Andrew Jones’s new speaker brand - Jones and Cerreta

[PGAMiami]

Having been “a client of Andrew” for over 20 years since his TAD days, I can’t imagine that this speaker will not sound and measure extremely well. He’s the real thing, no snake oil, unbelievable customer service, incredibly talented engineer. Still haven’t found anything that sounds better than my TAD R1s, especially with a bit of DSP and even better paired with four subs using Dirac ART to help manage the room. In my experience, everything Andrew does is based on solid engineering. If these speakers are wide, it’s not driven by cosmetics or marketing. There is a solid reason behind this. If he chose a 10” midrange, there is a reason …

And for you Benchmark AHB2 fans, his twin brother, an EE, was very involved with that design. These two apples fell from the same tree. I’m a huge fan of both. The AHB2s are the best and least expensive amps I matched up to my TADs.

 

[Newman]

In my experience, everything Andrew does is based on solid engineering.

Yes, as far as the loudspeaker engineering itself is concerned. I don’t think, though, that the expensive gloss finishes on the TAD loudspeaker range is because it improves the sound from a satin finish, say.

If these speakers are wide, it’s not driven by cosmetics or marketing.

Yes it is.

There is a solid reason behind this.

Cosmetics and marketing are excellent solid reasons.

If he chose a 10” midrange, there is a reason …

… and it is not because it’s going to sound better than a TAD that doesn’t have a 10” midrange…

One can be an excellent loudspeaker engineer and at the same time not make every product related decision solely for engineering purposes. There’s just no reason to assume it must be.

With this new venture, Jones is no longer only a loudspeaker designer, and he has to take into account factors that would relate to his greater role. He is now co-owner of a new company. The idea that all he wants to talk about and think about is engineering, is illogical. He simply has to be discussing product concepts, market potential, points of difference. He won’t simply say to his partner, “I’m going to make the best loudspeaker I can without consideration of anything, and then we’ll see what market we can fit it into and whether it will sell.”

Cheers

 

[Mr. Widget]

I don’t think, though, that the expensive gloss finishes on the TAD loudspeaker range is because it improves the sound from a satin finish, say.

Really?
How sad.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I just wish he provided measurements

 

[Vuki]

.


… and it is not because it’s going to sound better than a TAD that doesn’t have a 10” midrange…

But it's going to be more sensitive and louder.

 

[Newman]

I just wish he provided measurements

The absence of measurements is just another example of the speaker being oriented to the intended market, which appears to be the sort of audiophile who is sure that measurements don’t tell the whole story, and is equally sure that the materials list will tell him even more about the sound, for example field coil, cone material, capacitor material…

 

[Newman]

But it's going to be more sensitive and louder.

Louder, hey? Which TAD floorstander isn’t loud enough in the midrange?

 

[Vuki]

But it's <90db/1W. There is no high eff. 6.5" midrange that could be crossed over to woofer low & be able to go loud (have large Xmax).

 

[Newman]

So? My point was that a 10" midrange is not a necessary design choice for an excellently engineered speaker, including loud. See where I referred to floorstanding TADs?

I was not saying that once the rest of this speaker is fixed, you don't need a 10" midrange.

 

[Vuki]

Whatever...
There is solid engineering reason to use 10" midrange in that speaker.

 

[Juhazi]

How would they be marketing the future 8 or 6,5" version? "This new model is intentionally made to sound worse and less loud?" Or the 15" version?

Actually the MoFi Sourcepoint 8 measures better than 10 in many respects https://www.spinorama.org/?page=1&search=mofi

It is up to the customer to decide which are the most important criteria when choosing speakers

 

[PGAMiami]

Yes, as far as the loudspeaker engineering itself is concerned. I don’t think, though, that the expensive gloss finishes on the TAD loudspeaker range is because it improves the sound from a satin finish, say.


Yes it is.


Cosmetics and marketing are excellent solid reasons.


… and it is not because it’s going to sound better than a TAD that doesn’t have a 10” midrange…

One can be an excellent loudspeaker engineer and at the same time not make every product related decision solely for engineering purposes. There’s just no reason to assume it must be.

With this new venture, Jones is no longer only a loudspeaker designer, and he has to take into account factors that would relate to his greater role. He is now co-owner of a new company. The idea that all he wants to talk about and think about is engineering, is illogical. He simply has to be discussing product concepts, market potential, points of difference. He won’t simply say to his partner, “I’m going to make the best loudspeaker I can without consideration of anything, and then we’ll see what market we can fit it into and whether it will sell.”

