers rated by the power they consumed, not by the power they delivered to a load. So a 20 watt RMS =25watt IHF= 50 watt EIA might be a 100 watt or more by this new method without a name. Finally about 1975 the FTC stepped in and required not only the most rigorous rating method in use but required a 20 minute preconditioning at 1/3 rated power. Even so, Big receiver manufacturers like Marantz, Kenwood, Pioneer, Sansui started building flagship units with 150 wrms and more. Other models with power ratings of 60 wpc rms became commonplace. 100 to 200 wpc solid state amplifiers also became very commonplace as well. The issue of adequate power for all but the least efficient speakers like Bose 901 or electrostatics was for all intents and purposes over.

[E-Stat]

The issue of adequate power for all but the least efficient speakers like Bose 901 or electrostatics was for all intents and purposes over.

Agreed. I have always centered a system around the speaker that meets the greatest number of my priorities. The choice of amplification is secondary. Since I favor the purity of condenser transducers, be they microphones or speakers, I am faced with a higher power requirement. Given the availability of a wide range of higher power amplifiers, I find that to be a non-issue.

rw

[RGA]

Of course the entire issue is moot - If you own the AN E you can use either a 5 watt amp or a 500 watt amp. If you absolutely despise tubes great - but if you want your low watt tube amp option open - Totem etc is not going to cut it.

Watts are abused -- like my over generalized statement that high efficency is more lifelike in dynamics the notion that high mega watts are going to be a better sounding amplifier is also. I mean just look at those 550 watt JVC boom boxes with big red flashing lights - I mean they look as tacky as it can get but for a kid sure would be "cool"

But it's interesting that that despite all that it won't play as loud as an E and 8 watt amplifier. Not even remotely in the ball park. Because a few of us know the relationships between sensitivity even if just enough to get us by we are not going to be conned by buying watts alone. But does the average consumer?

I guess this is what saddens me more is that people out there who want good sound are looking at woofer sizes and watt figures and the size of the speakers - what reviews have to say - I have looked after the purchase more out if interest not as a gode me into buying them.

My first experience with watt nonsense was when a Arcam at 75 watts sounded better than the 125 watt flagship Pioneer Elite and Denons of the time(Mid to late 90's). Especially noticable in the bass. If the difference can be that startling - on a sub satelite system from M&K and my own 95db horn Wharfedales - easy as pie to drive - then I began to wonder what the hell the spec sheets were all about. The Pionner claimed numbers that Bryston would be proud of - but only when the Bryston was hooked up I no longer wanted to sell what I thought were flabby crappy speakers - was not the speaker after all.

I can't see needing more than 60 watts to drive any loudspeaker to acceptably loud levels. 4 watts to get 87(average speaker) decibals at 8 feet is still bloody loud.

I remember listening to a carver or CJ or something that had the actual meters on the channels - driving a set of speakers i don;t recall - but not a horn - and they had these thing rattling the walls of the store - very big room because it was the open entry area - the meters never exceeded 12 watts and that was just momentary bursts - and we're talking deafening levels - most of the time the meters were sitting at 1-4watts with little bursts. Kinda of fun to watch actually. But if yu were listening at normal levels even normally loud levels this thing would probably not move past 6. The sepakers were probably in the range of 89-91db like many today are.

Even my audition of the N805 surprised me because I was expecting the 8 watt Meishu to have all sorts of probelms - but not so. So how can I anyone who heard that system say that 8 watts isn't enough - I was playing it pretty loud - sure another could play louder the math will show that - but my hearing is intact and I'd like to keep it that way. Though an 80 watt amp would get the N805 to play twice as loud perceptually going by the numbers - I don't really see how it could do that so I'm a bit skeptical of those max watt numbers of the speakers.

[E-Stat]

I can't see needing more than 60 watts to drive any loudspeaker to acceptably loud levels. 4 watts to get 87(average speaker) decibals at 8 feet is still bloody loud.

