Florian vs. RGA

[Geoffcin]

I think his ascertion of shifted energy uis precisely that it is difficult and it requires a lot of work to get it right. It is far easeir to create a speaker and then just damp the hell out of it. I heard a big Canadian speaker the other day and was distressed by how completely DEAD it sounded -- it's been a while to be frank since I've been listneing to other speakers and what I heard was boxy muffled (despite a metal tweeter) and the vocal band sounded like someone threw a wet towel over the proceedings. .

What was this 'dead sounding" Canadian speaker you were so "distressed by" , or are you afraid that some owners might call you out.

[kexodusc]

Further Kex -- just some other interesting things that the adds fuel to Peter being comparatively in left field. Lots here for him to be attacked on know doubt but let's just purge it from the system -- This is fairly long so get a Sleeman's Honey Brown and a nice cigar and have a good read or laugh etc.

You've got to respect this guy's passion for what he does, if nothing else. I think he's got a great approach (not that I'm much of an authority on the subject), the product speaks for itself. But there's a lot of PR in Peter's philosophies. I don't see anything necessarily left field or revolutionary here, despite the great efforts to present the ideas as totally unique.

in other words we let the cabinet release the energy as fast as possible rather than hold on to it and release it later at lower ampliitude as happens in a damped cabinet.
The benefit is overall improved efficiency (upto nearly 1 dB) and a sound that is far less restrained by the cabinet in a way that heavily damped cabinets are not.

Myth 1 - cabinets are damped to store more energy and release it at lower amplitudes. While damping can do this, I'm not aware of many speakers that actually use damping with this "goal" in mind...nor am I convinced that this is the result obtained more often than not.. In cheap, entry level speakers I suspect it's used like this more, but to be fair, it's a worthwhile compromise usually.

Consider my old Paradigm Monitor 5's. They had an ungodly amount of stuffing in them - Dacron or polyfil, I can't remember exactly. The cabinets aren't the greatest, but typical of that price-point and performance level. Here it is used to compensate for resonances as Peter suggest. But there's a benefit too. The Monitor 5's cabinets should probably be significantly larger than they are. The damping allows you to avoid making an even bigger box of the same cheap materials, thereby reducing size, cost, and the problems that would come with an even larger somewhat poorly made box. Eliminate the quality of the cabinet construction for just a minute. Each woofer calls for a range of box sizes - there isn't one really, various properties will be "optimal" at slightly different volumes. Using damping material gives you the flexibility to try to make it so the woofer "sees" as many of these optimal values as possible. If my woofer calls for a 45 L box for flat response, and 40 L box for better efficiency and transient behavior...I'll make at say, 41 L and add damping material to make the woofer see 45L. The mass of the damping material isn't nearly as much as the added mass that the larger cabinet would have (as you add a few inches HxWxD of MDF, birch ply, or whatever)...back to the Monitor 5's, you damp out cabinet resonances, avoid an even bigger crappy box that you would have needed (that would introduce more problems), probably keep costs lower, and get closer to universally "optimal" size. Not really a bad thing.

You have to remember, Peter doesn't build speakers for the guy who wants a $400 speaker that Rawwks hard...he's catering to a more discriminating crowd. I think he'd sooner put a bullet in his head than meet the demands of people for whom the Monitor 5 is just what they're looking for. (even if we could argue they'd get a more refined speaker in the AX-2 for a bit more cash).

But there's value in what Peter says. Ed Frias, who owns EFE Technology, designed the ar.com DIY speaker. Since I've paid attention to it, the biggest initial "problem" most people have with the speaker when they first here it is it sounds "muffled" or (as you put) though someone was covering it with a towel...the problem is the damping. Madisound sends them acoustic damping foam, or upsells them Acousta stuff, and then instructs buildiers to use 1/2 lb of it....killing some of the speakers sparkle and snap (transients I guess) while dramatically adding to the apparent volume. Ed instructs a very lightly fluffed, loose handful of polyfill ($3 per 3/4 lb, enough to do 20 speakers or so), just enough to line the rear wall and damp any cabinet resonances, internal waves etc, because it sounds better.

Totem use a different damping altogether...borosilicate material (not cheap). It effectively eliminates the tangential (spelling?) and oblique modes...axial modes are pretty much ignored (much like AN's designs), and aren't a big deal in their small cabinets

That's what designers should be doing...strategically placing the damping material to compensate for the 3 kinds of modes. Peter seems to use bracing to address this. Too many companies just fill the bejeezus out of the cabinet and say "there, we damped them all".

To make this design philosophy possible and effective a designer cannot use drivers with high mass, long throw or large diameter, they are simply too "slow" and release too much energy into the cabinet, so rather than seek a piston effect, I seek a "pressure resonator" behaviour with minimal cone movement.

Agreed...low xmax drivers sound better to me than high xmax drivers. Long-throw is great for car audio buffs who want you to hear them coming, not so great for sound quality though (IMO).

I say, let's keep the box, but use it according to the laws of physics (meaning wide baffle and shallow depth) to reduce difraction and internal cancellation effects.

He uses an age old "golden rule" cabinet ratio. The dimensions will act the same regardless of which side the woofer is mounted (for the most part) The wide baffle doesn't reduce difraction effects though, instead it just shifts it lower in frequency. A good crossover compensates for this though, in both slim and fat box speakers. Fat box advantage is the ability of the cabinet/driver properties to compensate for baffle step loss more than slim lines, this can aid in keeping efficiency high. The advantage of slim cabinets is reduced edge diffraction and superior imaging and clarity. I think the real advantage in slim boxes is the imaging/soundstaging improvements, when combined with the increased placement flexibility you'd get in most rooms. Still, I don't think one is inherently superior to the other. Proper execution is required of both.

[Geoffcin]

I put this thread into the "Steel Cage" so Florian & RGA can have a slugfest, and here you go posting worthwhile content!

[JohnMichael]

I put this thread into the "Steel Cage" so Florian & RGA can have a slugfest, and here you go posting worthwhile content!

It must be nervous energy. In about two weeks he has a wedding to attend.

[RGA]

Kex.

Interestingly and you may know the answer to this with regards to imaging but when the AN's are positioned as designed in the corners the soundstaging and imaging are far superior then they are when left freestanding -- though with the K in my room when in the corners about 13 feet apart the speaker were much better with the soundstaging when freestanding -- the K is smaller speaker and a sealed cabinet. In the corners they had trouble -- too far apart -- slightly too big a room maybe.

Peter has problems with what he perceives to be a stamped on sound with many speakers imaging in that it is unnatural with most modern recordings and he likes to take out older 60's stuff to point out that his speakers have no problem with creating Soundstage and imaging when it is REALLY there. But that was a whole other thread. In my room now I don;t feel there is any problem with localizing any instrument on a stage that is at least as big as the front wall. And his speakers usually get strong reviews for both imaging and soundstaging.

And the interesting thing is that AN tends to have an incredibly open and big sound creating a vast presentation in space. I have heard many speakers in the press that are called great imagers that sound small and don't get out of their boxes. If you can;t even get one instrument to sound like an instrument then I wonder how one can think they image well.



Geofcin -- the particular speaker was one that would generate too much argument -- and I don;t want to pick on it because much of its direct competition doesn;t fair a whole lot better if even as good. Though I will say it was not a Totem and this company advertises a lot and adds numbers to their speaker every 3-5years.

[kexodusc]

Interestingly and you may know the answer to this with regards to imaging but when the AN's are positioned as designed in the corners the soundstaging and imaging are far superior then they are when left freestanding -- though with the K in my room when in the corners about 13 feet apart the speaker were much better with the soundstaging when freestanding -- the K is smaller speaker and a sealed cabinet. In the corners they had trouble -- too far apart -- slightly too big a room maybe.

