Audio Note speakers

[Cecill]

I tried...but I couldn't follow that logic.

(If the listeners were "utterly absorbed" that seems to suggest the system was doing something interesting, or satisfying for the listeners).

Perhaps I should express my thoughts more clearly. The key point here is that the audience knew they were listening to Audio Note and there was an expectation to appreciate its quality.
However, for me, the Audio Note system delivered what seemed like fifth-rate sound quality, hence my comparison between Bélanger and Rostropovich.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Very many years ago Peter Qvortrup had a HiFi shop called Donnington Audio iirc.
He had a particular narrative and many disciples in the hifi magazines. He also made, was involved with or owned (not sure which) Audio Innovations amps, which I rather liked the styling of and quite fancied.
I arranged an evening demo to fit my then ridiculous travelling schedule and spent several very pleasant hours with Peter discussing this and that.

What I wasn't convinced by, though, was any confirmation of the narrative he espouses, and still today it seems.

I think the amps got a poor reliability reputation so relieved I didn't buy any.

Anyway I came away after a charming evening unconvinced by the demos of substantial improvements that were not evident (to me).

I do think people tend to like the sound they are used to and use as demo recordings music that sounds good on kit they are familiar with, so are unlikely to prefer something different using their demo tracks at a show or dealer. I know I have been disappointed by well reviewed speakers on demo - could this be the reason?

With electronics, ie everything but speakers the output and input are easily found - the connectors - and any change that is made by, for example, exotic materials in electronics can be measured to a way greater level of accuracy than our ears can discern.
The electrical signal on the connectors has amplitude, frequency and phase. There is nothing else. If these 3 parameters are uneffected then there can't be a change to the sound and if one is heard the only logical explanation is placebo effect.

The old chestnut of trying to discredit testing by stating music is dynamic and test signals are steady state is pretty convincing to anybody scientifically uneducated but in fact as long as the system is linear steady state tests do explain dynamic behaviour, and if the system is not linear it is poor anyway.

In the end we know the placebo effect is strong and, if somebody hears better sound from an amp full of super expensive components but demonstrably from unchanged signal amplitude, frequency and phase only because of the placebo effect it is real enough to them, which makes it an expensive susceptibility IMO.

 

[DSJR]

I have a list of speakers I like that includes both speakers that measure well and ones that do not - ATC is one of them as it was a runner-up for me. It may be that I am a speaker slut. The dealer that connected the ATC 100 - used his own personal speakers he used to demonstrate all the tube amplifiers - the dealer sold speakers like Zu Audio and other HE speakers but it was the ATC I preferred - the ZUs sounded too shouty and in my face. I did like one of their models but the other 2 were hard to listen to - similarly didn't care for Voxativ.

The thing I liked about ATC is they do what they're supposed to do in that they contrast well the recordings and the equipment you put on them - which is the point of a recording studio speaker. In the end, living in Hong Kong - they were ultimately nixed because they simply would not fit. Well, they would but it would be awkward.

That's fair comment

I'd say that *for me,* the task of a high fidelity speaker is to reproduce the recordings as truthfully as is possible. Not just in a recording/mastering studio, but at home as well - and I've gone well backwards since I married in 1996 and needed to fit my crap into a small house as we combined two small homes into one. At the time before herself came into my life, I was attending gigs and concerts of various genres and not needing to compare what I heard live with what I was getting at home. 50s jazz was easy here and I do remember attending a memorable King Crimson concert in '94 at the RAH (gig is far too common a word for KC live performances) and with a little eq in the bass - reducing the mid bass and bringing up the 40 -50Hz region, able to get a wonderful facsimile of 'B'Boom' at home with volume *well* up - shivers down spine stuff. Tracks like this NEED large LOUD speakers to do service to the performance here I feel. I even measured up for ATC 200A's which were just about reachable then with selling my black lacquer speakers and best export price on the 200's. Totally impossible now to even look at 40A's these days let alone KH120 IIs or KH150's which may be more where I should be at and I don't know anyone at he factory now, but I do remember those times very fondly...

