Audio Note speakers

[CapMan]

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

But how do you make something that is universally perceptually pleasing , to every listener , in every possible room, for every type of genre and every possible quality of production. That’s one hell of an ask …

 

[Richard Austen]

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 .

I knew I would take flack for that but it's not really what I meant - Peter has said that designing this stuff is not just measurement but art -that speakers are not looking at certain measurements but a whole approach with the speaker/room and how the amplifier behaves with the speaker.

I don't want to be putting words in their mouth though because I am looking at it from an end user perceptual perspective and trying to apply words to describe why I like the sound of the AN E much more than something like a Revel Ultima Salon II - where when I play different recordings there is less homogenous sound from the AN E than the Revel - so playing a Lady Gaga CD and a Beethoven CD and a Jackson Browne CD etc - they had more contrast between the CDs and all were engaging - while everything sounded dulled with the Revel.

Thus I apply the notion that AN is doing "something" that Revel isn't. Whether it is additive - as people joke ferry dust - or it's in using better quality caps, or speaker winding - or hemp woofers from SEAS or it's the crossover design or the combination of the crossover with the "live cabinets" or the distortion characteristics of the amplifier - second harmonic etc - whatever the hell that is - it's something.

 

[Mnyb]

But how do you make something that is universally perceptually pleasing , to every listener , in every possible room, for every type of genre and every possible quality of production. That’s one hell of an ask …

You cant do that

That's the problem with all hifi that have deliberate coloration there can not be a one stop solution there is no " sounds good " parameter to be tweaked to the max .

Even the cherished "second harmonics sounds good" only works with selected sparse music " girl with guitar " music .
Anything very complex and dense that might already have deliberate distorsion baked in the instruments and their productions just sounds like a musch there is no clarity .

So you cant have a all music sound better coloration . You end up with one hifi system per record ?

The best we can try is to reproduce the damn signal at the terminals , we don't need to invoke any music at this point .

 

[Richard Austen]

But how do you make something that is universally perceptually pleasing , to every listener , in every possible room, for every type of genre and every possible quality of production. That’s one hell of an ask …

You can't - but then who says you need to? I know of no audio brand or any product realy that is universally loved by everyone.

Plenty of people in this thread listened to the AN system and didn't like it to downright loathed it - nothing really more needs to be said - sure maybe the room was poor - or some other excuse gets trotted out but hey - you listen you don't like - so you don't like - end of discussion.

 

[Ron Texas]

It has to be the hemp.

 

[CapMan]

It has to be the hemp.

Rolled and smoked presumably

 

[Mart68]

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

We don't know that his system was 'accurate'.

PMC speakers, the domestic ones, are not very accurate at all. so unless he had their proper studio monitors (which I doubt since he quotes $20K as the total system cost) forget about it.

Nothing wrong with the Bryston electronics. Blameless. Probably he didn't have any issue he couldn't have worked out with a change of speaker and some EQ.

Or just some EQ.

Forums are littered with people who reckon they have heard 'accurate' and didn't like it when they have no idea what is actually going on.

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

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.

If this artist is recorded, mixed(?) and mastered accurately, I think that this just can not be true.

is another matter.

It should be more close to the same matter, otherwise it would be sorcery. Or the (psycho)acoustics of artifcial-things-that-recreate-sound-in-rooms ask for altering the signal and afaik this is not the case, except for adaptation to a particular room.

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

Anyway a pretty little Audio Note system on Youtube

It looks a bit decadent What does it cost?

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

And they do that by listening trough speakers, that’s the circle of confusion right there .

Yes, but luckily there are brands like genelec, neumann, etc.. How would 'the most average studio monitor from 1955-70 until now' sound like... That could be a nice domestic speaker. Edit: Now I'm beginning to get confused: 'ASR speakers' preferably are eq'ed flat in room..

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

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!

You are right. In my earlier example we were in a store in about 1988, listened to rock (were young), found it hard to judge, and then with public talk radio (assumed neutral enough) we both could hear certain speakers colouring more than others, better than with rock. We had no real reference, of course, except a vague concensus about the least coloring speakers in that price range and era in our country. Maybe bias, but that was the same brand we found most neutral, after switching to talk radio.

 

[DSJR]

Yes, but luckily there are brands like genelec, neumann, etc.. How would 'the most average studio monitor from 1955-70 until now' sound like... That could be a nice domestic speaker. Edit: Now I'm beginning to get confused: 'ASR speakers' preferably are eq'ed flat in room..

