Audio Note speakers

[DSJR]

Most of it is pure 'eye fi' you know, but not many will believe me here...

I was given a 1998 era technics mini system in four boxes and connected via ribbons to the tuner which is the real 'heart' of this little setup. The reliable and fairly quiet running when changing discs multi-CD player is a MASH job and has an optical digital output and there are aux/tap-in-out sockets too. the cassette unit is fine as far as I could tell, the tuner is excellent and the amp - well, it's an early switching type (class D) with rather limited power (mains transformer which takes up much of the middle of the casework and not very low distortion, the specs are at 1% and 10% I believe without looking). You know, despite estimated sinad in the forties or fifties at moderate power (it clips hard as these amps do). the speaker leads came with a ferrite on each (!) so I mimicked this with the 1.5mm gauge wires I used to connect to my similar age Wharfedales. You know, when not actively gazing at the thing, the 'sound' coming out is absolutely fine within its limits and I have used it for multi-disc audio plays with no feeling to want to put the 'better' gear on in this room...

If the punter loves what A-N does, then nothing we or anyone else will say will change their mind. hell, I'm an ATC (larger models 100A upwards) fanboy and love the chance to relax and play music via them. I have tried to keep an open mind as to the current state of the art, enjoyed time with Kii Threes one morning and admire the prices of neumann 150, 310 and especially the 420's which I'd love to hear despite the looks. Doesn't stop me still wanting ATC 100ASL's back in my life although it's impossible for very many reasons now (size, cost, commitment as I don't play music as I once did in my single days)...

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

Though it's nice to have a (very) good sounding setup and a hobby, I don't find that a requirement for getting touched or moved by music. It just can give a good feeling when it sounds clean, detailed, balanced, etc etc.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Präludium_und_Fuge_C-Dur_BWV_846_(Das_Wohltemperierte_Klavier,_I._Teil) on a laptop -

 

[MattHooper]

There are ultimately only so many ways you can say the same thing. It either moves you or it doesn't and if one system moves you over and over and over - and the other ones do not and do not and do not - at some point you have to concede that "however the designers did it" worked. And if it does it long enough with a large number of people (especially very experienced listeners) then there is something to it.

It's also important to note how variable this is in regard to audiophiles who have different aptitudes, personalities, approaches.

Some of my audiophile buddies are much less picky than I am about what systems they enjoy and can get in to for long listening sessions. That works really well for them.
Also, plenty of ASR members can choose gear just by measurements, and be entirely happy with the results. The reasons can vary, but among them, some aren't even approaching audio thinking that a system should have a "sound" or "character" but it just needs to measure neutral/well because they just want a neutral representation of the recording. If they assured by the specs that the reproduction is neutral, then they take whatever music sounds like through the system, and that's fine.

For some of us, through whatever combination of personality/history/personal approach, that just doesn't seem to work. To me a system always has a "sound" because I'm both comparing it to other systems, and to some degree, to real life, and noting the differences.

I went on a mega huge speaker auditioning search starting around 2017 to replace some too-large Thiel speakers in my room. I listened to "everything out there," most of the big names and also more fringe stuff. So it included various Focal speakers, KEF, Vivid Audio, Paradigm persona, various Revel, Kii Audio, Magico, Monitor Audio, Audio Physic, and more of that ilk, as well as brands like Audio Note, Kudos, Proac, JM Reynaud, Raidho, Harbeth, and many others. Two speaker brands stuck out by a long shot for my preferences: Devore O series speakers, and Joseph Audio. Of all the speakers I auditioned, those were the only two "Wow" brands with the "I can't stop listening" factor, where I just couldn't get my butt out of the chair, wanting everything I know through them. All other speakers I could just take or leave the listening experience.

I knew that various brands I'd auditioned measured better in terms of the "best practices" (often promulgated on ASR and elsewhere). Especially in regards to the Devore speakers which had been heavily criticised by the pocket-protector crowd. So was I going to choose a speaker that excited me and which made me want to keep listening? Or one that I knew measured "better" but for whatever reason left me mostly unmoved?