The speakers I have now simply can't even begin to replicate the scenario above, turning said track into a loud ballistic 'noise' more often than not, although acoustic instruments and speech-radio programmes/audio plays are 'nice enough' for now. if I sell the speakers I currently use, they won't be replaced like for like, so I'm hanging on as long as possible before giving up entirely on home-reproduced audio of any size or scale...

 

[Richard Austen]

We really need to get away from this idea that live instruments or voices are some sort of benchmark for the accuracy of playback equipment.

If I record a piano where do I put the mic? On top of it? thirty feet away? What's the FR of the mic? What processing do I do to the recording once I have it? None? That's unlikely.

How can we then jump to 'Well the Steinway sounds like a Steinway so it must be an accurate speaker.'?

This is why we measure the speaker. If we could just judge its accuracy from a recording then there would be no need for hundred thousand dollar Klippel. Or million dollar anechoic chambers.

There are some speaker designers who use that method and the result is speakers that render many recordings badly because they have voiced the speaker by ear trying to get Diana Krall's voice to sound 'natural'. The usual result is a big midrange hump.

Now Krall sounds 'enhanced' but Lynyrd Skynard is unlistenable. Oh but it's a 'bad recording'.

No it isn't! It's a bad speaker!

Nah can't be that because you can listen to all genres on AN speakers - If you're like me you probably listen to classical, jazz, pop, rock, country, reggae, metal, rap, trance, and folk among others.

It's basically preference vs preference and then a series of arguments to try and give a reason as to why one preference is superior to another. Really no different than when I was writing essays in my university days - I think X and here are three reasons to support why X is best (appeals to authority, longevity, subjective response).

I can't speak to all demonstrations everywhere - I have heard AN suck at audio shows too. And had that been my first exposure to them - well my system may be completely different today. And my essay would be I think Y is best and here are my three reasons why - (technical arguments, recording studios, as well as all three of the arguments made for X (appeals to authority, longevity, subjective response). It's much easier to make the case for Y than for X.

From an essayist perspective - there is only so much you can argue for in favour of X - you have fewer supporting pieces of evidence make. As someone mentioned earlier - I think it's important for all readers or new audiophiles to understand measurements - understand DBTs - and then they can go in armed with some sort of knowledge before plopping down large chunks of cash. But if they do all that then compare a Revel Ultima Salon II with Benchmark and then an AN system and like the latter - so be it - they know what they're getting into.

Anyway a pretty little Audio Note system on Youtube

 

[Mart68]

Nah can't be that because you can listen to all genres on AN speakers - If you're like me you probably listen to classical, jazz, pop, rock, country, reggae, metal, rap, trance, and folk among others.

It's basically preference vs preference and then a series of arguments to try and give a reason as to why one preference is superior to another. Really no different than when I was writing essays in my university days - I think X and here are three reasons to support why X is best (appeals to authority, longevity, subjective response).

I can't speak to all demonstrations everywhere - I have heard AN suck at audio shows too. And had that been my first exposure to them - well my system may be completely different today. And my essay would be I think Y is best and here are my three reasons why - (technical arguments, recording studios, as well as all three of the arguments made for X (appeals to authority, longevity, subjective response). It's much easier to make the case for Y than for X.

From an essayist perspective - there is only so much you can argue for in favour of X - you have fewer supporting pieces of evidence make. As someone mentioned earlier - I think it's important for all readers or new audiophiles to understand measurements - understand DBTs - and then they can go in armed with some sort of knowledge before plopping down large chunks of cash. But if they do all that then compare a Revel Ultima Salon II with Benchmark and then an AN system and like the latter - so be it - they know what they're getting into.

I think you misunderstand what I wrote.