Naturally that depends both upon the speaker involved and the music played. I am perhaps a bit unusual in that my musical tastes are rather wide ranging - I may follow up listening to Madonna with Stravinsky. On average, the power levels with classical music are far less, but - on an instantaneous basis, such wide dynamic range material can demand very much higher levels. I have listened to a pretty wide range of high powered amps, SS and tube alike. Only with the larger tube amps do I perceive an elusive quality of "authority" or absolute control and lack of strain. That is why I have a pair of 450 watt tube amps. And if money were no object, I would have even more as I have heard what a pair of VTL Wotans can do.

rw

[RGA]

Naturally that depends both upon the speaker involved and the music played. I am perhaps a bit unusual in that my musical tastes are rather wide ranging - I may follow up listening to Madonna with Stravinsky. On average, the power levels with classical music are far less, but - on an instantaneous basis, such wide dynamic range material can demand very much higher levels. I have listened to a pretty wide range of high powered amps, SS and tube alike. Only with the larger tube amps do I perceive an elusive quality of "authority" or absolute control and lack of strain. That is why I have a pair of 450 watt tube amps. And if money were no object, I would have even more as I have heard what a pair of VTL Wotans can do.

rw

I can accept this - the other thing we need to note here as well is room size and your prefernce for volume levels - And loads of other things. The AN's have a lot of plusses but ultimate volume capability is not one of them. They are not going to play like a club speaker can play in terms of volume level.

As an aside I was reading about one of the VTL amps that was a technical marvel telling you how hot your tubes were running auto bias between tracks, how much life is left and slew of other rather interesting things. Pretty sure it was VTL - big watts - it was in one of the last two UHF magazines. Tubes are not the same as they once were. Audio Note has one tube unit rated for 100,000+ hours or ~11 years 24 hours a day - or gee for many people that would be 3 hours a day for 88 years. And we're worried about tube life?

[Woochifer]

Skeptic said it first - UHF mentioned it in a book. I notice you don;t quote Skeptic to correct him - you have proof of course too right? Receivers are not high end products. So I really am uninterested in what they claim they can produce.

So what if they're "not high end" products? You were claiming that 25 watts in the late-70s was a "beast of an amp" and I'm telling you that there were plenty of products on the market back then that far exceeded that. The trend at that point was more towards upping the wattage figures as much as possible, and that was the time that the FTC standard came into being, so the actual output almost always exceeded what the rating said. If you're uninterested in a truth check to what your boys at UHF are conjuring up in their imaginations and revisionist history, then so be it.

The 10 watt Sugden A21 was a popular match for the low impedence but stable Quad electrostatic panels - the fact that the ML is hog might be because they aren't as good.

This love affair with all things Audio Note has really gone to your head. Now you're saying that ML is not as good as a Quad? Didn't you at one time consistently wax poetic about the sound of MLs, but now because they don't fit into this high efficiency doctrine, they're suddenly no good?

Quite the reverse - technology that offers zilch to make music better then yes the emperor has no clothes. Math was math in 1940 - the difference was they did not try and cheap out and invent excuses to make garbage and pass it off as being superior technology - alla Bose etc.

Yeah, and the recording mechanisms in the 1940s were far inferior to what's available today. If you think that all that needed to be invented and discovered about acoustical science and electronics occurred by the 1940s, then I suggest that you check out some monophonic 78s and Western Electric movie soundtracks, and tell me how that's superior to SACD and DTS. Sorry, but the transducers from that era that I've heard are not what I would regard as realistic, musical, or whatever other subjective adjective you might want to base you conclusions on.

Back then people would have their toaster or stereo or tv etc repaired if it broke down - the mentality of many people not all was that you don't waste something that can be fixed - just like people who don't like to have their kids waste food and make them eat every scrap - I seriously doubt that today's young parents do that - no one I know would be like that today with their kids - but man even my folks made me sit and eat those freaking Brussel sprouts. Today something brweaks and you dump it and get another one. Most of this is price - obviously if you paid $1000 for a VCR and it breaks in the 13 month you're going to pay $100 to repair it - but today a VCR is $49.99 and you can get another one - hell we went through 3 in the last year because they're so dismally built.

You know why people repaired and held onto things back then? BECAUSE IT WAS CHEAPER TO REPAIR SOMETHING THAN TO BUY A NEW ONE! A basic RCA color TV cost over $1,000 in the early-70s, which is well over $3,000 in today's money. Those freaking things had vacuum tubes that burned out regularly, so they needed frequent servicing. They wasted energy, had pictures that drifted (does the old "horizontal hold" dial mean anything to you?), had tuners that couldn't hold the signal, and had lousy audio quality to boot. A $200 WalMart special today will give you superior performance AND it doesn't need to be serviced on a regular basis. Even if you have to buy a new one every other year, the cost of ownership would still be lower than that 70s vintage console TV. Your longing for the good ole days is filtered through the lenses of wishful thinking rather than reality.