Most AN setups I've seen where always in corners, with absolute perfect toe-in. What I mean by that is that the drivers were pointed straight at the sweet spot, so the acoustic centers would be delivering sound on axis perfectly. This could mitigate any diffraction issues and hindrances to imaging by reducing their apparent leve relative the initial sound...I'm only guessing here though. While slim cabinets might image better, that's not the same as saying fat boxes don't image well. Many do.
I've always been impressed with the imaging abilities of small HTIB speakers. Some image better than some big name, audiophile type stereo speakers. But they lack detail, accuracy and still sound like crap. Imaging is just one aspect of a speaker, important, but not the definitive criteria IMO. Being able to perfectly localize an instrument that <i>should</i> sound like a guitar isn't cutting it.

Peter has problems with what he perceives to be a stamped on sound with many speakers imaging in that it is unnatural with most modern recordings and he likes to take out older 60's stuff to point out that his speakers have no problem with creating Soundstage and imaging when it is REALLY there. But that was a whole other thread. In my room now I don;t feel there is any problem with localizing any instrument on a stage that is at least as big as the front wall. And his speakers usually get strong reviews for both imaging and soundstaging.

Modern recordings do present "fake" imagery and soundstages. But the playing field here is level for all speakers. Being 5% better and soundstaging and 3-D imaging won't compensate for being 10% poorer in resolution and accuracy. Well, that might vary according to taste. Room acoustics and speaker placement contribute a lot here. I'm guessing AN's are generally further separated horizontally than most standard speakers, which are a few feet from the side walls. This would allow the AN's to compensate a bit for presenting slighty more narrow soundstages. So same result, different path? I think the key here is that alone, corner placement or wide baffles might not be ideal. But all the AN design aspects and setup recommendations are designed to work together. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's better or worse. Just different.

And the interesting thing is that AN tends to have an incredibly open and big sound creating a vast presentation in space. I have heard many speakers in the press that are called great imagers that sound small and don't get out of their boxes. If you can;t even get one instrument to sound like an instrument then I wonder how one can think they image well.

Hmm. I don't know about the "stuck in their box thing"...Most speakers I've heard always tend to sound bigger to me than their physical size. I've heard vocals and strings with very accurate timbres on some speakers that really do sound incredibly close to the real thing. But brass instruments, winds, and bagpipes (not sure what they fall under?) I have yet to hear faithfully recreated in a convincing manner to me on any speaker - not the B&W Nautilus, the AN E, not the K-Horn, not any planar or electrostat, no t-line or pipe, not even my beloved Focus Audio FS-788. Close but no cigar. I think speakers still have a long way to go in some areas.

[RGA]

I was looking for these ones too Kex so I'll add it here. Really one should just buys what they likes. It's all too much of a headache. I go in and let the company prove their technology to me. It's designed to reproduce musuc and all the technobabble in the world can;t save them from the cold light of the listening room side by side comparisons. That is where truth is separated from advertising.

Dear John,
If you have been around for as long as you say then you should be able to remember that many of the self same designers that you mention were espousing different view on many matter 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

You may not recognise the fact that "low diffraction" and small narrow baffles are mutually exclusive, because this is governed by laws of physics that neither I nor anyone else can change, whether we like it or not.

You put your finger on it, being "in" with the latest fads helps little in this regard, as it changes nothing apart from creating the illusion that something important has been done and as you know fashion is only a fleeting "passion".

Not accepting the fact that narrow baffles have poor and very uneven dispersion behaviour is like denying that gravity exists, just step up on a roof and take one step forward and you will soon realise that whilst you may not believe in gravity, gravity certainly believes in you, then let me know which hospital you end up in and I shall send some flowers and a card wishing you a speedy recovery.

Whilst you are recovering may I again recommend reading Beranek, McLaughlin and Ohlsson, they tell you what you need to know about waveform propagation, you will then soon see that there is nothing old fashioned about wide baffles for starters, because there is no "moving on" from the fundamental waveform behaviour, nature sees to that.

All modern designers try to do is to circumvent the laws of physics in order to get an edge in appearance stakes, manipulation of the measurement techniques are widespread and are now more used as marketing tools than as guides to whether the speaker is actually any good.

I know that we are all working on creating an illusion with reproduced sound, but I never thought that the illusion goes as far as creating a belief system which is mightier than mother nature.

Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup


Dear John,
Firstly, how many speakers have you actually designed and successfully marketed??

Since you are clearly a fully paid up member of current fashion club in speaker design, may I suggest that you go back and study two of the original works on acoustics and speakers, or perhaps 3,

a.) N. W. McLaughlin's Acoustics on McGraw-Hill, I believe it was issued about 1934, McLaughlin was probably the greatest mathematician who ever set foot in acoustics.

b.) L. L. Beranek's Loudspeakers.

c.) Any of Harry Ohlsons books.

These books contain the vast majority of what one needs to understand about sound propagation and acoustics, mostly forgotten knowledge as the industry has "progressed" towards commerciality with all its vagaries.

Now to comment a little on the rest,

1.) There several ways of achieving low frequency response and your contention that only a large diameter driver can do low frequencies is easily disproven, but rather than talk the talk you need to walk the walk and listen to a speaker which provides low frequency from a small woofer in a setting it was designed for.

2.) I don't understand why you would measure a speaker at 180 degrees and I have not measured or seen measurements on the NHT you mention, but I can tell you that I would have no real problem putting the 90 degree off axis response of any of our speakers up against any other forward radiating speaker, we would come out well there.

Remember here that 90% of all recordings are done with microphones that are not omnis and therefore the speaker dispersion at plus 90 and minus degrees is really all you need to "invert" the version picked up by the microphone.

Of all the products we make the speakers are not only the most villified but controversially the only ones which do well on conventional tests, see Hifi Choice's many tests for example.

3.) We go one better that simple time/phase alignment, we individually adjust and match the woofer's behaviour to the tweeter at the points where they both reproduce the same frequency, this is far far more important and sophisticated than the primitive practice of sloping the baffle a bit to "compensate" for the tweeters earlier and shorter response time.

The ear is far more sensitive to incorrectly matched start - stop anomalies than it is to minor static differences in frequency response, a fact which is neither well understood nor practiced by the loudspeaker industry.

We developed a way of measuring this behaviour realtime and ways of adjusting it as well over 15 years ago, and have been refining this since then.

To help you understand what I said in the next paragraph, basically in a 3 way speaker finding drivers which work together in such a way that it is possible to align their timing differences at two crossover points rather than one immense complicates the problem of adjusting the above behaviour.

4.) Again, I recommend that you listen to a speaker that achieves a response in a normal room size from 17Hz to 23kHz with good efficiency and ease of drive.

5.) Whilst I acknowledge that there is a lot still to learn (but not from current convention, I am afraid) I have much of the necessary experience, have you?

6.) The treble and midrange on the Lowthers was one of the best I have ever encountered, and I have owned pretty much everything over the past 35 years, from Voigt's field coil driven horns, Tannoy's original 1950's Westminster's, Siemens Klangfilm and WE cinema systems to B&W DM70s, stacked Quad 57's, Beveridge System 2's, Acoustats, to Hill's Plasmatronics, Heil's full range AMT, Snell A/IIIs you name it, I have at some time or another had them all and what they all has taught me is not insubstantial.

I rate the Lowther PM4 system and the Siemens systems as the best overall, but they are domestically almost impossible unless you live in a mansion, and very few of us do, so something smaller is needed.