I'll give you an example - I read on another forum someone complaining that the Led Zeppelin 'Crop Circle' compilation is 'Unlistenable' (his word) on his system. He blames poor mastering.

Now I've no idea what his system comprises but that's the problem right there.

I cannot speak for your own set up, I do not doubt that you have acheived some serendipity in your own space. HK is a bit far away just to pop over for a listen.

But this doesn't make the wider issue go away. People use bad speakers, they render many recordings 'unlistenable' and they blame the recording and not the speakers.

They don't like their speakers. They just don't know it.

 

[Richard Austen]

I don't get the Audionote hype neighter, and i'm also loving some very compromised systems (diy single driver fullrange speaekrs) and use them daily. Audionote is just bad executed, based on old tech that worked, but not done right. If you like that sound, it's your personal preference. But objectively they are very bad. Just like most (if not all) single fullrange driver systems are technically inferior to wel executed multiway systems. But i like that sound...

AN and other brands with coloured speakers are like with my single driver fullrange systems, if you love it, you can listen to it. Just don't claim they are superior and for everyone the best, because they are not. I'll never do that with my preference of technical bloated speakers. It's a personal preference, not an objective quality that draws me to them.

The big problem i have with AN is that they have all kinds of claims that are simply not true, and attach a ridiculous high price to it. And that they keep claiming that you can't measure their quality. You can measure any objective and many subjective qualities today. I know what i want in numbers and graphs to satisfy my subjective preference, and i know it's not for most and that it don't fit the preference of the big majority of listeners, here and in general.

Perhaps looking at this a slightly different way - do you enjoy singers who are not "technically great vocalists?" An example I use is that I personally prefer Madonna to Mariah Carey even though on a technical level Mariah Carey is technically the better singer.

I like Tom Petty but he's not the best make vocalist I've ever heard. I'd rather listen to him than many superior male singers. The overall is better than the sum of the parts.

Autotune is meant to use sophisticated technology to FIX vocals and make sure that that singer - whoever that singer is perfectly in pitch - look at any measurements of a singer with autotune and one without the autotuned graph looks much better - see Wings Of Pegasus website where he shows the graphs of hundreds of artists with and without autotune and the graph is MUCH better with autotune because the singer is "on pitch."

I prefer it when the singer is live without autotune - warbles and mistakes and all to the engineers and the technology fixing them to make them perfect.

Yes yes - this is not an exact analogy but it's the idea of making a choice to gravitate to a "sound envelope" over another "sonic aesthetic." I mean some people prefer autotune - they prefer airbrushed photos.

some people like the sound of technically weaker singers because their vocals is simply different.

I'll give you an example - This is Ellie Goulding before she was famous. She has a whispy vocal and barely stays in pitch - her voice breaks - by an objective standard she's not a particularly good singer - yet I like it. Other people will loathe it. So it goes.

 

[DSJR]

I think you misunderstand what I wrote.

I'll give you an example - I read on another forum someone complaining that the Led Zeppelin 'Crop Circle' compilation is 'Unlistenable' (his word) on his system. He blames poor mastering.

Now I've no idea what his system comprises but that's the problem right there.

I cannot speak for your own set up, I do not doubt that you have acheived some serendipity in your own space. HK is a bit far away just to pop over for a listen.

But this doesn't make the wider issue go away. People use bad speakers, they render many recordings 'unlistenable' and they blame the recording and not the speakers.

They don't like their speakers. They just don't know it.

The LZ crop circle four disc set is a little 'toppier' than the individual albums on CD I have which were mastered at the same time in 1990 or so (a long time since I played the companion two disc set which completed and complimented the four disc set from that era). The squeaky drum pedal on 'Since I've Been Lovin' You' was clearly audible to me back then... I don't have them all in the recent remasterings, but they seem to 'sound' similar to the 1990 indivual disc tonal balance and to be honest, the productions weren't always *that* wonderful (sorry Jimmy Page). Weak one for me was the original hissy CD mastering of Houses Of The Holy which was very much improved thereafter.