I'll hazzard a guess

Speakers back then were considerably larger than today, so an effortless bass and ample dynamics more than making up for any possible colouration or directivisty errors. Tannoy was the deal for us here, in Lockwood cabinets earlier on, and their DMT's (I think they were) in the 80's. The JBL 4311's weren't much cop in the midrange but I liked very much the old L200 which I think was a domesaticated 4320? Ureis were popular with some artists but I don't know these. The thing is, good engineers could hear through their monitors well, although I suspect the current models which measure more properly would make their job easier. these days, it's al little boxes with subs I think, the huge soffit mounted monsters of old being there to impress visitors I was told..

 

[MattHooper]

And they do that by listening trough speakers, that’s the circle of confusion right there .

That wasn't the point though. The point was that "real life" is a valid reference in evaluating reproduced sound. The fact sound systems vary in quality and character isn't an argument against this. (And btw, lots of the fixes we do to dialogue to make it more believable/natural not only works on the very neutral studio gear, but also translate across a variety of different playback gear. If it didn't, there's be little use of fixing it).

BTW, have you given up on seeking accuracy in your audio gear due to the Circle Of Confusion?

 

[MattHooper]

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.

Ok I see your point now. Thanks!

 

[DanielT]

I live in Hong Kong (from Canada) - space is at a premium here. And while I have spent for audio - largely that is because the income tax rate is far lower, the pay for teachers is far higher than in Canada and I have not needed to own a car for the last 13 years. Utilities are cheaper and so are things like internet and phone. Not owning a car and all of the expenses that go with that over a decade sure saves a lot of money. The transportation system in Hong Kong is outstanding to where people who do own cars will take longer to get where they are going and it will cost them far more.

As an aside - while the income tax rate maxes out at 17% (progressive), there is no sales tax, duties, or tipping. But if you buy a new car there is a hefty tax applied so if you buy a $75,000 Mercedes - you pay $75,000 tax on it. Plus you need to buy your own parking space ($50,000) and gas is $3.20 Per litre not per gallon. The government waived that tax on Tesla for a while which is why the sales were so high. The tax does not apply to secondhand cars.

The tax rate on buying a car - HKD to USD is around $7.8 to 1 $150,000=~$19,000US

Private cars	TAX
(a) on the first $150,000	46%
(b) on the next $150,000	86%
(c) on the next $200,000	115%
(d) on the remainder	132%

On the flip side - universal healthcare. I had to go to the hospital for an infected finger and I had two operations with anesthesiologists - in the hospital for 11 days - 3 months of physiotherapy and bandage changed - all medications - and three meals a day in the hospital - I paid $350 USD total. It would be free if I was a lower-income earner. I was off work for a month - all paid as we can bank our medical leave so I had over 168 days banked. HK is an interesting place when you consider that it is an ultra-capitalist City under communist control - very low tax rate and unions are frowned upon, very low violent crime rate, and free universal healthcare. It's probably why China leaves it alone for the most part because it works. For how much longer I can't say, but I lived in China too so I will wait and see.

I like a large number of speakers but they are either too expensive or too big or require too much room for my rental in Hong Kong - some would fit in my townhouse on Vancouver Island but I am only home a month per year so I still use my trusty 1991 Wharfedale E-70 (Vanguard Edition) speakers (horn tweeters).

In a large room - I would probably prefer something like the Acapella Audio Arts with their plasma Ion tweeters - but the cost is so high and when I move back to Canada - I will have other priorities. I'd rather retire a few years early than spend big on audio.

I may look at something like the Paradigm Persona series because it can double as a home theatre music set-up. I quite liked my last audition with the Persona 9H (also very expensive but perhaps the lower models will be as good sans deep bass) - And they're also lower-power amp-friendly. 96dB sensitive and they recommend as little as 15 watts per channel - which means 5 will be fine. They're the best Paradigm speakers I have ever heard. And as a side bonus - being designed at the NRC - they probably measure great too.

Taxes and what you get for them. A classic subject. I don't get involved in a tax discussion here on ASR because it easily becomes talk of politics, which according to the forum rules we are not allowed to address.

If sometime in the future horn speakers are suitable for you, try it. I think you should do that anyway.

