Audio Note speakers

[DSJR]

It's all very well to have an anything goes philosophy but in the real world that has consequences.

Take this (mostly positive) review of an Audionote system where the reviewer discovers that the system is dictating his choice of music:

Reviewing Reality: The Audio Note UK Experience – The Audio Beatnik

theaudiobeatnik.com

''The tweeter’s forward presentation in the presence region made it unforgiving with modern, post “loudness-war” recordings. If a recording was mastered with bright treble, I heard it. This made it tricky to enjoy some of my favorite electronic music, as I found myself trying to turn up the volume to hear more of the bass energy, only to have the treble energy start to overpower the other frequencies.

Conversely, the Audio Note system scaled up its performance appropriately when I played a higher-quality recording with more dynamic headroom. With audiophile recordings, the tweeter’s treble energy was spot-on''

Or this advertorial, https://www.techradar.com/reviews/a...-systems/audio-note-zero-system-963545/review

where something (a pang of conscience maybe?) prompts the reviewer to mention

''the tonal balance exhibits a mild degree of upper midband forwardness and this sometimes results in a sense of peakiness.''

But then he remembers that he's supposed to be selling this stuff:

''However, after listening for a few minutes, this impression diminishes and one quickly adjusts to what's on offer.''

In other words - 'It's badly flawed but you can get used to anything.'

May I comment please?

The Quad '57 electrostatic speaker has one hell of a character to it, due mostly to a 'beaming' tweeter panel. In a small intimate living environment where it's not having its limited loudness capabilitues or bass extension stressed, there remains a slight 'nasal' quality (a speaker designer called it a 'plastic diaphragm' kind of sound) which actually enhances string tone slightly.

The thing is in my listenings to various '57 based systems and one pair in particular over many years, is that one DOES hear through the character here, adjusting seating position just off axis for friendliest hf balance (tilt for best vertical at seating position and then just off lateral) and after that twenty to thirty seconds, the speaker effectively disappeared and the music was allowed to 'speak' instead, if you get what I mean. My passive ATC 20's (pre SL version) had a similar 'sound' when directly compared but the top was better as it had a much wider dispersion, which suited me back then as I moved around a lot while playing music, rather than sit meditation on the 'sound' of the system... I could never own these Quads, as I'd have destroyed them in no time in my 'HiFi hooligan' days, but these - and well sited 63's too in the days before they started coming unstuck, could do it too given half a minute to adjust to them.

So yeah, a 'different' presentation can be mentally adjusted for I feel, but obviously if the presentation is too 'different' from normality/reality (as our vinyl based domesticated PA systems were in the 80s - you know the ones...), then hearing a more honest/truthful/realistic knd of presentation can be a huge change (a bit like drinking tea or coffee without sweetening or heavens, without milk or cream )

 

[Mart68]

May I comment please?

The Quad '57 electrostatic speaker has one hell of a character to it, due mostly to a 'beaming' tweeter panel. In a small intimate living environment where it's not having its limited loudness capabilitues or bass extension stressed, there remains a slight 'nasal' quality (a speaker designer called it a 'plastic diaphragm' kind of sound) which actually enhances string tone slightly.

The thing is in my listenings to various '57 based systems and one pair in particular over many years, is that one DOES hear through the character here, adjusting seating position just off axis for friendliest hf balance (tilt for best vertical at seating position and then just off lateral) and after that twenty to thirty seconds, the speaker effectively disappeared and the music was allowed to 'speak' instead, if you get what I mean. My passive ATC 20's (pre SL version) had a similar 'sound' when directly compared but the top was better as it had a much wider dispersion, which suited me back then as I moved around a lot while playing music, rather than sit meditation on the 'sound' of the system... I could never own these Quads, as I'd have destroyed them in no time in my 'HiFi hooligan' days, but these - and well sited 63's too in the days before they started coming unstuck, could do it too given half a minute to adjust to them.

So yeah, a 'different' presentation can be mentally adjusted for I feel, but obviously if the presentation is too 'different' from normality/reality (as our vinyl based domesticated PA systems were in the 80s - you know the ones...), then hearing a more honest/truthful/realistic knd of presentation can be a huge change (a bit like drinking tea or coffee without sweetening or heavens, without milk or cream )

I agree about adjusting to a presentation, but swapping between, say, an ESL and a box loudspeaker is not the same thing as swapping between a system that has a peaky midrange compared to one that is smooth across the midrange.

I.E The first is just a different presentation which you can accustom to, the second is broken, and will show itself as unpleasant on some programme, or possibly all programme if it's broken badly.