Which is why we are here!

Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup

Dear Greg,
Quite correct, which is why we cross over at below 2.3 kHz and use specially designed units to tailor their response to each other.

Like you say, there are VERY few tweeters who work this far down.
Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup

They do not go above 14 Ohms either.

Impedance variation are in my experience not a great problem if it does not have a greater than 10 to 12 Ohm "window" and it does not go below 4 Ohms, but I think it is important to mention that a speaker's impedance is only one of several parameters that make up its general suitability to SET amplifiers.

Reflected load is a major problem in inefficient speakers when seen from the point of view of the amplifier, and whilst single-ended triode amplifiers without feedback have a high'ish output impedance they do not display any of the stability problems associated with feedback amplifiers, provided the circuit, power supply and output transformers compliment each other, the SET struggles with the combined "mass" of the drivers and crossover of inefficient speakers.

One parameter we "match" speaker behaviour to is the power transfer curve of a triode, because at the end of the day it is the end result that counts and we specifically design our speakers to have as flat an in room power response in the listening position as possible, when driven by a low power triode amplifier.

We design the parameters of all our drive units strictly with this in mind.

We also go to great length to make sure that both speakers in a pair have identical acoustic behaviour, in order to get decent stereo (or even mono) reproduction that is far more important than many of the highly touted "important" parameters used by other speaker makers.

It is a major advantage designing and making both "sides" of the "coin" because it allows you to gradually improve your understanding of what goes on between amplifier and speaker and slowly optimise the "match", unfortunately very few speaker or amplifier manufacturers are able to do this as they only design the front or back of the "coin".

The "specialist" speaker industry in particular appears to have very little understanding of what is best for a good amplifier, they have over many years relied on the premise that amplifier power solves all problems and squarely place the responsability for the end result of their poor understanding on the amplifier manufacturers' who have traditionally been forced to follow suit and make higher power amplification, which is a complex and poor sounding compromise

Dear RGA,
The market perception (supported by most magazines and manufacturers as it is) is that if there is "more" or "deeper" bass then you are getting something for your money.

This is not the case, in fact it is rarely the case that a sub qualitatively improves the music reproduction, generally the money would be better spent on bigger speakers or elsewhere.

The AN-E is probably the easiest to add a woofer to, the intention is to start at under 30 Hz and go down to around 12 Hz, it works pretty well, but having tried in different rooms the variability is too great in my view and positioning is very critical to get the right blend.

Single ended triodes is the only way to get proper bass, nothing else will do.


Dear TC,
The "leading" magazines certainly have a lot to answer for, imagine if they had had the courage to write what they REALLY thought about CD when it first came out, rather than just turn their back and bend over?

I spoke to many of the leading reviewers at the time(one advantage of being old is that you were there when it happened!) and what they thought privately was quite different from what they wrote in their articles.

Had they publicly said what they privately thought, it might have changed the course of CD and forced Philips and Sony to rethink their entire modus operandi.

Serious dereliction of duty and care to their readers, much like the stock analysts who recommend shares they privately denigrate.

Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup

Dear Pat,
There are almost no speakers that have a flat off axis response at say 30 degrees either side.

It is interesting that you mention the average omnidirectional response, when did you last see one of these measurements in a modern audio magazine??

I never said power response was new, but almost no-one uses this today, and it is a good indicator of performance.

I think the reason we see neither of these measurements any longer is that modern speakers with their shallow deep cabinets and resulting poor and very uneven off axis response do badly when measured at listening distance.

50 inches is about 1 meter 25 centimeters, that is close enough to one meter, 2 - 3 meters are not really valid either, as you need to take into consideration the room reflections and their influence on the sound, as what you hear is always in the listening position, so why not measure where you sit?

Paul Messenger from Hifi Choice generally measures at a distance similar to listening distance and his overall measurements tell you more about the sonic balance of most of the speakers he measures.

I aim to make a speaker with a virtually perfect hemispherical dispersion behaviour, which is why I like wide shallow cabinets, in my view a speaker should have an even non jagged drop off as you move from 30 to 60 to 90 degrees off axis in all directions in order to be able to present the room with an even energy waveform.

Likewise, it is important that the speakers within the pair are acoustically identical, otherwise it is difficult to reproduce stereo.

Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup

[kexodusc]

You may not recognise the fact that "low diffraction" and small narrow baffles are mutually exclusive, because this is governed by laws of physics that neither I nor anyone else can change, whether we like it or not.

All modern designers try to do is to circumvent the laws of physics in order to get an edge in appearance stakes, manipulation of the measurement techniques are widespread and are now more used as marketing tools than as guides to whether the speaker is actually any good.

This guy can repeat himself a billion times, and his devoted followers can revel in every word he speaks, but it doesn't make his statements true all the time.

I don't even by the fashion argument he's presenting. Wide baffles with pretty wood finishes wood look every bit as good. I don't understand why he thinks baffle size is related to fashion at all. If anything, cabinet depth is every bit as intrusive and annoying, who wants their speakers jutting out 4 feet into a room?

Just use some common sense here. Severity of primary baffle diffractions is directly related to the surface area of the baffle. Given a fixed height, the narrow baffle has less surface area. Less speaker to diffract off of. The wider you make the baffle, the wider the range of frequencies that will experience some diffraction. This will be mitigated some by lowering the frequencies for which edge diffraction becomes a concern (larger wavelengths). Again, the few extra inches of baffle width will impact the imaging ability of a speaker some....but it shouldn't be a deal breaker. The trade-off is the benefits afforded the lower midrange/bass region. This has been well documented for over 50 years too. You can't just pick and choose which laws of physics you want to apply...that's what marketing departments do.

Dear John,
Firstly, how many speakers have you actually designed and successfully marketed??

I get the feeling this John guy must have pissed Peter off? I don't see any relevance in his question. Dr. Bose has successfully designed and marketed more speakers than Peter. Does that make him more of an authority?

1.) There several ways of achieving low frequency response and your contention that only a large diameter driver can do low frequencies is easily disproven, but rather than talk the talk you need to walk the walk and listen to a speaker which provides low frequency from a small woofer in a setting it was designed for.

Peter's quite right here...but then again, all things equal, diameter size is probably the best way to extend bass - then it becomes a question of which side-effects do you want to tackle. I think that's more of a personal taste thing.

2.) I don't understand why you would measure a speaker at 180 degrees and I have not measured or seen measurements on the NHT you mention, but I can tell you that I would have no real problem putting the 90 degree off axis response of any of our speakers up against any other forward radiating speaker, we would come out well there.

Who the hell listens to speakers at 90 degree angles? If I was Peter, I wouldn't waste my time responding to nut bars like this guy.

3.) We go one better that simple time/phase alignment, we individually adjust and match the woofer's behaviour to the tweeter at the points where they both reproduce the same frequency, this is far far more important and sophisticated than the primitive practice of sloping the baffle a bit to "compensate" for the tweeters earlier and shorter response time.

I think Peter is out of date with current practices. The "sloping the baffle" trick is rarely done anymore.

The ear is far more sensitive to incorrectly matched start - stop anomalies than it is to minor static differences in frequency response, a fact which is neither well understood nor practiced by the loudspeaker industry.

Yeah, to a point, there's precedence effect where very short delays won't be perceived at all. But I agree with him here. Poor transient response and sloppy driver integration is worse IMO than a +/- 4 dB response.

To help you understand what I said in the next paragraph, basically in a 3 way speaker finding drivers which work together in such a way that it is possible to align their timing differences at two crossover points rather than one immense complicates the problem of adjusting the above behaviour.