I can see how some ASR members would go for the latter, thinking "ok, I may *seem* to enjoy loudspeaker A over B even though I know B measures 'better,' but it's safer to go with B because knowing it measures better is valuable to me, and it may be simply visual bias affecting my audition in liking A, and hopefully choosing B means sonically it will be the better choice over the long run."

That's certainly a legit move. But this is were "knowing thyself" comes in. I can't do that. I know from my own long experience that I have NEVER once warmed up to a loudspeaker that initially left me cold, whereas I have almost always continually enjoyed the sound of a loudspeaker I initially liked. It could all be any set of variables involved, biases included, but the net outcome is that in the situation in which I actually use loudspeakers, this has been the case. So there's no way I'd risk a big purchase in buying the speaker that didn't move me...hoping that will change once I own it at home...vs the one that regularly made me enthusiastic.

And that 'works for me.' I made my decision, and the speaker I chose in 2019 (Joseph) has never failed to "wow" me year after year, and in my system, it never fails to make my butt glued in the seat, utterly engaged in the listening experience.

So, we all have our own approach.

 

[Richard Austen]

Most of it is pure 'eye fi' you know, but not many will believe me here...

I was given a 1998 era technics mini system in four boxes and connected via ribbons to the tuner which is the real 'heart' of this little setup. The reliable and fairly quiet running when changing discs multi-CD player is a MASH job and has an optical digital output and there are aux/tap-in-out sockets too. the cassette unit is fine as far as I could tell, the tuner is excellent and the amp - well, it's an early switching type (class D) with rather limited power (mains transformer which takes up much of the middle of the casework and not very low distortion, the specs are at 1% and 10% I believe without looking). You know, despite estimated sinad in the forties or fifties at moderate power (it clips hard as these amps do). the speaker leads came with a ferrite on each (!) so I mimicked this with the 1.5mm gauge wires I used to connect to my similar age Wharfedales. You know, when not actively gazing at the thing, the 'sound' coming out is absolutely fine within its limits and I have used it for multi-disc audio plays with no feeling to want to put the 'better' gear on in this room...

If the punter loves what A-N does, then nothing we or anyone else will say will change their mind. hell, I'm an ATC (larger models 100A upwards) fanboy and love the chance to relax and play music via them. I have tried to keep an open mind as to the current state of the art, enjoyed time with Kii Threes one morning and admire the prices of neumann 150, 310 and especially the 420's which I'd love to hear despite the looks. Doesn't stop me still wanting ATC 100ASL's back in my life although it's impossible for very many reasons now (size, cost, commitment as I don't play music as I once did in my single days)...

With ATC - I have heard ATC SCM 100ASLs several times - they were in my runner-up list to my AN Es. In fact, I bought my Line Magnetic 219IA SET amp based on my auditions with this ATC. I liked the fact that the amp could easily drive what are said to be fairly difficult-to-drive speakers - the LM certainly sounded better with the speakers than far costlier Parasound JC1 and Bricasti amplifiers.

Still, I preferred the AN setup largely because I preferred the "of a piece" experience to the ATC as I kept hearing a compartmentalized sound of what each driver was doing. It sounded like the music was in "sections" - I could hear what the treble band is doing what the midrange is doing instead of the more relaxed sensation of the AN system.

I get why there is a preference for the ATC - Steve Hoffman is a Recording and mastering engineer who has worked with ATC for decades - (plenty of photos of him in the studio with ATC) but I also get why now he has and prefers AN speakers (both at home to enjoy and now also in the studio.

@MattHooper implied that the listening is different and knowing something is technically superb is a kind of reassurance bias that the machine I bought is technologically superb/as good as it gets.

The listening is different - sitting at the front edge of the seat listening "for" sonic traits or feats of superiority vs sitting back in the chair and focusing on the artistic merits of the music. Perhaps it is so that audiophiles are more the former and not the latter. That's probably why someone like Steve Hoffman, and me, can perfectly well be impressed by an ATC and in his case work with ATC to master all those SACD recordings - but then when he wants to simply sit back and enjoy music - he uses an AN DAC, An AN SET 211, and AN E speakers.