The main reason Bryston does so well has hardly anything to do with the fact that they are any bit superior to most quality power amplifiers - the 20 year transferable warranty and incredible customer service is what makes them king of the hill. There are many people who value these so I'm not saying no one does - but they sell largely because of this aspect - because many others don't - the people who seek out Build construction and after market care as priorities will seek out Bryston - look how many threads disscuss this as an advantage when it comes to Yamaha - people are willing to pay extra for it. So I concede the generalizion was unfair.

How many people buy Bryston or even buy products in Bryston's price range? Not very many. And if you're looking at audio gear of today versus what was made yesteryear in a comparable price class, you'll see that the quality IS comparable. Take for example, the Marantz 2275 receiver that I grew up with. Cost was $600 in 1976. In today's dollars that would work out to nearly $2,000. Think of how much amp you can buy for that amount of money today. I would guess that a contemporary $2,000 two-channel amp would be AT LEAST as high in quality as that Marantz was back then. THAT'S how you do comparable comparisons. Not by comparing a $600 model from yesteryear with a $600 product from today. But, even there my Yamaha AV receiver holds up very favorably with that Marantz, and it doesn't have all these interconnected switches and buttons that can start to short out within five years, and it can do multichannel.

Yamaha is recommended for their quality yes, but they are no more expensive than similarly appointed Denon, Onkyo, Marantz, or h/k models. All other things being equal, yes you go with the higher quality. But, the price equation is nil in this case.

Oh but you're comparing the boom box then to now - I never said everything. They had gimmicks in the 1970s as they have gimmicks now and they had cheap junk then as they do now - and they even tried to use advertising extolling the scinence of superiority as they do now. Your toaster today breaks it's in the garbage bin the next day you bu a new one - that was less apparent in 1970 and earilier - which is why there are so few repair outlets. Even until the early 90s in my town there was a place that repaired TV's. It's gone. It's cheaper for the manufacturer to replace the item. Granted today's television LOOKS better with advancing technology in that regard though it is still based of the original principle a TUBE - but the build construction of those Wega's is garbage. SET's have also utilized the NEW technology of today improve those designs. The difference is that they also kept the build quality and betterred it to go along with the superior technological parts advances.

Well, you were the one who brought up WalMart and Best Buy, and how everyone who shops there only cares about price and not about quality blah blah blah. You're using WalMart as an example of the bargain hunting mentality of today, and I'm just pointing out that today's HTIB and mini system buyers are the same as yesterday's cheap record changer and all-in-one system purchasers. When those old record changers broke, guess what? People tossed them and got a new one.

If you inflation adjust the prices, those all-in-one systems from yesteryear would actually cost more than double what a Sony HTIB system costs today. And judging from first hand experience, I would MUCH rather listen to a Sony HTIB system than revert back to a 70s vintage all-in-one system. If you compare what the $200-$400 price of an all-in-one system got you back in the mid-70s and compare that to what in comparable dollar terms $600-$1,000 will buy you today, it's no contest.

Those Wegas have had a spotty reliability record, but in real dollar terms, they only cost one-third of what an old RCA or Zenith color console cost 30 or so years ago, and they don't need vacuum tube replacement, the picture doesn't drift, the tuner can hold the signal, they have remote control, there are much fewer moving parts to wear out, and the picture is MUCH better. Some more reliable Toshiba and Panasonic TVs give you all that plus longer term durability. And it's not like those old consoles were THAT reliable either. Just because something was so expensive that it justified keeping and repairing sure as hell doesn't mean that it was a more reliable or higher quality product.

I seriously doubt that this is the case - certainly they are attempting to get more for their money buying off the net - whether that ends up being the result or not is another matter. An unknowable one except to the individual - not everyone who bought the Axioms on the threads I've been on are any happier with them than what they could get at B&Ms or nOhr etc.

Why don't you ask someone who bought a factory direct speaker about what their motivation was rather than conjuring up these conpiracy theories about their motives? You might be surprised to learn that they went that route because they wanted ... OMG ... BETTER SOUND QUALITY FOR THE MONEY! Some people are legitimately frustrated with the options available in their price range, and are willing to try a factory direct option. That certainly fit my mood when I was shopping for a subwoofer. I was willing to roll the dice to get an affordable subwoofer that met my criteria, and in my case it worked out.