 

[Waxx]

For me gear is functional, and the size should follow function. I have a open rack where most lives on, but always ahve to dust it off (or have a dusty rack) makes me more think about hiding it away in a cupboard or so. I don't like those glass ones so i guess it will be largely hidden. Speakers not, speakers are essential, and for me, good sound comes largely out of large speakers, and i can accomedate that.

But as my setup is fairly simple today, my rack is also to big. I mostly use one set of (diy) speakers in my living room, with 2 stereo Audiophoncs Ncore power amps, a minidsp flex as preamp and a Cambridge CP2 phono stage and a Technics SL1500 MKI turntable as the only other gear. My music player is a small computer hidden in the back of the rack and the data (music) is stored on a NAS server in my corridor (in a cupboard). So my huge hifi rack (an Ikea workbench) is way to big for all the gear i use there now, and i'm planning to make a new rack myself, more fit to my actual needs.

My office setup will be a tube preamp, tube power amp, dac and bookshelf speakers. I already have an old cupboard for that, it's just not in my hosue yet.

And my other setups are mostly for background music, so the gear is mostly hidden or not really visual relevant in the space where it's in. And i'm soon selling off some of my gear as i have way to much of it (in general, not only for music). I'm in a process of downstripping on material things, because my house is overloaded with stuff. Less gear but of better quality, that is what i want, for audio, but also for other aspects of life.

 

[Ron Texas]

I apologize if English is not your first language.

A moral threat is something you may feel endangers a system of ethics/morals. I meant that these things frighten you as they are a ‘threat’ to your ethos/mythos. You feeling fear/threatened by the existence of these speakers does not mean you are making physical threats.

You feeling threatened does not imply you threatened anybody!

English is my first language, is it yours? If you can't disagree with me or anyone else without insulting or trying to tear down your opponent you don't belong here. Your assertions are so ludicrous that I will not dignify them with a debate. It's too bad for you that you find any challenge to your belief system to be upsetting or threatening.

 

[Anton D]

English is my first language, is it yours? If you can't disagree with me or anyone else without insulting or trying to tear down your opponent you don't belong here. Your assertions are so ludicrous that I will not dignify them with a debate.

Seriously, I thought it was merely an issue of a language barrier.

Turns out it was just you trying to slip unhinged politics into the discussion.

Please, carry on.

Maybe Audio Note speakers are a menace to society?

 

[CapMan]

I’m not a moderator, but I’m sure one will be along shortly

How about everyone takes a deep breath and we reset

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Well, we do have "recommended and not recommended" components right?
When you come in with your BS about "dictating" to cover up your support of poor performing gear you do our readers a dis-service.. But it's easy to see you simply enjoy being a torn in the side of those of us who look to measurements and the science of audio to move the goal posts forward in the pursuit of High Fidelity. Nothing has ever been gained using the "sounds good to me" approach except to get the un/mis-informed to spend big money on crappy gear. That's what you promote here, sad.

Interesting. Because that is exactly the basis of the HK speaker testing. All of those blind tests were preference tests.

 

[Puddingbuks]

I’ve heard these speakers three times and was dissapointed three times. Always set up in the corners with heavy toe in. Sound is very colored and unnatural.

 

[Ron Texas]

I’ve heard these speakers three times and was dissapointed three times. Always set up in the corners with heavy toe in. Sound is very colored and unnatural.

When I had Snell EIII's (which these are based on) that's how I set them up. There was always a hole in the middle.

 

[Selkirks]

I started with AN-E's in the corners powered by a SET amp. Once I pulled the speakers out in the room and swapped the tube amp with a Devialet the sound was better.

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

That may be so, but it's a bit fascinating to see pictures of the members' HiFi systems. Why don't more people hide their HiFi solutions? Speakers I can of course understand the challenge in trying to do that as most people probably don't want big drapes in their combined listening rooms, living rooms where behind they put the speakers BUT the electronic part of the HiFi stuff? It is as easy as possible to put away amplifiers and DACs in cabinets so they are not visible. Then the audio equipment has gotten out of the way.

DIY subwoofer, why not build them into furniture so they are not visible? Or flat subwoofers that you can place under a sofa and so on.

Then we have the whole vinyl retro craze trend where, on the contrary, you would like to have a record player in a clear field of view, where the signal is also not as good quality as the best lossless streaming. Everyone at ASR knows that this is the case with the signal, but despite that, record players are used.

Some people, especially the ASR members, will view the role of audio equipment as to "get out of the way" and be as neutral as possible and "not have a sound of it's own."

Hi DanielT and others, I think with "get out of the way", Matt Hooper ment 'get out of the way' of the signal, keep the signal unaltered.
Very nice though, that with your post this thread became very friendly and cosy... for a while.
Edit: No offence to anyone and glad to see that it has become cosy and friendly again

 

[DSJR]

Interesting. Because that is exactly the basis of the HK speaker testing. All of those blind tests were preference tests.