I said way back - we live in a world now where most of us have enough money to have it all - we live in a time where people have more than 2 cars or 2 televisions or even 2 homes. So why do people continually debate vinyl vs digital or tube vs SS when it can all be had for relatively cheap? A Rega or Project turntable is not exactly a bone-crushing expense (the records may be). Even tube amps are not exactly mind-blowingly expensive. You can get a Line Magnetic 211 IA for something like $1200 that has a remote control ebay - https://www.ebay.com/itm/176116484935

To Matt - I get your first impressions stance but in my experience, too much can negatively impact those first impressions (especially at audio shows) - I hated Audio Note speakers when I first heard them - I also didn't like Joseph Audio ( I liked them more the last audio show I covered) - and I liked Devore when I first heard them but not since (albeit different models - I liked the 0/96 but not the Gibbon 88 or the 3XL). Some speakers are less reliant on the room - sitting in the typical triangular near field listening lessens the influence of the room boundaries - speakers like panels, omnidirectional, corner loaded speakers are more affected and why in my experience they have had a wider range of results. B&W speakers in most places I hear them are all set up the same from room to room - freestanding with some sort of hulking SS amplifier - they sound pretty much exactly the same every time I hear them and that has never been particularly good. A couple of months back I auditioned again to a $50kUSD floorstander - I wanted to hear the Nautilus but a kid apparently poked in the tweeter so the speakers were out for repair. Playing DSD hi-res files with a kw per channel amplifier - everything sounded either too bright or like fake.

The best I ever heard B&W sound was when Soundhounds, my dealer on Vancouver Island, decided to try the Wyatech Labs 211 SET amp on them - by far the best those speakers ever sounded - but the problem was that you could not play it very loud - and for the money you had to spend on the speaker and the amp which was again around $50k - you want to be able to play it loud. So it was poor value - but again within its volume capability boy it sounded really nice compared to all their other B&W setups.

 

[DanielT]

With ATC - I have heard ATC SCM 100ASLs several times - they were in my runner-up list to my AN Es. In fact, I bought my Line Magnetic 219IA SET amp based on my auditions with this ATC. I liked the fact that the amp could easily drive what are said to be fairly difficult-to-drive speakers - the LM certainly sounded better with the speakers than far costlier Parasound JC1 and Bricasti amplifiers.

Still, I preferred the AN setup largely because I preferred the "of a piece" experience to the ATC as I kept hearing a compartmentalized sound of what each driver was doing. It sounded like the music was in "sections" - I could hear what the treble band is doing what the midrange is doing instead of the more relaxed sensation of the AN system.

I get why there is a preference for the ATC - Steve Hoffman is a Recording and mastering engineer who has worked with ATC for decades - (plenty of photos of him in the studio with ATC) but I also get why now he has and prefers AN speakers (both at home to enjoy and now also in the studio.

@MattHooper implied that the listening is different and knowing something is technically superb is a kind of reassurance bias that the machine I bought is technologically superb/as good as it gets.

The listening is different - sitting at the front edge of the seat listening "for" sonic traits or feats of superiority vs sitting back in the chair and focusing on the artistic merits of the music. Perhaps it is so that audiophiles are more the former and not the latter. That's probably why someone like Steve Hoffman, and me, can perfectly well be impressed by an ATC and in his case work with ATC to master all those SACD recordings - but then when he wants to simply sit back and enjoy music - he uses an AN DAC, An AN SET 211, and AN E speakers.

I said way back - we live in a world now where most of us have enough money to have it all - we live in a time where people have more than 2 cars or 2 televisions or even 2 homes. So why do people continually debate vinyl vs digital or tube vs SS when it can all be had for relatively cheap? A Rega or Project turntable is not exactly a bone-crushing expense (the records may be). Even tube amps are not exactly mind-blowingly expensive. You can get a Line Magnetic 211 IA for something like $1200 that has a remote control ebay - https://www.ebay.com/itm/176116484935