It doesn't have to...besides, I thought they had developed a super great 15 year old method of doing this?

Dear Greg,
Quite correct, which is why we cross over at below 2.3 kHz and use specially designed units to tailor their response to each other.

Like you say, there are VERY few tweeters who work this far down.

I wish I knew Greg's question...but I disagree with Peter's last statment. I have in my possession 3 tweeters that can be crossed over below 1600 Hz, one as low as 1200 Hz.
There's plenty out there. Maybe it's a more recent development though? Morel and Usher make a bunch.

Dear RGA,
The market perception (supported by most magazines and manufacturers as it is) is that if there is "more" or "deeper" bass then you are getting something for your money.

This is not the case, in fact it is rarely the case that a sub qualitatively improves the music reproduction, generally the money would be better spent on bigger speakers or elsewhere.

Again, just because Peter says it, doesn't make it true. Some people probably don't like subwoofers. My 15" sealed sub is easily integrated with my speakers, is very musical, and greatly improves the qualitative element for music reproduction. Maybe it's because it's not long-throw, high excursion, gimmicky design?

Serious dereliction of duty and care to their readers, much like the stock analysts who recommend shares they privately denigrate.

Was this for my benefit? Any charted stock analyst wouldn't publicly recommend shares they privately denigrate. That would be in violation of their Code of Ethics (most of us do adhere to these, out of fear of the brutal fines and impossible re-entry to the industy). Any recommendations should be supported by substantial analysis and risk measurement.

The magazine reviewers and speaker manufacturer/marketers would be well served adopting a similar Code of Ethics.

There are almost no speakers that have a flat off axis response at say 30 degrees either side.

Guess it depends by the definition of flat...if +/- 3 dB can be considered flat, then I disagree. If +/- 3 dB up to 15 KHz or so can be considered effectively flat, then I very much disagree...
Is it possible Peter got so frustrated with speakers that he's just completely ignored the market in recent years?

I never said power response was new, but almost no-one uses this today, and it is a good indicator of performance.

Yes, Yes, Yes!

I think the reason we see neither of these measurements any longer is that modern speakers with their shallow deep cabinets and resulting poor and very uneven off axis response do badly when measured at listening distance.

Those measurements aren't a trait of the cabinet shape. I think it's fair to say there's just a lot more bad narrow baffle designs than there are bad wide baffle designs these days. Don't blame the baffle, blame designer.

50 inches is about 1 meter 25 centimeters, that is close enough to one meter, 2 - 3 meters are not really valid either, as you need to take into consideration the room reflections and their influence on the sound, as what you hear is always in the listening position, so why not measure where you sit?

Paul Messenger from Hifi Choice generally measures at a distance similar to listening distance and his overall measurements tell you more about the sonic balance of most of the speakers he measures.

I agree that a 1 meter listening position is not indicative of the speakers application. The problem is moving out further into the room will result in measurements being influenced heavily by the room itself. Subtracting this influence from the equation is extemely difficult. Worse, much like a speaker and a cabinet interact differently with each other, a given speaker interacts with a room differently than another speaker beside it. It's not even fair to say that both speakers are in the same room. Problem is we design speakers to fit in rooms, we don't include the room in the design. This is first compromise for all speakers.
Second problem - have you ever heard a speaker that didn't measure as well as nother speaker, but sounded better than it? I have...this tells me there's a few measurements missing.

I aim to make a speaker with a virtually perfect hemispherical dispersion behaviour, which is why I like wide shallow cabinets, in my view a speaker should have an even non jagged drop off as you move from 30 to 60 to 90 degrees off axis in all directions in order to be able to present the room with an even energy waveform.

Just an afterthought...you can eliminate the jagged drop off he describes in the crossover. He's probably doing this anyway with his designs, the wider baffle doesn't eliminate the drops, it just shifts them lower (kind of like what he doesn't like to do with energy by damping).

Likewise, it is important that the speakers within the pair are acoustically identical, otherwise it is difficult to reproduce stereo.

My father listens to more music than anyone I know. I've built him 2 nice systems, but for whatever reason he still spends a great deal of time enjoying music on some lesser equipment he has - ghetto blaster, FM stereo clock radio...
Sometimes I think we get carried away here...if he can get into music with such obviously crappy systems, what is he hearing that we aren't?

[RGA]

I'm not going to tackle any of the points Kex because I'm not him and I can't speak for him -- I merely let what I hear speak for what I will buy -- it was just for interest sake. It is clear that he doesn't buy into what is viewed in the majority -- and it is precisely why bringing up what is the established practice or view of theory is largley not going to go over well in his books. I spoke to a non audio note dealer who said that slim line is fashion and good for business - because it helps sell home theater packages takes up far less floor space and most have such aneamic bass that eventually most everyone comes back to buy a subwoofer -- This dealer sold M&K to George Lucas and his father invented the sand filling system for Wharfedale) Even Wharfedale went from VASTLY superior Vanguard and their high efficiency series to crappola let's copy B&W tweeter on top Modus speakers. Maybe they image better than the Vanguards but that;s sure as hell all they MIGHT do better.

And the Reference 3a MM De Capo has a sloped baffle as do speakers like Thiel. Neither are particularly old.

John is an NHT Dealer FYI

He said few tweeters -- not no tweeters -- and then knowing him he probably doesn;t consider ones that are not worth considering

In the three way he mentioned I get the impression he is referring to the middle driver which has two points to be worked to match the bass driver and then to the tweeter. That is far more difficult than hust worring about one point. Though, he is working on the type A which was three way. Difficult but he didn't say impossible.

Subs -- still waiting be convinced by one but we've been down that road -- I ain;t buying one on the promise that I will like it -- they have to prove it to me that I will like it -- which means the sub maker should write in stone that they themselves will set-up the store demo if it's an issue that highly trained outlets are incompetant and can't set-up a basic sub. I like to test drive the car too --- don;t promise me that a Hyundai Pony can handle like there's no tomorrow and it will peel off the line like the best of them -- prove it to me.

The AN E measures better off axis than it does on axis - in another thread he wanted the polar response curves broght back.

Slim lines were brought out for appearance - sorry if you can;t see this but slim is sexy - not fat and plump and we see it in fashion. Sleek lines - preferably silver, with cool looking cabinets (Dark Cherry woods) speakers that take up less and less sapce for smaller and smaller apartments. When i first saw the AN speakers my first thought was UUUUUGLY!

I'd probably agree with your points on the baffle if I could be absolutely convinced that say a Paradigm Studio 100, or Totem mani 2 with it's narrow deep cabbinet imaged better in any way. It sure doesn't sound like they do. I have not heard the Mani 2 for long but a fellow teacher in this district took all of ten minutes to decide to trade his mani 2 for the AN E and when talking to him he felt there was not a single area of sionic reproduction that the Mani 2 won out. Much less bass which required way more power, far less headroom less open smaller soundstage, tonally outclassed and on and on. Unlike him I never did a side by side so I can't say. My audition was with parasound and bryston separates and i kept wondering why the Speaker was $4,000.00Cdn. (Apparently $1k down). this fellow I met but another fellow with the exact same speaker trade em in for the E as well.

I can't discuss the technical merits of his layperson arguments - I know that at my listening position when comparing speakers in the same room his sound "clearer" and I can make out more of what is going on -- which is abundantly noted at lower listening levels. With the 705 a speaker that in my view has terrible resolving ability with all it's pluses in the techy arguemnt field it's a piece of unmitigated crap at the price they're charging. it's not IMO good but different it's different and I can;t hear what I hear on another speaker like pressure, scale dynamics remotely half decent bass response.