But i'll concede the attempt was there - or that well they look cool and the reviewer liked it and Toole saidit was good so it must be.

Like I said, value is a personal definition and looks are a part of the value equation for more people nowadays. I know that my wife would not stand for a couple of huge black boxes in the middle of the floor. And back in your favorite era, I heard plenty of big box speakers that pale in comparison to most of the slim profile speakers of today, and on average, today there are much fewer truly lousy speakers out there than there were in the 70s. Those big $600 JBL L65s that I grew up with (nearly $2,000 in today's dollars) can't even come close to what a $900 pair of Studio 40s is capable of. But, at least those JBLs had solid walnut cabinets.

Show me one example where "Toole said it was good so it must be." He doesn't do product reviews, and he doesn't write subjective evaluations about individual speaker models. Your reflex abhorence of that guy is getting laughable. Everything wrong with audio is attributable to research done by Toole! Guess what, ALL speaker companies do testing and research! Just not all of them publish their findings the way that Harman does. Even though I don't own any Harman Int'l. speakers, their white papers are relevant to what I do with my system, and backed up with well documented research. For you to dog on Harman and compare them to Bose indicates to me that either you've never read their stuff or you will just condemn anything that you don't understand. Bose does not talk about room modes, time domain, frequency response, or off-axis response -- they dumb down the research and basically lie about why discredited approaches such off-angled drivers, bandpass subwoofers, and high crossover frequencies are the best way to go. Harman explains scientifically validated concepts and practical approaches to why they are relevant for a typical room setup. For example, Harman's RABOS room mode attenuation feature may be accompanied by slick marketing materials, but it's a feature that's also based on sound scientific concepts that have real world benefits. Same benefit as the parametric EQ that I use, except that the RABOS system takes less than 10 minutes while the manual approach that I use takes about 90 minutes.

[skeptic]

"The only reason to NEED more power is bad speaker design - Higher efficient speakers ALWAYS sound more dynamic more lifelike "

This is pure nonsense. The truth is that on an absolute basis, ALL loudspeaker systems are very inefficient at converting electrical power into acoustical power. One watt of acoustical power is an enormous amount. The most efficient loudspeakers ever made are only a few percent efficient as energy converters. The sacrifice in efficiency to gain greater control, lower distortion, wider flatter frequency response is a well known and accepted engineering principle. Of course you have to know what you are doing or it can be a disaster. Low efficiency in itself does not mean improvement, it is a consequence of certain techniques such as negative feedback and damping.

The Teledyne AR9 was the last and ultimate experession of Edgar Vilcher's concept for his original acoustic suspension design. It was relatively efficient for a speaker of its type. Acoustic Research strived for accuracy by making extensive measurements and proving their worth in live versus recorded demonstrations allowing listeners to judge accuracy for themselves. They were amazingly successful with many different types of instruments from guitars, nickelodeons (both of which I attended) pipe organs, string quartets, and among the last an AR Ten Pi played against Buddy Rich the world famous drummer. It's unfortunate that Arsenal's web site is down for the last few weeks because there is an extensive thread now archived about this particular demo by the people who were actually involved in setting it up and conducting it. HOW MANY LIVE VERSUS RECORDED DEMOS HAS Audio Note CONDUCTED???? I'd venture to say the answer would be about.......NONE! Like most manufacturers, they don't dare. The appeal of their products is based on what they think their customers will like, not on what is accurate. In this respect, they are no different from most of their competitors.

[benil]

HOW MANY LIVE VERSUS RECORDED DEMOS HAS Audio Note CONDUCTED???? I'd venture to say the answer would be about.......NONE!

What exactly do you mean by LIVE music? Do you mean a live orchestra playing at 110 to 120db? A live pop or jazz band in a controlled listening environment like a studio or a music hall? Live concert of pop band with an enormous crowd using mammoth PA equipment? Can you be more specific?