To Matt - I get your first impressions stance but in my experience, too much can negatively impact those first impressions (especially at audio shows) - I hated Audio Note speakers when I first heard them - I also didn't like Joseph Audio ( I liked them more the last audio show I covered) - and I liked Devore when I first heard them but not since (albeit different models - I liked the 0/96 but not the Gibbon 88 or the 3XL). Some speakers are less reliant on the room - sitting in the typical triangular near field listening lessens the influence of the room boundaries - speakers like panels, omnidirectional, corner loaded speakers are more affected and why in my experience they have had a wider range of results. B&W speakers in most places I hear them are all set up the same from room to room - freestanding with some sort of hulking SS amplifier - they sound pretty much exactly the same every time I hear them and that has never been particularly good. A couple of months back I auditioned again to a $50kUSD floorstander - I wanted to hear the Nautilus but a kid apparently poked in the tweeter so the speakers were out for repair. Playing DSD hi-res files with a kw per channel amplifier - everything sounded either too bright or like fake.

The best I ever heard B&W sound was when Soundhounds, my dealer on Vancouver Island, decided to try the Wyatech Labs 211 SET amp on them - by far the best those speakers ever sounded - but the problem was that you could not play it very loud - and for the money you had to spend on the speaker and the amp which was again around $50k - you want to be able to play it loud. So it was poor value - but again within its volume capability boy it sounded really nice compared to all their other B&W setups.

Speaking of how one is positioned when listening or how to position the speakers, I thought of this thread below. I haven't gone that far myself. Then I'd rather use headphones BUT I really appreciate the, in my eyes, wild testing that UltraNearFieldJock engages in.
The lust for experimentation lives on.

Anyone has got or had an experience with ultra near field listening?

For about one year my absolute favourite listening setup is an active stereo 3-way (3 separate amplifiers) DIY construction with listening distance of 10-20 cm (depend on the Head position), made from HIFIMAN HE500, Visaton AL-180 for the bass (analogue crossover) and 2 x Dayton Epique E180 via...

audiosciencereview.com

__

I'm curious. Richard, you seem to have good finances, have a large listening room and like tube amps. Have you not tried horn speakers? Low powered tube amps and horns are a classic combination.

There aren't that many commercial horn speakers and the ones that do exist I think are very expensive, in my eyes with my wallet anyway, but I don't think that in itself is an obstacle for you. Horns usually also fit well in large listening rooms, among other things because their physical size in a large room is not so noticeable then, so to speak.
If money is not an obstacle, you can also,if you cannot find commercial horns that fit, hire a carpentry company to build them according to wishes.

 

[DSJR]

With ATC - I have heard ATC SCM 100ASLs several times - they were in my runner-up list to my AN Es. In fact, I bought my Line Magnetic 219IA SET amp based on my auditions with this ATC. I liked the fact that the amp could easily drive what are said to be fairly difficult-to-drive speakers - the LM certainly sounded better with the speakers than far costlier Parasound JC1 and Bricasti amplifiers.

Still, I preferred the AN setup largely because I preferred the "of a piece" experience to the ATC as I kept hearing a compartmentalized sound of what each driver was doing. It sounded like the music was in "sections" - I could hear what the treble band is doing what the midrange is doing instead of the more relaxed sensation of the AN system.

I get why there is a preference for the ATC - Steve Hoffman is a Recording and mastering engineer who has worked with ATC for decades - (plenty of photos of him in the studio with ATC) but I also get why now he has and prefers AN speakers (both at home to enjoy and now also in the studio.

@MattHooper implied that the listening is different and knowing something is technically superb is a kind of reassurance bias that the machine I bought is technologically superb/as good as it gets.

The listening is different - sitting at the front edge of the seat listening "for" sonic traits or feats of superiority vs sitting back in the chair and focusing on the artistic merits of the music. Perhaps it is so that audiophiles are more the former and not the latter. That's probably why someone like Steve Hoffman, and me, can perfectly well be impressed by an ATC and in his case work with ATC to master all those SACD recordings - but then when he wants to simply sit back and enjoy music - he uses an AN DAC, An AN SET 211, and AN E speakers.