Then again the answer may be back to the long throw woofer, lack of driver integration, lack of matching driver sonics, the high 4khz crossover point and the kevlar performance at 4khz -- that John guy seems to hate the terrible choice of crossover in the B&W's and the Kevlar midwoofer. I don't know nothing about all that because I don't care -- I just know they irritate me. Just like I don;t care why a bridge can support the weight of 100 cars -- I just know that it does or does not. And as a driver that;s what I want to know. As a listener it's gotta sound good. Unfortunately, when we get into what sounds good then we're into preferneces which then is like arguing about movies. The Shawshank Redemption is a better movie than Oasis of the Zombies -- but I can't prove that it is. Of course RGA is all knowing so I am right

[kexodusc]

Like I said earlier, while unorthodox by some standards, all of Peter Q's design considerations depend on them being used together. This is fine. He's certainly not the only one to ever come up with his ideas though. I can't say anything bad about the AN's I've heard. I just have yet to blown away by them compared to some speakers in their price range (not talking about B&W or Paradigm). In my books they're just another great option.

But then, some people like Maggies better than AN's, to each their own.

As for the slim speakers taking up less space - they don't. a 1 cubic foot box is 1 cubic foot whether it's placed with the fat side staring out or the thin side. A few people might tell you it's all about looks, and to some, maybe it is. I don't buy that though.

I suspect as AN matures and catches on we'll begin to see copy cat designs. Maybe you'll see the retro-fat box look become fashionable? Who knows.

[RGA]

Well kex I probably should not say this on a public forum but Boston Acoustics owns the same rights to the original Snell design that Peter Qvortrup owns. Theoretically, this means that starting now Boston Acoustics could start building K J and E's. The owner of Soundhounds sells more audio Note speakers than any other speaker they carry and has been badgering BA to make clones of the Audio Notes largely because BA could make less expensive ones which may not have the silver wiring etc and may not be sonically as good but would be huge improvements over the sound of what BA is currently selling etc.

The BA rep said yes the AN sounds better than any of their speakers - and BA's owner had always wanted to be perceived better or more high end than they are. Terry wanted them to bring them out as a sort of classic line. They simply returned by saying, they sound better - but they can't sell because of the style. Peter has discussed the same thing with B&W designers in the past telling them the reason their speakers don't work as well is because of the cabinet. The B&W guys can't change the cabinet because to get the sound they'd have to completely change the cabinets, drivers and tweeters - The reply is that the AN cabinet is too ugly.

Sure YOU and ME may buy a speaker on sound and not care about looks and size and we even may be willing to pay $3-5k on a speaker. But the masses simply are not audiophiles - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is a reason B&O is sold at the biggest Vancouver high end chain and Bose at the second biggest high end chain and both are the biggest sellers for those stores. It is about STYLE that those two sell, especially with B&O. Big companies want big sales and in order to get big sales you have to give the AVERAGE person what they want -- affordable sexy speakers that do the job will fit the largest number of living spaces. Most people would not know a good speaker from a bad one and if they did they are never going to hear it at most of the shops selling speakers (BB and Circuit City and pseudo higher end dealers). Bose is number one why? Advertising advertising advertising -- they were excellent at it and they managed to create a mystique using science to back up that their approach really is best. Everyone who knows nothing about it when I talk to them about speakers talks about Bose being the big name. They do it without reviews to boot. Bose is a legend.

These big companies who want to sell use Bose as "THE" model and sound quality simply is not the first priority - which isn't to say they don't care but I get the sense from what I've heard from the speakers themselves dealers and audiophiles that Peter's view of "here's what we want the speaker to look like and how it will be marketed and here is your budget" THEN the engineer is told now make the speaker measurre good we want this line and this line to be flat if someone checks. The engineer goes out with the compromised set of instructions and does the best he can achieving what was requested. No one makes any final judgment on sound quality saying like Daniel Dehay (of Ref 3a) that this sounds better even though it doesn;t measure as perty - this is what sounds better and deliberately makes the decision for reproduction over a marketing decision. Interestingly his speaker gets rave reviews from the same magazine that kinda dissed the measured response which PROVES that what was measured is TOTALLY unimportant to the subjective experience. If the measurement which was said to be bad was of ANY use in the slightest then the subjective response from MOST everybody would be that it sounds like crap. And the fact of the matter is it isn't.

This is why Stereophile is run by a bunch of putzes. JA himself relies only on measured results yet he knows himself that his own experience with DBT was that eventually he went to a more expensive amp because it sounded better beyond the TEST ie beyond the scientific result. Yet for speakers he relies on "good and bad" mneasurements which are ONLY useful if and ONLY if it directly corerelates to the listening session. This is why that most speakers rate +/-3db across a large band say 200hz- 17khz or so and some measure to within 1.5db and still there is just too much of a discrepency in the result that it puzzles me why I ever paid attention to them. the Pradigm 100V3 and B&W 705 measure very well as to what the standardly used measurements consider to be good. To me it's totally unnaceptable

It is precisely that AN will never "catch on" as mass speaker like a Bose Acoustimass or B&W because they simply are out of fashion - even moreso when there are no grill covers.

Interestingly your point about space I will go you one better. Let's say that the slim line model X is the same exact internal volume and same footprint of the AN E. Chances are slim line X to sound it's best is 3-4 feet from the back wall and at least 2 feet from the side wall. The entire area behind the speaker and to the side of the speaker is completely wasted. The AN E would actually take up far less actuall living space because you could shove them out of the way into the corners. To me IF you have corners then these speakers are a benefit because you get more of your living room to live in.

Problem is many new condos and houses have goofball room configurations that seem to avoid rooms with corners or place those fake fireplaces in the dorkiest poisitions - then we're stuck with AN speakers to perform in rooms they are not suited for -- and while they seemed to still do well in the listening sessions of Hi-fi Choice -- it is less predictable to what Peter was going for. Like the Ferrari -- it might do ok off road but it may not either. With the J's out into the room I notice them more as being speakers than being able to ignore them.

AN speakers and really all their products are not supposed to "Blow You Away." If it does that then I'd be worried. I would also recommend you not evaluate the E from what you're hearing on the Kit. The Kit is based off the E/D. I've heard only one Kit E and perhaps not all kits are built equally but the E/LX is playing at a whole other level than what I heard from the Kit construction (which is a shame because the Kit had a way cooler colour finish). The biggest issue for me with the Kit E was that it had a rather dead quality to midrange sounded rather shut in and didn't have the bang on cohesiveness.

I think Bob Neil noticed this as well with his buig naim CD player and the AN cd player which didn't blow him away...it took him quite a while and a number of recordings to hear it "creep up on him"

Even my systems is marginal until I get a real source. I know what I am not getting because I heard what could be -- and all three of my sources are weak ass banes of my stereo.

Of course at the end of the day we just all have to pick something we ENJOY. I like Steven Rochlin's line just so long as we enjoythemusic then all of this is really secondary. It's not like any of it is a big deal. If I had bought the CDM 1NT a few years back and found the AN's it would not have been a huge deal -- a small financial cost to trade him or sell them and buy the AN's. And one day I may find something better. At one time I figured it would be tough to impossible to beat the De Capo int hat price band.

Omega may have something that will blow me away or Lowther or someone.

[theaudiohobby]

RGA,

I hope that you realise that quite a few who have heard AN-E side-by-side with the LVs, similar rated specs and target market, have stated a marked preference for LVs (even an AN dealer implied this in a conversation), and following from your comments sometime ago, it seems hat AN is definitely a much bigger brand in the US than in UK, there are a couple of reasons for this. It is foolish to speculate as to the exact reasons for, though the presence of the likes of Quad, Sugden, Linn, Naim etc does not help matters. Drastically different typical listening environments probably play a role in this. Also I think that AN speakers have to compete with a wider palette of designs over here.