As I understood it, the preference tests all came out in favour of the most truthful and better performing speakers....

 

[Ron Texas]

As I understood it, the preference tests all came out in favour of the most truthful and better performing speakers....

That's exactly why it's strange to have ASR members advocating in favor of colored speakers because it makes them happy or whatever.

 

[MattHooper]

I’m kinda with @Ron Texas on this - isn’t the raison d'être of this forum to provide fact/science/engineering based information on audio products.

Yes, that's what I believe and since this has been discussed many times on ASR, it seems most agree.

But it's not the position of the forum to tell people what they ought to prefer, or how people need to spend their money.

For instance, I owned MBL omnis for years and absolutely loved the presentation. Some here view them dismissively as "effects generators." Should they dictate to me what I OUGHT like? Should they dictate that I was "wrong" to purchase and enjoy those speakers? Can you agree this seems to be an untenable and unnecessary rabbit hole to do down?

Rather, it makes sense to say "here is how X gear actually performs; now you can make your own informed decision." For instance, if ASR measured a SIM Audio preamplifier and it measured no better than the much cheaper Benchmark preamplifier, this doesn't dictate 'you shouldn't want to own the SIM preamp.' Rather, one can say "You've been given the knowledge that the SIM won't sound any better than the Benchmark. But if you prefer the industrial design and aesthetics of the SIM preamp, and maybe love that cool big volume knob too, if you think that's worth paying for, hey that's up to you." This is as I've seen it the prevailing attitude on the forum (including from Amir)...with only the occaisional "my way or the highway" members as exceptions.

Tuning the sound to a preference is totally cool, but tone controls and EQ re the way to do it .

But again, if we care about reality we have to admit of real-world exceptions don't you agree?

Tone controls would not have turned, say, a Neumann or Revel speaker in to my MBL omnis. There's only so much you can do with tone controls. If you like the omni presentation, you buy an omni.

Likewise, with speakers like AN, IF you like the sound and IF it's possible to precisely duplicate the sound using a nuetral speaker and EQ, then that's a reasonable rout too.
But it MAY not be possible, so IF you like the AN sound (and you like the design, looks etc and can afford them) then it's reasonable to go with those speakers.

Along similar lines, I had a parametric digital EQ for many years. Out of curiosity I gave a few tries at EQing my Bryston SS amp to sound like my CJ tube monoblock amps. I could never do it (and I'm pretty good with EQ). And since I also just loved the design of the tube amps, and the general concept of tube amps, it made sense to keep the tube amps.

Also: I found that I prefer the tube amp presentation consistantly, on all the music I listened to. I wasn't in to fiddling with EQ all the time "I'll add bass to this track, cut treble for this track" etc. I prefer a set-and-forget solution that allows me to just turn the gear on, sit back and enjoy as much music as possible. And since the tube amps did that, as well as pleased me aesthetically and conceptually, they were a sensible choice instead of an SS amp and playing around with EQ, for me.

Imagine I design a car that pulls to the side in a certain specific way. Pretty crappy design, but just maybe you live in an area where the roads have exactly the right camber to offset that steering “feature” - it’s clearly preposterous,

If you designed a car with characteristics suited to driving the particular roads for which it will be used, then it's not a crappy design: it fulfills it's design.
It would be "crappy" in other context, trying to get it to do what it wasn't desgined to do, but it's not crappy for it's use-case. It's like saying a ski-doo is a "crappy design" because it works great on snow, but is ill-suited for roads. Well, if you want to ride on snow, not roads, the ski-doo is the right choice.

Similarly, if a speaker sounds to you "better" on the music an individual will be listening to, then that could be a sensible speaker to purchase for that individual.

but not miles away from what’s being advocated in this thread

I object to the term "advocated." That is how folks like Sal get all mixed up.

When I speak to products like AN or any other products that are unlikely to meet the goals of lots of ASR members, it is not to "advocate" for those products or "advocate" for the approach that leads to buying such products. There isn't a single thing I've written that advocates FOR buying an AN speaker in some general sense, or advocates for believing any B.S for a moment.

Instead I'm seeing if there is any "justification" or "defense" for someone choosing the type of product most ASR members would eschew. Justification is not advocation. I could justify, give reasons, why I like to play hockey in my off time. That is not "advocating" that YOU or anyone else "ought" to play hockey too. Likewise in giving the reasons I PERSONALLY have for liking certain gear, that is not "advocating" that you or anyone here OUGHT to do the same. Or OUGHT to have the same criteria and approach that I do. This is what we do here, when audiophiles gather: we justify our choices, which doesn't entail dogmatically insisting others must do as we do.