 

[Mart68]

The LZ crop circle four disc set is a little 'toppier' than the individual albums on CD I have which were mastered at the same time in 1990 or so (a long time since I played the companion two disc set which completed and complimented the four disc set from that era). The squeaky drum pedal on 'Since I've Been Lovin' You' was clearly audible to me back then... I don't have them all in the recent remasterings, but they seem to 'sound' similar to the 1990 indivual disc tonal balance and to be honest, the productions weren't always *that* wonderful (sorry Jimmy Page). Weak one for me was the original hissy CD mastering of Houses Of The Holy which was very much improved thereafter.

I only have 'IV' 'Phys Graf' and 'Houses' on original CD and the cheapskate 2 disc set for 'Crop Circle', never done a proper comparison with the corresponding songs from the two.

Led Zep date from my vinyl period so I've only got the others on that format.

Also got the 'Mothership' compilation on CD. If 'Crop Circle' is unlistenable then 'Mothership' could kill at 20 paces

'Crop Circle' sounds awesome to me. And I use that word advisably. Can't imagine how flawed a system would need to be to render it 'unlistenable'.

 

[CapMan]

Anyway a pretty little Audio Note system on Youtube

Maybe I’m being unfair, but the speakers are sat well behind the gear racks; then come the ubiquitous bare walls and wood floors. It just feels like this video is all about look at my gear and be impressed… not about a well thought through listening environment. Perhaps speakers with rolled off highs would sound nice in there ?

Just looks like a giant waste of cash to
me in that space … I’ve been on that journey and wish I could have saved every penny I wasted

 

[Richard Austen]

I think you misunderstand what I wrote.

I'll give you an example - I read on another forum someone complaining that the Led Zeppelin 'Crop Circle' compilation is 'Unlistenable' (his word) on his system. He blames poor mastering.

Now I've no idea what his system comprises but that's the problem right there.

I cannot speak for your own set up, I do not doubt that you have acheived some serendipity in your own space. HK is a bit far away just to pop over for a listen.

But this doesn't make the wider issue go away. People use bad speakers, they render many recordings 'unlistenable' and they blame the recording and not the speakers.

They don't like their speakers. They just don't know it.

That's true - people blame the wrong thing all the time. Yes, it could be a bad recording - but yes it could also be the stereo. If a system papers over the cracks of a bad recording - it means it is "adding a veil" to a good recording. Similarly, on forums people want to add a tube preamp to "warm up the sound" of a bright system. To me, that's a band-aid approach and probably an expensive one.

The other point you make is bang on - you can't pop over and hear my system - it's not like comparing notes on automobiles - if we both drive all the Sedans in the Camry class - we can both judge the seats, the info tech - the Stereo, the handling whether you live on the east coast and I live on the west coast - we can draw maybe the same conclusion - the Accord handles better than the Camry but the Camry has less road noise.

Audio is dependent on so many factors, listening distance, set-up volume level, music played, listener mood, concrete walls vs plaster (it matters with a corner loaded speaker if the side and rear walls are singing along to the music). Mood - when, if at an audio show, did you audition - your first hour or your 8th. Before lunch after lunch - was the last room playing very loud - do you like the song? If I hear Diana Krall playing I don't go in - I come back later. I don't hate her like some people - she's from Vancouver Island and I saw her coming out of Fascinating Rhythm with a stack of Vinyl (in case anyone wondered what she likes better). But for me she's overplayed - I mean I get girl at a piano but hell for jazz Canada alone as Chantal Chamberland, Sophie Millman, Ann Bisson, and Nikki Yanofsky. I mean these audio shows could mix it up a bit.

The point is - the experiences are not necessarily at all similar to audio as they would be for comparing smartphones, cars, toasters, or cameras.