Speaking of tube amps and a classic speaker brand. One speaker to rule them all.

(in the world of the fairy tale, anyway)

 

[Duke]

I'm not referring to rigorous comparisons. Certainly there would be a truly scientific method of doing the test (though Sean Olive seems to think that some of the problems are intractable for truly rigorous testing of live vs reproduced sound. Though I think it's clear to anyone that one can certainly move further or closer to the sound of the real thing, even if not perfectly achieved).

Years ago I did actually record instruments we play in our house, as well as my family's voices, and I would do some direct comparisons of the recordings through various speakers (in stereo) vs the family member standing in between the speakers, speaking. It was very interesting.

But what I have carried on doing since then is just an even more informal "reality check." One can be somewhat mesmerized by a well set up audiophile demo of a well recorded vocal, where the voice that appears between the speaker can have almost startling vividness and clarity, leading to a "more realistic" sensation. But I like to close my eyes and listen in such situations, and compare the sound to other voices in the room, which might be at a show or wherever. And what that does for me is indicate some generalities in the difference between the super vivid reproduced sound, vs how actual organic human voices sound in real life. And I find that the artificial characteristics of the reproduced sound are put in better relief when I do this: it helps me identify WHY that voices isn't convincing and sounds electronic, vs real humans.

So that's the general approach I was referencing. A while back at another audiophile's house we were playing a well recorded male vocal track which was very vivid, and I had my friend stand in between the speakers, placed to about where the recorded voice seemed to be, and just speak. As usual, it revealed some broad differences between a real voice and the reproduced voice.

(Among those reliable differences: a real voice tends to have a sonic presence and density and palpability, a thereness, that the phantom stereo images of voices lack. And there is a very particular combination of "clarity" with "utterly relaxed" detail to the real voice, as well as a roundness and richness and especially an "organic" quality to the voice. Real voices sound like what they are: originating from organic material, damped flesh/muscle, often with some chest resonance. In comparison most reproduced voices sound more "see-through," and harder, more electronic in character, not "made of the same stuff" and less organic than a real voice in direct comparison).

Matt, just so you know, I get FAR MORE useful information from your descriptions of your experiences than from all the posts finding fault with you combined. Even if it could all be your imagination.

 

[Mnyb]

That wasn't the point though. The point was that "real life" is a valid reference in evaluating reproduced sound. The fact sound systems vary in quality and character isn't an argument against this. (And btw, lots of the fixes we do to dialogue to make it more believable/natural not only works on the very neutral studio gear, but also translate across a variety of different playback gear. If it didn't, there's be little use of fixing it).

BTW, have you given up on seeking accuracy in your audio gear due to the Circle Of Confusion?

No but I won’t expect the rendition of a particular record(s) to tell me the whole truth or in some cases not much at all . How to account for records not yet produced or my own limited experience with speakers ? Owning a lot of them and being an audiophile does not count as experience imo, its a serial offence you own a pair or two at the time usually I would have very little reference on my own .

would I even recognise the perfect speaker even if I heard it in front of me ? Due to circle of confusion ? By which record would such a thing reveal itself ?

So for my latest purchase I excluded all woo woo brands that did not follow good science and included brands that could provide a decent spinorama by themselves or in a third party measurements .
so i knew they where making best effort according to current understanding on how this works . So they all where closing in on some “ideal” , no cargo cult tech for me .

then I had a shortlist and also added EQ to my requirements to “make it work” if a chosen speaker did not suite perfectly , god speakers respond well to EQ .

then I looked at all practical concerns and function’s I wanted . And also serviceability and market presence ? Should I venture to import something from the US again ? ( I probably owned Swedens only Rhythmic FV15HP sub for a while ) .

KEF ticked many boxes so I bought a pair of their cheaper actives the LSXII for kitchen duties a loss I could take if they where terrible.
they where not. And KEF can now be bought locally in my own city !

6 months later I booked a listening session at a hifi store to compare R series against LS60 and also how they interact with subwoofers.
i was reluctant on going active again but the LS60 it was . It’s hard to do store demos I thought the LS60 had the edge and also I trusted its technology ( I’m a sucker for this kind of tech ) it’s a very interesting and progressive design . It’s a hobby

but I’m sure a pair of BMR floorstanders or Genelecs or Revels or something else also had been satisfying.
so I’m not expecting it be one perfect speaker for me , I expect that there exists several that would function with a little bit of personality and quirks to either get used to or fix by EQ .

im quite intrigued by listening to them with the subs I have <20Hz to 40kHz coverage without any use of bassreflex its all closed boxes and everything is well damped and resonance free and it sounds the opposite of what one might think .