[Florian]

Also don't forget that the original AudioNote maker was AudioNote Japan. But after a fight they broke up and left Peter in england with the sales right. Quite similar what happend to Tact and Lyngdorf Audio. Also the big publications dont rate the AudioNote products very good for their money. I have many old HIFI magazines here and some new ones where they generally ocupy the lower spots with the biggest price tags with the recommendation that you run them with AN electronics and have to like that certain character of the speaker. I am not saying its good or bad, but not for the mass of people.

-Flo

[kexodusc]

Sure YOU and ME may buy a speaker on sound and not care about looks and size and we even may be willing to pay $3-5k on a speaker. But the masses simply are not audiophiles - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Yes, I realize the masses aren't buying $3-5K speakers and that they aren't audiophiles. But read what I'm saying here - For a company like B&W or BA or whoever, there is still that very small niche market of people (internationally it's probably significantly large actually) who are looking for those speakers that they could cater too. Furthermore, niche markets are by nature more profitable than the mass market, because there's less competition eating away profit margins. My experience with "audiophiles" is that they don't give a rat's ass about looks. Tube amps or stacks of mono blocks with messes of cables ain't pretty, except to other audiophiles. But large, well finished wood cabinets aren't sore to look at excactly. I think simple is better, very classic looking. But looks AREN'T important to the people that would want these speakers. I suspect if the majority of people who are in the market for good sound with no compromise for looks, do hear something of value in AN, there will emerge some copycat, knock-off companies - especially from China, who are making some damn good knock-off speakers these days.
Or it could be to many people, they just don't sound as good as some competitors. Which is fine too. Let me invoke my "shape of the ear" argument...we don't all hear the same way, not even close.

It is precisely that AN will never "catch on" as mass speaker like a Bose Acoustimass or B&W because they simply are out of fashion - even moreso when there are no grill covers.

You're missing the point though...99% of all speakers won't catch on like Bose or B&W - they don't have to. The best speakers I've heard in recent months have been small, one or two man operations that aren't selling world wide. Instead, a bunch of carved out, but profitable, niche markets. I don't think most speaker designers or companies even judge success by the sheer size their company grows to. I can think of one designer in fact who really doesn't have much desire to expand at all, except he needs the new market opportunities to fund his research.

Interestingly your point about space I will go you one better. Let's say that the slim line model X is the same exact internal volume and same footprint of the AN E. Chances are slim line X to sound it's best is 3-4 feet from the back wall and at least 2 feet from the side wall. The entire area behind the speaker and to the side of the speaker is completely wasted. The AN E would actually take up far less actuall living space because you could shove them out of the way into the corners. To me IF you have corners then these speakers are a benefit because you get more of your living room to live in.

There ya go...I think AN's look very nice and classy myself. I'm sure someone could jazz them up to be even prettier.

AN speakers and really all their products are not supposed to "Blow You Away." If it does that then I'd be worried. I would also recommend you not evaluate the E from what you're hearing on the Kit. The Kit is based off the E/D. I've heard only one Kit E and perhaps not all kits are built equally but the E/LX is playing at a whole other level than what I heard from the Kit construction (which is a shame because the Kit had a way cooler colour finish). The biggest issue for me with the Kit E was that it had a rather dead quality to midrange sounded rather shut in and didn't have the bang on cohesiveness.

I have never heard the AN E kit, I've heard the AN E'spe. I think that's the standard base AN, maybe one step up? The same guy owns the K's and built the AN E's. He was very impressed with the kit, more so than the K's for the money, but he thinks that AN isn't selling the same drivers or design as the real E.


I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on Focus Audio...which are the best commercial speaker in the $3-7 K range I've heard...see if you can find'em, they aren't big at all.

[RGA]

Also don't forget that the original AudioNote maker was AudioNote Japan. But after a fight they broke up and left Peter in england with the sales right. Quite similar what happend to Tact and Lyngdorf Audio. Also the big publications dont rate the AudioNote products very good for their money. I have many old HIFI magazines here and some new ones where they generally ocupy the lower spots with the biggest price tags with the recommendation that you run them with AN electronics and have to like that certain character of the speaker. I am not saying its good or bad, but not for the mass of people.

-Flo

bose is for the mass of people.

Which reviews? Audio Note UK and Japan separated yes and the fact is neither is weaker than the other one. Kondo San is doing very well and focusses on more expensive pieces almost exclusively. AN UK makes some affordable pieces. But AN UK is responsible for a number of highly touted excellent products. They have a few weaker products like the AX -One and the Absolute Zero range which supposedly needs to be together to work best. But then that was the point of thing.

AN is about running them together because they were designed to work together. Nothing should be a surprise there. It's one of the biggest reasons that dealers can;t take them as a line -- dedicaing such a huge amount of resources to one company is not something many can do - not when it's a no home theater company with ugly looks.

[RGA]

RGA,

I hope that you realise that quite a few who have heard AN-E side-by-side with the LVs, similar rated specs and target market, have stated a marked preference for LVs (even an AN dealer implied this in a conversation), and following from your comments sometime ago, it seems hat AN is definitely a much bigger brand in the US than in UK, there are a couple of reasons for this. It is foolish to speculate as to the exact reasons for, though the presence of the likes of Quad, Sugden, Linn, Naim etc does not help matters. Drastically different typical listening environments probably play a role in this. Also I think that AN speakers have to compete with a wider palette of designs over here.

Provide the name of the dealer's shop, the name of the dealer and what he actually said and if you can his phione number and e-mail address.

Thanks

[theaudiohobby]

Provide the name of the dealer's shop, the name of the dealer and what he actually said and if you can his phione number and e-mail address.

Thanks

I will play a PQ on this one, request declined.

[Florian]

I would be interested as to how many people on here actually heard a AN UK speaker and what their impressions where. So who on this forum heard them and what did they compare them too. Considering that most people on here own Paradagim, B&W or Axiom i would be very interested in their opinons.

I will give the AN guys this. Running them with all AN gear they have a certain magic in the midrange that some find fascinating. All in all it wasnt a bad speaker, i know i said this many times before but just like RGA we are trying to piss each other off. He trashes my Apogee's and i trash his AN's.

Both speakers are for very special people who look for a very special and different sound. The AN's can provide this and so can Apogee's. I think both systems have their magic and their right to exist together.

So i would like to offer my apology to RGA for trying to completely bash AN products. I do not agree with their sound or price, but then again i am sitting on front of a speaker that cost me 11K used so who am i to judge and talk about price. Your AN speakers have a special magic and character that you find great and i like my Apogee sound. Its both great.

-Flo

[RGA]

I will play a PQ on this one, request declined.

Thought so.

[theaudiohobby]

Thought so.

Why would even you expect that I will divulge to you the name and email address of the dealer in question? He's running a business

[Florian]

To RGA:

I am also sorry for calling you deaf and all the other bad words i have called you. We both have a lot of knowledge and if we both stop pissing each other off we can really help a great deal of people.

Best greetings

-Florian

[RGA]

Flo does it really matter what other people think or what their impressions are? I mean the fact of the matter is there are many people who have heard the best Audio Notes and the best Apogees and ended up maybe buying Avante Guardes which would be something maybe you and I would not like very much at all.

There are many very experienced audiophiles who have been listening to music longer than we have been alive who would not touch a panel with a fifty foot pole and would discount any speaker like AN not using a big ass 115db sensitive horn.