At a show I spoke to a reviewer who didn't like the room I liked - hmm - that's odd - so I took him back to the room and put on some GNR or AC/DC something with some sort of pulse - I turned it up - the showrunner left the room. That reviewer wound up doing a 180 and put it in his top 3 rooms - going from meh - to this is great because of a change of discs. It depends greatly on what they're playing at these shows. I went into a dealer here in HK and as soon as they saw me - one of them ran to the player and put on - you guessed it - Diana Krall. It took everything for me not to burst out laughing. I mean audiophiles lover her - she is performing here soon. But I am not sure I get what it is about her.

Peter Q has his own views on how Audio Equipment should be evaluated https://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm

 

[CapMan]

Yes yes - this is not an exact analogy but it's the idea of making a choice to gravitate to a "sound envelope" over another "sonic aesthetic." I mean some people prefer autotune - they prefer airbrushed photos.

It is so bogus to compare imperfect musicians or what musical instruments do to what rendering devices for musical playback do. Just wrong on every level.

Go ahead and buy coloured gear, but don’t justify it with this logic. A speaker is not a cello or Bob Marley or the Royal Albert Hall , it’s a speaker

 

[JiiPee]

Anyway a pretty little Audio Note system on Youtube

But there's one thought pounding in his mind that does not let him concentrate on listening music: "This is only level 3-4...this is only level 3-4... this is only level 3-4! ... Somehow I just have to get to level 5! ... Even if I need to beg, steal, or borrow - I got to get me couple of tens of thousands to afford level 5!"

 

[Mart68]

Peter Q has his own views on how Audio Equipment should be evaluated https://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm

Thanks for the link, that was interesting, although I've read about his comparison method before.

Thing is with anything PQ says, he is sometimes correct, but then he comes out with utter nonsense like this:

''This is one of the undisputed area where the superiority of LP to CD is evident, in that there is any immeasurable, but clearly audible sameness – a sonic conformity of sorts – from CD to CD which does not persist to a similar degree with LP.)

A significant part of the attraction to CD is its conformity to an amusical sense of perfection and repeatability; no mistake in performance and a combined recording and playback "noise" lower than the ambient noise existing in any acoustical environment where real music is enjoyed.''

Which tends to make me think that it's like a broken clock still being right twice a day.

 

[Richard Austen]

Very many years ago Peter Qvortrup had a HiFi shop called Donnington Audio iirc.
He had a particular narrative and many disciples in the hifi magazines. He also made, was involved with or owned (not sure which) Audio Innovations amps, which I rather liked the styling of and quite fancied.
I arranged an evening demo to fit my then ridiculous travelling schedule and spent several very pleasant hours with Peter discussing this and that.

What I wasn't convinced by, though, was any confirmation of the narrative he espouses, and still today it seems.

I think the amps got a poor reliability reputation so relieved I didn't buy any.

Anyway I came away after a charming evening unconvinced by the demos of substantial improvements that were not evident (to me).

I do think people tend to like the sound they are used to and use as demo recordings music that sounds good on kit they are familiar with, so are unlikely to prefer something different using their demo tracks at a show or dealer. I know I have been disappointed by well reviewed speakers on demo - could this be the reason?

With electronics, ie everything but speakers the output and input are easily found - the connectors - and any change that is made by, for example, exotic materials in electronics can be measured to a way greater level of accuracy than our ears can discern.
The electrical signal on the connectors has amplitude, frequency and phase. There is nothing else. If these 3 parameters are uneffected then there can't be a change to the sound and if one is heard the only logical explanation is placebo effect.

The old chestnut of trying to discredit testing by stating music is dynamic and test signals are steady state is pretty convincing to anybody scientifically uneducated but in fact as long as the system is linear steady state tests do explain dynamic behaviour, and if the system is not linear it is poor anyway.

In the end we know the placebo effect is strong and, if somebody hears better sound from an amp full of super expensive components but demonstrably from unchanged signal amplitude, frequency and phase only because of the placebo effect it is real enough to them, which makes it an expensive susceptibility IMO.