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

I'll hazzard a guess

Speakers back then were considerably larger than today, so an effortless bass and ample dynamics more than making up for any possible colouration or directivisty errors. Tannoy was the deal for us here, in Lockwood cabinets earlier on, and their DMT's (I think they were) in the 80's. The JBL 4311's weren't much cop in the midrange but I liked very much the old L200 which I think was a domesaticated 4320? Ureis were popular with some artists but I don't know these. The thing is, good engineers could hear through their monitors well, although I suspect the current models which measure more properly would make their job easier. these days, it's al little boxes with subs I think, the huge soffit mounted monsters of old being there to impress visitors I was told..

Interesting. I read on asr about these (older) large b&w 'bbc dip' (or not) speakers still being used, being (gladly) handed out by b&w to several studio's. Maybe more older monitors are still in use?

 

[Anton D]

How to account for records not yet produced or my own limited experience with speakers ?

You are better than me. I always thought I was a worrier, but worrying about 'records not yet produced' wins!

...would I even recognise the perfect speaker even if I heard it in front of me ? Due to circle of confusion ? By which record would such a thing reveal itself ?

It’s a hobby

but I’m sure a pair of BMR floorstanders or Genelecs or Revels or something else also had been satisfying.
so I’m not expecting it be one perfect speaker for me , I expect that there exists several that would function with a little bit of personality and quirks to either get used to or fix by EQ .

I think this is sort of like dating: you don't know who the perfect person is until you've heard more than one record together, so to speak.

Totally agree: it's a hobby. Your joy ranks ahead of every Kippel or Spinorama machine in existence.

If you do ever hear that perfect speaker, make us the first to know!!!

Thnanks for your enjoyable post.

 

[MattHooper]

Hence that’s also why I remove AN from the pool of products to be considered.

you might under some circumstances with some tunes and rooms find something charming, but in the end these type of hifi brands are some kind of random walk to nowhere. They are not getting anywhere. It s a waste of time . Their next product might be different but it’s just that not progress.

It's not a waste of time for someone who ends up satisfied with the result. And there are tons of audiophiles who have ended up very satisfied with gear that you, or some other ASR members, wouldn't care to own.

This is the common refrain around here: that some coloration in a system may, serendipitously, sound good on some stuff, but not on others, and since it's random it's just a crap shoot. But as has been pointed out many times before: the same goes for a neutral accurate system. The sound quality is ultimately up to that of the recording, and as we know recordings vary greatly in quality, so you will experience wide variations in sound quality through a neutral system as well. Therefore, it's reasonable for any individual to choose the system he/she enjoys most. (If "enjoying music on my system" is one's goal, which of course is a reasonable goal).

Personally, I'm not seeking grossly colored sound playback for my own system. Accuracy in audio gear is generally a function of lower distortion, and lower distortion is generally to my ear associated with many aspects of better sound. However, compared to the most neutral systems, e.g. a good active speaker system, my system no doubt deviates somewhat. My speakers have a little rise in the highs, a bit of richness in the bass, and compared to solid state amps in my system I perceive my tube amps to be slightly altering the sound in a way I like. The system sounds utterly dialed in to a sound that pleases my ears.

Now is this just a hit-and-miss result, only working for some of what I listen to but working against lots of other music? Hell no! To me the system sounds gorgeous on virtually everything I play through it! And I listen to a huge variety of genres. I prefer virtually everything I play on my system over how I hear it on other systems (including when I've used the same variety of music on good active speakers). So for me, it's a win-win. That's what one can get in having an idea of what one likes, selecting specific gear and dialing in a system to achieve that.

And plenty of audiophiles have had similar experiences - they have heard tons of different speakers, but they have carefully selected the ones that "sound the best" to their ears with the variety of music they love. Audiophiles have found satisfaction with a wide range of speaker types, from panels, to box speakers, to horns, to omnis etc.

That is of course not for a second to argue against your specific approach, or any other ASR member. It's just to say audiophiles have different approaches to what they like and are seeking in their system, and so a One Way Or The Highway mindset misses this, IMO.