I said way back - we live in a world now where most of us have enough money to have it all - we live in a time where people have more than 2 cars or 2 televisions or even 2 homes. So why do people continually debate vinyl vs digital or tube vs SS when it can all be had for relatively cheap? A Rega or Project turntable is not exactly a bone-crushing expense (the records may be). Even tube amps are not exactly mind-blowingly expensive. You can get a Line Magnetic 211 IA for something like $1200 that has a remote control ebay - https://www.ebay.com/itm/176116484935

To Matt - I get your first impressions stance but in my experience, too much can negatively impact those first impressions (especially at audio shows) - I hated Audio Note speakers when I first heard them - I also didn't like Joseph Audio ( I liked them more the last audio show I covered) - and I liked Devore when I first heard them but not since (albeit different models - I liked the 0/96 but not the Gibbon 88 or the 3XL). Some speakers are less reliant on the room - sitting in the typical triangular near field listening lessens the influence of the room boundaries - speakers like panels, omnidirectional, corner loaded speakers are more affected and why in my experience they have had a wider range of results. B&W speakers in most places I hear them are all set up the same from room to room - freestanding with some sort of hulking SS amplifier - they sound pretty much exactly the same every time I hear them and that has never been particularly good. A couple of months back I auditioned again to a $50kUSD floorstander - I wanted to hear the Nautilus but a kid apparently poked in the tweeter so the speakers were out for repair. Playing DSD hi-res files with a kw per channel amplifier - everything sounded either too bright or like fake.

The best I ever heard B&W sound was when Soundhounds, my dealer on Vancouver Island, decided to try the Wyatech Labs 211 SET amp on them - by far the best those speakers ever sounded - but the problem was that you could not play it very loud - and for the money you had to spend on the speaker and the amp which was again around $50k - you want to be able to play it loud. So it was poor value - but again within its volume capability boy it sounded really nice compared to all their other B&W setups.

Funny this... In my ATC 100A days I never listened to the *sound* of the system, nor did I find the sound 'compartmentalised.' The *music* totally took over completely in a way any subsequent sound rig I've tried to live with since, didn't/doesn't and as I said, I could hear same genres (usually jazz which isn't my main taste) live and not be comparing. I had scale, I had pretty darned good timbres, synth bass sounded good and that old Vifa based tweeter didn't show itself as it did in the early curvy-case 20ASL Pro's I had. For me, they were *my* end game and had I the room and money, they could be again in classic veneered stand-mount form although others have come along at far lower prices to maybe steal the advantages the 100A's once had over most 'domestic' boxes (I'm thinking of KH420's for a start which seem so good at half the price if visuals aren't so important). The only thing ATC's back then didn't like was excessive compression in a production and it may be why so many recordings using ATC's in the mixing and mastering back then sounded pretty 'clean,' enabling themusic to translate to one's ears so well. Just a thought.

Lesson here to people who regard themselves as 'audiophiles' - go hear as much live unamplified music as possible - small jazz groups are great for this even if this genre isn't to taste, as although you'll almost never get the dynamic range of a live event at home, the experiences will help show what speakers try to give a good passable facsimile of the live event.

 

[DSJR]

With ATC - I have heard ATC SCM 100ASLs several times - they were in my runner-up list to my AN Es. In fact, I bought my Line Magnetic 219IA SET amp based on my auditions with this ATC. I liked the fact that the amp could easily drive what are said to be fairly difficult-to-drive speakers - the LM certainly sounded better with the speakers than far costlier Parasound JC1 and Bricasti amplifiers.

My ATC's were ACTIVE, not the hugely inferior (as heard and drummed into me by designer Billy Woodman himself at the time) passive models which to this day have compromises in blending the mid dome to the bass driver as the mid dome are used pretty much wide open which is a huge risk and which has bitten them on more than one occasion in the past I recall, especially when others tried to use it. I gather Line Magnetic amps apparently are seemingly not good at driving a speaker load properly without equalising it severely.

Nah, I don't want the sound rig to tell me how and what to listen to as I went down that path in the early 80's and came out of it much wiser. I don't want an amp to act as a graphic equaliser as it tracks the passive speaker impedance curve or adding compression so everything sounds the same sonic 'flavour.' Each to our own and anyway, my deep respect for ATC is now seen as yesterday's news here so I'm regarded as only one or two steps ahead of you in terms of 'tech.'