Yes Peter Qvortrup was a dealer importer and then started Audio Innovations - but he took on investors who wound up ousting him from the company - then Audio Innovations which was successful went out of business a few years after he left. But Audio Innovations was a fairly entry-level tube amp maker. Peter's problem - I have met him a few times as well - is that he is not an engineer and tries to explain things in layman's terms - and he shouldn't bother for two reasons 1) nobody is buying SET amps for superior measured performance to begin with - and 2) the people who care about measured performance will never buy any of this stuff on mere principal.

I will say that having talked to Peter over the years he has always been happy to subject his gear to blind tests. And generally, their dealers let people take the stuff home for extended periods - longer than a 14-day return policy at Best Buy - so you could always bring whatever piece home and try it out for a month and conduct your own blind tests. What some folks do is buy gear second-hand - then they try it out - if it doesn't work they sell it for what they paid for it

I think there are multiple biases - they go both ways - it's expensive - it must be snake oil - it is a tube = it must be bad or it is in a corner = it must not image. I think this is why Peter doesn't have any problem subjecting his gear to blind level-matched sessions - his stuff has a lot of bias to overcome and the only way to do that for some people is to get people to listen in blind level-matched sessions.

It's weird but for most products we buy - the thing it is advertised to do is how we judge it. There are some pro car reviewers who prefer the Mazda Miata to Porsche - they like the drive better - they have more FUN driving it - Porsche is the faster car though. You buy a camera based on the quality of the photos - but then people still choose between Sony, Nikon, Canon etc - people still "like" the way one camera does skin tone over the other etc.

Now it could be they simply like Nikon more so they "want to see" the photos as better than they really are. They should evaluate the photos and choose the best photos and then find out which camera took them.

On another board a fellow loved a speaker - he was going to buy them - but then read measurements that the pair matching was poor - so he crossed it off the list. My issue was that "but you couldn't hear it" - If you can't hear it then it's not an audible problem.

 

[Richard Austen]

It is so bogus to compare imperfect musicians or what musical instruments do to what rendering devices for musical playback do. Just wrong on every level.

Go ahead and buy coloured gear, but don’t justify it with this logic. A speaker is not a cello or Bob Marley or the Royal Albert Hall , it’s a speaker

Everything is still preference based from the preference of the artists you like to the preference as to how that artist is portrayed - do you like that artist at 85dB or do you like it at 75dB or 65dB - do you like a speaker that possess more or less bass - look at how many people have recommended using treble kobs - some people like Brighter speakers some people like the loudness button - some people like the ole smiley face on their graphic equalizers.

And then all the tube rollers who like Mullard over GE. Musicians are fussy over their Violin brands and even their choice of bow to get a "sound" they like. Perhaps the musicians are delusional and all Violins and Oboes sound the same but thy choose to recreate the composition with an instrument that may not have been intended by the composer.

No one is buying SET or tube amplifiers or AN speakers because they say "I love distortion give me some of that" - they go and listen and feel they get more from the recording - the "perception" is that these systems are telling the truth - and the SS gear is lacking. There is no "warbling on Eva Cassidy" - they hear her the room the instruments and they say wow that was bloody amazing - then they hear the exact same music on a Benchmark/Revel and say - "what the frak that stunk." Where is the body, the texture, the tone? They'll use words like that sounded thin, lean, hard, sterile - a completely unpleasurable experience.

As a hypothetical - put yourself in the person's shoes where you are the one who had this experience - and the lesser measuring gear consistently sounds much better - what argument can you really make for it other than the feeble "but it sounds better when I push play" - and as I said way back - AN is not a first resort company - It tends to be the gear people buy after they owned all the best-measuring stuff.