And then there are the line array fans and the Lowther fans where it either has to have 15 speakers per side or no more than one driver.

It should not be very surprising that with all those different designs people are going to gravitate to something. Horns typically have attack and initial transients that nothing of anyone elses designs are even remotely alike. If one perceives that attack and transient as critical and they percieve it as being "right" then no panel and no Audio Note is ever going to convince them -- even if the Audio ntoe and panel do 50 other things better or may in fact be more accurate and the horn is overblowing it. If one perceives the overblowing as neutral they will argue that panels and the AN are not credible.

And this forum is not the place you should be posting in. Audio Asylum right or wrong is the forum with a wider net of larger bucked people who have heard a wider array of people. Speaker manufacturers enginners amp makers turntable makers cable makers and cd player makers, Stereophile reviewers post on that forum -- how many bother with this one?

You complained a while back that this forum doesn't have high end enough people - well that one does. There are people there with systems well over $100K some with systems over half a million dollars. And there are people who have heard a very wide array of gear some who own panels like Apogee some who used to have panels and went to something else and they may articulate the reasons why they made their choices. Which doesn;t mean anyone has to agree with their choice.

But look at TAH -- he supposedly owned an Audio Note speaker and went to the Quad ESL 57 -- there is a poster there who had stacked Quad 57s for decades and said the AN E blew them out the doors. So the point being that almost the same speakers involved with two very different paths as to their ultimate preferences.

[Florian]

That is properbly the first post i completely and gladly agree with you. Its very much a question about personal taste and financial ability. For me, i know that i will die with my beloved Apogee's in my hands and its a good feeling.

I am mostly in the Apogee Forum and two of my friends here own system in the 250K area so i get my dosis of High End from them a lot. It is not that i am against beginner speakers, but i simply cannot agree with some people that claim that their 1200 Best Buy box is revolutionary and that it beats systems that i strive to obtain.

All in all, i consider Audio Note (the Kondo), Apogee Acoustics, Magnepan, Dunlavy and some others to be truly special and legends in our fine hobby and ill gladly share it with you.

I am sure we can help a lot here and learn from each other in the process. I am glad we can write normally instead of the usual responses. This thread turned out to be quite good.

-Flo

[RGA]

Why would even you expect that I will divulge to you the name and email address of the dealer in question? He's running a business

Why he is allowed a preference like anyone else? - It is ok because it is easy to find out as all I have to do is send an e-mail to Peter asking him which of his dealers also carry Living Voice - not many likely do. I was hoping you would save me the step.

I mean Soundhounds' owner isn't afraid to let people know that he and all his salestaff think that AN is by far the best sounding line they carry. They only say it if they are asked for their opinion or recommendation - but by all means if you want Magnepan and Bryston when you walk through the door that is what they are more than happy to sell you. Soundhounds felt that LV was not good enough to carry - and interestingly they had Clearaudio in for turntable and dropped them as well - despite the raves in the press they felt that LINN and AN outclassed them in every way. So like usual it boils down to preferences along with what they feel their customer base will buy.

There is on very Stereophile highly touted amplifier cd player company they carry from England that Terry thinks is unlistenable. He owns the shop but does nto involve himself with selling it. Their sales staff discuss which brands to sell as hot commodities in the here and now and they sell a fair amount of this amplifier, cd player line because it's pre-sold befroe anyone walks through the door. But when the few who do the side by side listenings - they don't walk out with that companies' gear nor if they ask for advice of what the sale's staff's personal choice would be. Of course asking advice like that also leads to issues of profit margin as some dealers will tout which is most profitable for them or what they would like to move to clear stock.

I know Bob Neil carries Jean-Marie Reynaud and won't commit one way or the other because he probably does not need to since it's about preference as to which someone will like. And from his conversations the Reynaud's offer a highly desirable warm kind of presentation and I can understand any audiophile who would like to own a warm sounding speaker -- it is not to my preference but I get it and if I had to choose betweeen say a warmer Reynaud and an ear bleeding bright speaker I'd probably choose the Reynaud as well.

[RGA]

Flo

AN (Kondo) did not do all of the design work for Audio Note though he made them famous with the legendary Ongaku and Gaku-On. But it was Peter Qovortrup that made it a vaible sustainable and world wide known company and just as much his ears and experience with music (the largest collecetion of music as a personal collection in the world). Audio Note though also has Andy Grove and the top designer at the no longer in business Sonic Frontiers on their payroll. Andy Grove has made more affordable legends in the Kageki and Quad took him from AN for a period of time as well and now he's back.

The break-up out of interests sake was posted on Audio Asylum 5 years ago.