I'm kind-of getting the feeling here that some are deliberately choosing badly conceived and designed, expensive equipment putting it together to get a sound not remotely truthful to the original in the hope of a magic moment and using it as a finger-up to those who choose more on performance first before listening. Live music lacks almost all the 'audiophile expressive' aspects but maybe recording it compresses and magnifies these 'artistic impressions' more? Glad I'm out of it frankly now if that's the scene... Trust one's ears? Do leave off

 

[Mart68]

The listening is different - sitting at the front edge of the seat listening "for" sonic traits or feats of superiority vs sitting back in the chair and focusing on the artistic merits of the music. Perhaps it is so that audiophiles are more the former and not the latter.

.

It's possible to have the best of both worlds all in one, it took me a long time to get there though.

 

[Sal1950]

Nah, I don't want the sound rig to tell me how and what to listen to as I went down that path in the early 80's and came out of it much wiser. I don't want an amp to act as a graphic equaliser as it tracks the passive speaker impedance curve or adding compression so everything sounds the same sonic 'flavour.'

Yes-sir, that's not High Fidelity.
Developing components that can deliver a signal as close to a "straight wire with gain" has been the goal of true audio engineers since the dawn of recorded music. Step all over the signal as much as you like, but then please don't call it a High Performance Audio System, it's only an expensive distortion creation machine.

 

[Purité Audio]

My ATC's were ACTIVE, not the hugely inferior (as heard and drummed into me by designer Billy Woodman himself at the time) passive models which to this day have compromises in blending the mid dome to the bass driver as the mid dome are used pretty much wide open which is a huge risk and which has bitten them on more than one occasion in the past I recall, especially when others tried to use it. I gather Line Magnetic amps apparently are seemingly not good at driving a speaker load properly without equalising it severely.

Nah, I don't want the sound rig to tell me how and what to listen to as I went down that path in the early 80's and came out of it much wiser. I don't want an amp to act as a graphic equaliser as it tracks the passive speaker impedance curve or adding compression so everything sounds the same sonic 'flavour.' Each to our own and anyway, my deep respect for ATC is now seen as yesterday's news here so I'm regarded as only one or two steps ahead of you in terms of 'tech.'

I'm kind-of getting the feeling here that some are deliberately choosing badly conceived and designed, expensive equipment putting it together to get a sound not remotely truthful to the original in the hope of a magic moment and using it as a finger-up to those who choose more on performance first before listening. Live music lacks almost all the 'audiophile expressive' aspects but maybe recording it compresses and magnifies these 'artistic impressions' more? Glad I'm out of it frankly now if that's the scene... Trust one's ears? Do leave off

I have had active and passive ATC 40s here side by side ( part/ex) and really I didn’t notice that much difference, same drivers same enclosure, I was probably using a Benchmark AHB2 with the passives, why did Billy believe there would be a significant difference?
Keith

 

[Purité Audio]

Yes-sir, that's not High Fidelity.
Developing components that can deliver a signal as close to a "straight wire with gain" has been the goal of true audio engineers since the dawn of recorded music. Step all over the signal as much as you like, but then please don't call it a High Performance Audio System, it's only an expensive distortion creation machine.

Listeners must choose their own preference of course, if the products were marketed as simply adding a bit of distortion but that is not the case, they are more analogue, more like real musicians playing in your room and the price gouge for upgrading to silver wire which of course also brings a worthwhile improvement.
Keith

 

[DSJR]

I have had active and passive ATC 40s here side by side ( part/ex) and really I didn’t notice that much difference, same drivers same enclosure, I was probably using a Benchmark AHB2 with the passives, why did Billy believe there would be a significant difference?
Keith

Thread diversion ahead with apologies -

I've kind-of described it in the ATC thread, but the mid dome is used wide open so the resonance up top and the response shape lower down is more critical than most where there is a greater driver overlap. The active crossovers allow phase matching of bass and mid drivers and maybe in the tweeter crossover as well, at least from 50As upwards. Level matching is of course easier too.. The hand-doped mid drivers can also vary due to too little doping lifting the usable response frequencies and too much doping lowering the usable range. Some/most of this can be dealt with in the active amp packs, also with steeper crossover slopes I gather, but you can do beggar-all in the passive models.