Example - PMC/Bryston owner https://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m....rch.mpl?forum=speakers&searchtext=woofer+size

I think I probably should have used what Kevin Fiske said in the link above earlier

"It's ironic and, I think, very telling, that the word euphony is used pejoratively by audio reviewers (mainly by Americans, but often by people who really should know better). They use it to sneeringly imply colouration, but what the word actually means is pleasantness of sound. And we certainly can't have any of that, can we?

'Does it sound musical?

'No, but it delivers holographic imaging, ruler flat measurements and real bottom-end grip'.

"Hell yeah. Where do I sign."

I think we don't give people enough credit for spending their money and doing research. And some people are simply lower down on the overly anal OCD/Aspbergers syndrome spectrum where the knife and fork can't vary even slightly on the dining room table. There's accurate and there is what is perceptually accurate. Like I say - no one listens and says - oh man that is so inaccurate and fuzzy and noisy and I can't hear the drums or the guitar - Man it is so bad sounding - that's what I want. All my music sounds like mudd - that's perfect - please take my credit card.

 

[CapMan]

There's accurate and there is what is perceptually accurate.

I haven’t heard of perceptual accuracy before. That sounds like an oxy moron to me. Perception is by definition subjective and undefined. It is therefore impossible for it to be accurate.

Just more nonsense

 

[Richard Austen]

But there's one thought pounding in his mind that does not let him concentrate on listening music: "This is only level 3-4...this is only level 3-4... this is only level 3-4! ... Somehow I just have to get to level 5! ... Even if I need to beg, steal, or borrow - I got to get me couple of tens of thousands to afford level 5!"

Well true - I spoke to the Audio Note dealer in Hong Kong and one of the advantages to selling this brand is you tend to have customers for life - you get repeat business.

With most brands - like Roksan that they carry - the brand has maybe 2 integrated amps a couple of CD players and turntables etc. But a customer comes in buys an amp - probably never see them again - it's a one-and-done sale.

With AN someone may start with level one like it - then want more - - maybe start with an amp - then try the speakers - then you come back and buy a whole system. Other companies do this a little bit - Magnepan sold those $600 MMG speakers online and then you might like it - if you do you then want a bigger one because you want some actual bass response. So they get multiple sales.

The dealer here has been selling AN for over 30 years and have a lot of repeat business. Granted this is a city with very wealthy people who will easily drop $30k on an amp in cash and it won't even be a blip to their bank accounts.

To be fair - most speaker companies have several lines of speakers - B&W 300 series - upgrade to 700 series - upgrade to 800 series. Level 1,2,3,4,5 - no different than 300,600,700,800, Nautilus

 

[CapMan]

With AN someone may start with level one like it - then want more - - maybe start with an amp - then try the speakers - then you come back and buy a whole system. Other companies do this a little bit - Magnepan sold those $600 MMG speakers online and then you might like it - if you do you then want a bigger one because you want some actual bass response. So they get multiple sales.

Naim are the same, I was an owner for many years, but in hindsight I realise it was like a kind of cult

 

[Mnyb]

There some confuison about creating music warts and all with imperfections i like a loot of music like that

And reproduction of music via via playback .

They are not to be confused with each other . So attribution of "musicality" and other such things to hifi equipment is a bit like having gods and spirits in stones and trees etc like our ancestors did .

 

[Richard Austen]

I haven’t heard of perceptual accuracy before. That sounds like an oxy moron to me. Perception is by definition subjective and undefined. It is therefore impossible for it to be accurate.

Just more nonsense

The word perception means how you interpret something

When listening to an artist live and then listening to said artist on two systems and one sounds "very much the same" as the singer you just heard live and the other system is unlistenable dredge - the former is "perceptually accurate" based on how you perceive the two listening sessions. Whether it is "actually accurate" in terms of measured performance, is another matter.

As Kevin noted - he elected to choose the perceptually "pleasing" sounding system over his own "displeasing" sounding but "accurate measurements" system.

But hey each their own I say.