Cheers.

 

[MattHooper]

As I understood it, the preference tests all came out in favour of the most truthful and better performing speakers....

Correct. Listeners generally preferred neutral, uncolored speakers.

But the point remains that this WAS based on "what people like" not on 'accuracy/high fidelity" per se. And it does not rule out some people liking X speakers more than Y speakers, which may not be strictly dictated on which was the most accurate. This still admits of a "sounds good to me" scenario - the point of buying any of the speakers that score top in the HK test is on the premise that it will "sound good to me." It's a PREFERENCE score. Likewise, any listener who finds her preference is an outlier (and there were some variation in the HK tests) is also justified in choosing the speaker that "sounded good to me." HK-style scientific tests for preference say "THIS speaker the one you will MOST LIKELY find pleasing" - it helps you play the odds - but it doesn't dictate which speaker you ACTUALLY find most pleasing. That can be on a spectrum for individuals. Again...because the main object here was "preference" not STRICTLY "accuracy."

Further, per Sal's previous post:

"Nothing has ever been gained using the "sounds good to me" approach except to get the un/mis-informed to spend big money on crappy gear."

Floyd Toole has advocated the use of tone controls for changing the sound if one likes, as well as upmixing stereo to surround as well, if one enjoys that or is looking for more "envelopment." I guess he has sadly "mis-informed" people...because this is allowing one to choose based on "sounds good to me" and remember One Must Be All About High Fidelity At All Times....

 

[Duke]

Similarly, if a speaker sounds "better" on the music an individual will be listening to, then that could be a sensible speaker to purchase for that individual. [emphasis Duke's]

^^^This!^^^

Loudspeaker preference in controlled blind listening can change significantly with different types of music! I get the impression that the default assumption around here is that if someone prefers a particular speaker because it sounds better to them on a certain type of music, their opinion is flawed.

In Section 7.4.2 of the 3rd edition of "Sound Reproduction", Floyd Toole describes extensive controlled blind listening tests done with three speakers, from Rega, KEF, and Quad. Figure 7.16 (page 181) tabulates the scoring in stereo based on music type:

The KEF was the winner on Choral. The Rega was the winner on Chamber. The Quad was the winner on Jazz. The Rega was the winner on Popular music.

Or to put it another way, under controlled blind test conditions, listeners said "the KEF sounds better to me" on Choral; "the Rega sounds better to me" on Chamber; "the Quad sounds better to me" on Jazz; and "the Rega sounds better to me" on popular music.

So I think "personal preference" - i.e. "sounds better to me"- based on music type has a whole lot more validity than most people realize.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

As I understood it, the preference tests all came out in favour of the most truthful and better performing speakers....

Truthful and better? What is the objective metric for truth and good?

Regardless of the end correlations between objective performance of speakers and subjective preferences, the tests were purely subjective preference tests.

 

[CapMan]

If you designed a car with characteristics suited to driving the particular roads for which it will be used, then it's not a crappy design: it fulfills it's design.
It would be "crappy" in other context, trying to get it to do what it wasn't desgined to do, but it's not crappy for it's use-case.

I think you’ve paraphrased me in an entirely disingenuous way old chap.

It’s getting late and this thread is generating more heat than light so I will bow out

 

[prerich]

When I had Snell EIII's (which these are based on) that's how I set them up. There was always a hole in the middle.

They're actually based on the Snell E and the Snell E-II (drop the rear tweeter and replace the port for the Snell E-II). The E-III was and entirely different animal slimmer front baffle and designed by Kevin Voecks. The AN-E's are based of the work of Peter Snell. I'm a prior owner of the E-II's and at one time sought to convert my E-II's to AN-E's. I had a conversation with Peter Qvortrup as to what I would need to do (port change, crossover matching, change the woofers, and disable the rear firing tweeter in the E-II). That would give me the base line AN-E. Strange that you say you had a hole in the middle, the phantom center of my E-II's was wonderful. However I didn't corner load mine, I had plenty of bass from my subs at that time that I didn't need to place them in the corners.

 

[MattHooper]

I think you’ve paraphrased me in an entirely disingenuous way old chap.

I wasn't being disingenuous. I was sincerely trying to address what I took to be your point, which I inferred had to do with the unreasonableness of selecting gear with some coloration and hoping it just happened to work with playing back music. I then talked about vehicles in a way that I believe to be more analogous to the point of speaker colorations and music playback.

If I misunderstood your point, could you clarify what you meant?

It’s getting late and this thread is generating more heat than light so I will bow out

No heat coming from this side. Cheers.