[skeptic]

Some of the deomonstrations consisted of an Aolean Skinner pipe organ alternating with a handful of AR3s. Another was a nickelodeon flanked by a pair of AR3s. Another was Buddy Rich sitting at his drums flanked by a pair of AR Ten Pis. Recordings were carefully taped outdoors where possible to avoid a double echo effect resulting from recorded room reverberation. On cue, the musicians would stop and the speakers would start picking up the music where the musicians had left off. At the next cue, the situation would reverse. Some of the engineers who devised and conducted these tests are still alive and ready willing and able to talk about them on Arsenal's Classic Speaker web site which as I said has unfortuantely been down for several weeks. The last of these demonstrations was the Buddy Rich demo performed in the mid 1970s reportedly at the factory. Others such as those I attended with the niclelodeon and the guitarist were conducted at trade shows. The accuracy of the speakers was to say the least remarkable. Whether you like their sound or not playing commercial recordings or whether they were successful commercially themselves or not, from an engineer's perspective, they passed the acid test. This is where the rubber meets the road and where the real thing is separated from the wanabees.

If efficiency was a measure of loudspeaker quality, Klipschorn, Altec A7 and JBL Hartsfield would be among the top units ever produced, not only far more efficient than Acoustic Research but also much more efficient than Audio Note as well.

[benil]

Some of the deomonstrations consisted of an Aolean Skinner pipe organ alternating with a handful of AR3s. Another was a nickelodeon flanked by a pair of AR3s. Another was Buddy Rich sitting at his drums flanked by a pair of AR Ten Pis. Recordings were carefully taped outdoors where possible to avoid a double echo effect resulting from recorded room reverberation. On cue, the musicians would stop and the speakers would start picking up the music where the musicians had left off. At the next cue, the situation would reverse. Some of the engineers who devised and conducted these tests are still alive and ready willing and able to talk about them on Arsenal's Classic Speaker web site which as I said has unfortuantely been down for several weeks. The last of these demonstrations was the Buddy Rich demo performed in the mid 1970s reportedly at the factory. Others such as those I attended with the niclelodeon and the guitarist were conducted at trade shows. The accuracy of the speakers was to say the least remarkable. Whether you like their sound or not playing commercial recordings or whether they were successful commercially themselves or not, from an engineer's perspective, they passed the acid test. This is where the rubber meets the road and where the real thing is separated from the wanabees.

am a buddy rich (and Gene Krupa) fan myself and i liked his drum solo in "Jumping At the Woodside" best in his "This One's For Basie" LP. Sounds more "live" with Audio Note gear than any of the other gear/ systems i've heard.

were other equipment demonstrated side-by-side with the ARs? don't tell me other equipment were not tested or compared with the ARs for this Live demo. what's the relevance of a demo if there is no point of reference? can we say it sounds accurate in absolute terms. what if another SET of gear is able to reproduce live event you referred to better than the AR?

the comparison by contrast section of Qvortrup and Norwitz clearly states the importance of relative performance of gear to others when choosing your audio gear:

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


also reproduction of music played outdoors would not top my list of music titles i'd like to listen to with my gear. i prefer listening to a "live" studio recording (single take) using 2-tracks (left and right) over a live indoor or outdoor concert. The latter, to sound balanced (no one instrument dominating the others) usually requires the use of huge multi-track mixers and amplifiers for all the various instruments and musicians to be heard.

If efficiency was a measure of loudspeaker quality, Klipschorn, Altec A7 and JBL Hartsfield would be among the top units ever produced, not only far more efficient than Acoustic Research but also much more efficient than Audio Note as well.

the most efficient speakers or speaker systems i've heard are great with dynamics and headroom.i've heard altec 604s and 605s in open baffles, several versions of ALTEC voice of the theater, SET tri-amped JADIS (a french brand) eurithmie of , Klipsch, Tannoy Westminster, sequera full range etc. all rated close to 105db and very high impedance.

despite all their strenghts, however i don't find them any of them to be as involving as Audio Note speakers. btw, I also like listening in a "living room" type of an environment. i'm not into an acoustically treated theater-type of listening room which SS followers seem to prefer.

[skeptic]

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

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

Yes that was the purpose of the demonstrations.

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

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

[RGA]

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

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

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

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

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

[benil]

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

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

Yes that was the purpose of the demonstrations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[benil]

They know the price of everything but the value of nothing. Value is how good it sounds -that is the only point of a stereo system. If one speaker puts $900.00 worth of materials etc into his $1000.00 retail speakers while Audio Note puts $400.00 into their $1000.00 speakers knowing this means the first is better - but if the latter sounds ten times better - it's the one I'm buying. The former I view as an idiot for not getting way more out of their speaker.

Yes! You hit the nail in the head! TEN of my favorite LPs sounding TEN times better means 100 times more value to me