It's easy to get the passive three way models to sound clogged (as in full-Chord dac/amp driven 40 passives which sounded horribly constricted and 'airless' to me!!!) but the actives just sound 'fresher' and less box-bound, at least to me. The ASR-expensive ATC CD-preamp was most effective as a source for the 40A's, 100ASL's and 150ASL's I heard, but sadly, I'm not involved to try other things any longer. I've heard ATC 11's on a Naim streamer sound better than the full Chord driven passive 40s in the same room.

Not sure how many other UK dealers know let alone dem the D&Ds for example and our local audio salon may not have the Kiis any more, which I did like very much when I heard them... Same actually with Audio Note, which I suggest is so different from everything else it'd be difficult to sell other less 'tailored/bespoke' products as well.

 

[MattHooper]

I'm kind-of getting the feeling here that some are deliberately choosing badly conceived and designed, expensive equipment putting it together to get a sound not remotely truthful to the original in the hope of a magic moment and using it as a finger-up to those who choose more on performance first before listening.

Or...they've just put systems together based on what they themselves enjoy . (And are explaining why they chose that system).

(One could just as well reverse that characterization to suggest plenty of people here have put together well designed/measuring systems as a finger-up to the golden-eared/snake oil ridden audiophile community. But, I don't think that's too on the mark either).

I'd disagree on the characterization "expensive equipment putting it together to get a sound not remotely truthful to the original"

I think the important sonic and artistic characteristics of recordings come through loud and clear though a great many different systems that aren't all strictly neutral. This idea that you need The Most Accurate Possible Equipment to be able to hear the artistic/production choices in recordings is I think far overblown, and a niche pursuit for good reason. So in other words, I'd expect to hear pretty much all the essential artistic choices - instrument choices, vocal qualities, choices of reverbs and effects, panning information, mixing levels etc - through the Audio Note system as through a more neutral monitor system. (In fact..I did hear all that information when I auditioned the Audio Note speakers vs others, including very neutral designs).

Live music lacks almost all the 'audiophile expressive' aspects but maybe recording it compresses and magnifies these 'artistic impressions' more? Glad I'm out of it frankly now if that's the scene... Trust one's ears? Do leave off

I'm not sure what you mean there. What are the "audiophile expressive aspects" specifically that live music lacks? To me, audiophiles are often just trying to describe the character of sound, be it live or reproduced, and I think there are reasonable descriptions that identify some aspects of either or both.

 

[Sal1950]

Or...they've just put systems together based on what they themselves enjoy .

Why do you constantly support the audiophool approach to system building?
That's not what we do here, we support, accurate, high performance, high fidelity type engineering.
There are lots of other sites that welcome the "sounds good to me" style.

 

[Mart68]

So in other words, I'd expect to hear pretty much all the essential artistic choices - instrument choices, vocal qualities, choices of reverbs and effects, panning information, mixing levels etc - through the Audio Note system as through a more neutral monitor system. (In fact..I did hear all that information when I auditioned the Audio Note speakers vs others, including very neutral designs).

Whilst I agree you do not need super-accurate speakers to get the gist of the production I'm surprised you had that experience with them.

First time I had a listen to them I was shocked at just how poor they were in that respect, especially the low frequencies which were cartoonish, a generic bass sound with no trace of the tone of the instrument.

It was rich warm and bloated, my first thought was the 1960s radiogram my parents had when I was very young.

Acoustic jazz with double bass fared better, I think the thrum of the speaker cabinet actually made the bass more lifelike although it was enhancement through colouration, not through accuracy. Cartoonish.

Rock music had the edges smoothed off, appreciate some will like that, but again bass was just wrong.

Second time the speakers were out from corners a little and was not so bad but there was still nothing there that would remotely convince me to spend thousands on them. If someone particularly wants insight into the mix and production of a recording (and I do personally have that as a primary goal) I'd say they were one of the worst possible options for that.