"Of Thieves, Liars & Magpies.
In response to Mr. Kondo’s posting of January 16, 2000, I would like to put his comments into the following perspective.
Mr. Kondo and I worked together for nearly 20 years and during this time we both benefited enormously from each other’s skills, knowledge and understanding. I have learnt a lot from Kondo-san and I hope that in a quiet moment he also appreciates my love of music, commitment to excellence and unyielding support. Our collaboration worked very well for many years, but as in many relationships, business or otherwise, the parties develop in different directions. I wanted to continue to pursue sound quality through further exploration of the single-ended output stage and all manners transformer coupling.
Mr. Kondo felt in contrast and I believe still feels, as he showed a push-pull 2A3 amplifier at the London High End Show in September 1999. Firstly that the push pull triode output stage can somehow be developed to marshal a return to superiority and secondly that transformers only belong in the output stage of power amplifiers. I always considered this an abandonment of our basic principles and since Kondo-san never presented me with any push pull prototype that proved to be better than any of the SE amplifiers he made, so I have stuck to my views.
The financial crisis in South East Asia in late 1997 polarised these two divergent philosophies, which then became emotionally and commercially incompatible and Mr. Kondo decided to break off our collaboration and we parted our ways.
It is never easy to break up after so many years and especially when it also involves a high profile brand, even more so in an industry infested with rumourmongers, hacks and carpet baggers.
After a brief legal argument Audio Note™ UK Ltd. retained the rights to the brand name registration and Mr. Kondo is now selling his amplifiers under the name Kondo™. The reasons for ANUK retaining the brand name registration are as obvious as they are logical,
1.) The value in the name was created solely and exclusively by Audio Note UK’s and my personal investment. Kondo-san took no part in the financial, strategic or commercial risks involved in building the brand name recognition.
2.) Registering a company under the name Audio Note in Japan does not in itself give the rights to a brand, only the hard work and expense building it is what makes it known and worthwhile, emotional attachment alone accounts for little in the real world. Since the product strategy, investment and most of the concepts were formulated in the UK with Kondo-san co-operating willingly, happily going along for the ride, for as long as the annual rewards were always on the increase. There was no-one crying foul then.
3.) In the end equation is it really so surprising that the brand name stays with the investor, I would have thought that this was normal practice, just ask anyone with money to invest about this and they will tell you the same.
Therefore there is no question of “stealing” the brand name, intellectually, morally or otherwise so I think we should leave Rossini’s masterpiece out of the discussion, attractive as the emotional connections may be.
Now to elaborate with a bit of history.
Since 1990 there were two Audio Note companies, one of which developed and produced its own products under the name Audio Note in the UK and which also specified and distributed Audio Note Japans products and the original company in Japan.
It is important to note here that it was ANUK who decided which products from AN-J should be marketed outside Japan, and the voice you hear in products like the ONGAKU, GAKU-ON, KEGON and M10 is a mixture of Kondo-san’s and mine. These combination of these two voices are inseparable in these products and was decided upon by myself, and as a result I often deemed many of Mr. Kondo’s products not suitable for wider distribution, much to his considerable chagrin. A fact that undoubtedly contributed to his hostile behaviour during our negotiations in late 1997 and early 1998 and to building his deeply aggrieved attitude later.
The original agreement was that ANUK would develop the more commercial part of the Audio Note product line (Levels Zero to Three). In addition ANUK should develop a product range complimentary to the Japanese products, capable of displaying their qualities and also provide an overall development platform for improving the concept of music reproduction shared by Kondo-san and I at the time.
With an investment over 7 years of well over one million pounds, ANUK went ahead and largely fulfilled its obligations under the agreement (which incidentally ran out in 1995 without being renewed and might I ad without much further discussion about brand name, strategy or new terms of contract).
As a small example, in early 1994 ANUK even paid to send an engineer to Japan to teach and train AN-J staff in quality control procedures, product consistency and layout (amongst other matters showing them how to get the power supply quiet enough to remove the feedback from the ONGAKU). Techniques and concepts that did not at the time exist in any measure at the AN-J factory, one of many such small investments that helped make the AN-J products more saleable.
From late 1993 I kept Kondo-san very busy building NEIRO’s, ONGAKU’s, GAKU-ON’s, M10’s etc., but by mid-1997 the emerging financial crisis in South East Asia started dramatically slowing sales. So for the first time in our relationship Kondo-san and I had to face the fact that sales were plummeting and orders to Japan would have to be reduced immediately otherwise overstock would kill our joint cash flow very quickly (these products are expensive to build).
Kondo-san absolutely refused to face up to this fact and make the necessary adjustments to his overheads. So instead of dealing with the problem himself and seek our co-operation to minimise the damage, Mr. Kondo pushed the entire responsibility on to ANUK’s shoulders by demanding that we “fulfil our obligation”. This was in his view that we should buy a minimum of what he could produce to keep staff and turnover regardless of whether we could sell it or not, in other words, ANUK owed him a living regardless of market conditions.
This I in turn refused to do, so stalemate ensued.
Until April 1998 when Kondo-san with complete disregard of all practical facts, our entire history together, all past understandings and with no consultation or prior warning whatsoever gave a UK company, PM Components Ltd., all rights to distributing his products. This in itself was bad enough, considering how the market for these products had been developed, but to add insult to injury and in direct conflict with our common interests (and with ill concealed malicious intent, I now believe). Mr. Kondo also licensed PM to use the Audio Note™ brand name whilst renouncing our use of it, completely disregarding the following facts,
a.) Turnover wise AN-J was very much the junior partner in the relationship, despite its longer history, and ANUK represented at least 80% of AN-J’s turnover.
b.) His ill-considered, irresponsible and callously one-sided action put the 30 or so jobs at ANUK in jeopardy by creating great uncertainty about the brand’s long term future. In addition to that putting 1000’s of our customers’ investments in our products in question through a potential loss of warranty and service back-up should ANUK fail as a result of his actions. ANUK’s turnover at its peak in 1997 was well over £ 4,000,000.00 and that represents a lot of customers’ investments in the future. How can he single-handedly decide to attempt to scrap that?
c.) The reality was and is that whilst the brand name originated in Japan, the ownership of the brand name had long since passed to ANUK through the way the original agreement was structured and the fact that the brand name recognition was paid for and created solely through ANUK efforts.
d.) PM Components had no experience in this sector of the market, a sector solely created by ANUK.
Interestingly and surprisingly, it appears that the terms granted PM were substantially less severe than what Kondo-san had demanded of ANUK in order to renew our agreement. One can only wonder why?
When you add the above up, I did what anyone else in my position would do, in order to protect our employees jobs, our customers and our own investment and ANUK’s future, I sued AN-J and PM. We soon won the first round, an injunction preventing AN-J from giving a licence to the name to PM effectively blocking its use.
So since it was Kondo-san who broke our co-operation and made the decision to venture out on his own, what is he so aggrieved and resentful about? Let me give you a brief analysis for your consideration.
1.) Without ANUK’s involvement in 1990, he would still have a small company in Japan, making high quality audio products. He still has, what happened from 1990 to 1997 were in the most part due to my efforts not his, so any profits or experience he has gained as a result should be considered a benefit, not a disadvantage.
2.) He is not longer travelling to shows that I pay for, showing demonstration amplifiers that I also finance. True, because to do this he needs to work within the framework of my strategy and concepts, using my money and my contacts built up over 20 years of selling quality music reproduction equipment. But this was his own choice, so why am I being blamed?
3.) He would have been unknown to most audiophiles because contrary to his own internal beliefs, Kondo-san became famous through my staff’s, our distributors’ and my efforts to put him in the limelight and explain our joint philosophy to the world. In this regard we gave Kondo-san a head start not many in the audio industry have had the benefit of, how can he be unhappy with that? His decision to leave the partnership has done all the damage necessary and nowhere has this been more clearly demonstrated than what has happened to our joint reputation, as a result, our time has been spent on damage limitation and thinking up new products.
4.) So now all he is having to do is what I did when we started seriously promoting Audio Note in the late 1980’s, start with an unknown brand name (Kondo) and build it to fame and fortune himself. Still without the drawback of complete obscurity (testament to our success putting Kondo-san in the limelight is the fact that you read his posting and that you are reading this now). The clock has been turned back to 1989, due in no small part to Kondo-sans own inability to act responsibly, logically and with respect for other peoples efforts, commitment, time and money.
All in all, misplaced anger and aggression rarely gets you anywhere, hard work generally does. So do what I did with the ONGAKU and our other products, go out, demonstrate your products successfully enough to be able to convince people to part with their money and show people that your products are as good as you believe they are.
Regardless of what anyone may think, I would like Kondo-san to do well, partly because I genuinely believe he deserves to, but partly also for more selfish reasons, who else is there out there to compete with at the very leading edge of audio technology?
Nothing drives you better forward than the hot breath of a benign, likeminded, but pursuing competitor!
I truly cherish the prospect of a genuine intellectual and practical competition with Kondo-san over whose creativity, ideas and skills result in the products with the best sound quality. In my opinion such a competition is in everybody’s interest and should benefit the knowledge base and debate generally. As a starting shot I am gratified to see that Mr. Kondo has adopted my suggestion of 1993, in his new d/a converter, of removing the over sampling and digital filters and replacing them with a simple analogue filter. I regard this new Kondo product a great recognition of the idea, so thank you for that Kondo-san!
There will always be some of you who prefer a different dynamic balance to the voice that my products speak with, so there is room for us all and if you are in the market for the best, both Kondo-sans and my products should definitely be on your shortlist.
This requires Mr. Kondo to stop wasting his time slandering and back stabbing ANUK and strictly concentrate on spending his time promoting his new products instead, which is more fun, more profitable and more positive anyway!

At the end of the day it is worth remembering that the treasure does not belong to the one who says he knows where it is buried, but to the one who invests in looking for it and as a result eventually finds it.

A simple truth, this particularly applies to anyone who claims that I usurped their “idea” of the over sampling free digital filter less DAC, as Justin Benn claims in his follow-up to Kondo-sans posting. This practice has, for your information, been around since the very first CD-players in 1982, so anyone who thinks this was their idea will have had to have been up mighty early, another severe case of sour grapes if you pardon my saying so.

The first Sony 16Bit machines used no over sampling or digital filters with a brick wall analogue filter, it sounded terrible. The novelty of our idea is to configure the analogue filter such that it does as little damage to the signal as possible.

I welcome debate on this and other matters.

Peter Qvortrup
Audio Note UK Ltd
18.01.2000

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...up&r=&session=