 

[Mart68]

BTW I do very much get @Richard Austen 'They just do it for me' approach, and that's as good a reason as any to buy and own them, but no serious technical defence of these speakers can be mounted.

 

[MattHooper]

Why do you constantly support the audiophool approach to system building?
That's not what we do here, we support, accurate, high performance, high fidelity type engineering.
There are lots of other sites that welcome the "sounds good to me" style.

Sal, not everyone on ASR shares your dogmatism on the subject. Haven't you noticed how often ASR members have had to correct the impression that we don't allow for notions of "different preferences" around here? This site's main emphasis, I believe, is promulgating accurate information on how audio gear performs and why. It does not dictate what any reader NEEDS to do with that information, like "therefore you you need to choose X gear." It's just helping people make informed decisions.
(If it were only about The Most Accurate Equipment ASR wouldn't have a phono/turntable section).

 

[MattHooper]

Whilst I agree you do not need super-accurate speakers to get the gist of the production I'm surprised you had that experience with them.

First time I had a listen to them I was shocked at just how poor they were in that respect, especially the low frequencies which were cartoonish, a generic bass sound with no trace of the tone of the instrument.

It was rich warm and bloated, my first thought was the 1960s radiogram my parents had when I was very young.

Acoustic jazz with double bass fared better, I think the thrum of the speaker cabinet actually made the bass more lifelike although it was enhancement through colouration, not through accuracy. Cartoonish.

Rock music had the edges smoothed off, appreciate some will like that, but again bass was just wrong.

Second time the speakers were out from corners a little and was not so bad but there was still nothing there that would remotely convince me to spend thousands on them. If someone particularly wants insight into the mix and production of a recording (and I do personally have that as a primary goal) I'd say they were one of the worst possible options for that.

When I got a good audition, the AN speakers were pretty well balanced. All my test tracks sounded very familiar as usual; it's not like the even more neutral speakers were suddenly revealing tons of information I wasn't hearing on the AN speakers.

But I of course wouldn't speak to your experience. Also, part of my point in the previous reply is that claims like "not remotely truthful to the original" are pretty mushy.

 

[MattHooper]

To Matt - I get your first impressions stance but in my experience, too much can negatively impact those first impressions (especially at audio shows) - I hated Audio Note speakers when I first heard them - I also didn't like Joseph Audio ( I liked them more the last audio show I covered) - and I liked Devore when I first heard them but not since (albeit different models - I liked the 0/96 but not the Gibbon 88 or the 3XL). Some speakers are less reliant on the room - sitting in the typical triangular near field listening lessens the influence of the room boundaries - speakers like panels, omnidirectional, corner loaded speakers are more affected and why in my experience they have had a wider range of results. B&W speakers in most places I hear them are all set up the same from room to room - freestanding with some sort of hulking SS amplifier - they sound pretty much exactly the same every time I hear them and that has never been particularly good. A couple of months back I auditioned again to a $50kUSD floorstander - I wanted to hear the Nautilus but a kid apparently poked in the tweeter so the speakers were out for repair. Playing DSD hi-res files with a kw per channel amplifier - everything sounded either too bright or like fake.

Certainly audio shows present challenges to understanding how a speaker sounds, though I think you can gain some insight in some settings. (I have on certain brands).
My experience in auditioning speakers is that I can get a good gist of the character of a loudspeaker in the majority of cases. Though I am sometimes fairly demanding in how I audition the speaker (e.g. will play with seating/positioning of speakers etc, to make sure I've got a good account). I very rarely hear substantial changes in character from an audition of a speaker to what ends up in my home, or even hearing a speaker elsewhere.

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

character of a loudspeaker

In theory, a speaker should have as much lack of character as possible. A quick and easy way to judge this (in a store-listening room) is, if there is a tuner, to listen to (public) talk radio. I think that a lot of high end/subjective pleasing/extremely expensive speakers would hearable fail in rendering human voices only, when directly compared to more accurate, well measuring ones. With a.n. you might wish the dealer would put a warning sticker on them. I'm not shure though; I never heard them.