Cheers

Of course marketing and cosmetics are considered, but that’s not the same as saying these are driving the decisions. A buyer of speakers at a TAD price point has expectations on finish and cosmetics that are different than one buying a budget Pioneer speaker at Best Buy (both designed by Andrew). Just like a buyer of a Ferrari has different expectations than one of a Mustang GT. Having known Andrew for more than 20 years and having him come to my home multiple times, I can say he’s quite a unique talent that always strives to get the best sound he can within the other constraints that define the product he’s designing. I’ve owned many of his designs. Measurements are very important for him. Everything I’ve seen him do is based on very sound engineering. I would expect at some point he will explain the decisions he made designing his new speaker. I would speculate the shape and size of the 10” midrange has much to do with it being a waveguide for the tweeter, the wide baffle may be necessary for the how he wants the drivers to load and propagate sound into the room, and the field coil design may have been important to achieve the efficiency he was targeting. Who knows, I don’t. But there is a sound reason I’m sure.

 

[Newman]

We seem to be reading several comments above that this speaker is beyond reproach because the engineer has a good track record and a big name. Criticism must be restricted to appearance etc.

Interesting.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

We seem to be reading several comments above that this speaker is beyond reproach because the engineer has a good track record and a big name. Criticism must be restricted to appearance etc.

Interesting.

and yet, as I have said a few times, we seem to be glossing over the role of the Cerreta brothers, who are fans of old school tubes and vinyl and all that. I don't think it's reasonable to consider these speakers solely the product of Jones' preferences. Bill Cerreta, from the About section of the brand's website:

An avid record collector, Bill has travelled across the US, Europe, and Japan to find the perfect pressing.
When not distracted by vinyl, he restores and builds vintage tube gear, receivers, and speakers.

 

[PGAMiami]

My point is not that the only thing Andrew is considering is making the best possible speaker. Instead it is that he has a great ability to get the most out whatever budget, size, manufacturing constraints etc he’s faced with. And he’s willing to try things that may be unusual or unexpected.

I haven’t read much about the Troubadour and have no idea what goals Andrew had when he designed them. But knowing him and his work, I don’t think it’s a stretch to expect them to measure and sound great.

What I do know is that he’s a great guy that is passionate about this hobby. I would not bet against him and expect that for a given price point and design objective (size, efficiency, bandwidth, spl capability, passive vs active …) his products will be very competitive.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I don’t think it’s a stretch to expect them to measure and sound great.

And yet he they (again, it's Jones and Cerreta) won't provide measurements, the one thing that would resolve the disagreement. Anyway, it should not be surprising that a site dedicated to Audio Science isn't satisfied by appeals to reputation ("Jones has proven in the past that he makes great speakers").

 

[PGAMiami]

How would they be marketing the future 8 or 6,5" version? "This new model is intentionally made to sound worse and less loud?" Or the 15" version?

Actually the MoFi Sourcepoint 8 measures better than 10 in many respects https://www.spinorama.org/?page=1&search=mofi

It is up to the customer to decide which are the most important criteria when choosing speakers

Bigger is not always better. I love my R1s but Andrew has long said his favorite TAD was the smaller CR1. Bass response was just more important to me. And back then when I bought them, integrating subs was much harder to do than now with DSP. If I was starting from scratch today, I’d get 2 CR1s and 4 Perlisten subs. Instead I have R1s with 4 subs. Dirac ART pulls this all together in an amazing way.

It’s curious that Andrew chose such a large midrange for the Troubadour. I can only guess it had more to do with how it interacts with the tweeter as a waveguide. Controlled and good directivity is evident in all his designs, and is one reason why they sound great and why even now my R1s sound so good vis a vis much newer designs.

 

[PGAMiami]

And yet he they (again, it's Jones and Cerreta) won't provide measurements, the one thing that would resolve the disagreement. Anyway, it should not be surprising that a site dedicated to Audio Science isn't satisfied by appeals to reputation ("Jones has proven in the past that he makes great speakers").

I would expect given his following it will not be long before a reviewer provides the measurements. Also would not surprise me to see an interview where Andrew explains his design choices. These just came out, no? I don’t understand why some are assuming the worst.

It’s very possible that Andrew was looking to make a speaker for low power tube fans. Nothing wrong with that, btw. Tubes do have a sound that many like. I prefer the purity of an AHB2. But a little distortion can also make things very pleasant sounding. Some like their whiskey neat, some with ice, some with Dr. Pepper … live and let live!

 

[PGAMiami]

I just finished watching a couple of the YouTube videos on their website. No doubt these speakers were designed with maximizing efficiency as a primary objective. How many speaker designers today are designing drivers from scratch and have the depth of knowledge Andrew has? Not many. For those that raise doubt regarding the merits of the design because they didn’t publish measurements I just have one comment. The deviation from “ideal” measurements that these speakers may have are most likely intentional and/or deliberate compromises needed to optimize other parameters. Looking forward to reading the reviews and I expect these will impress both the audiophiles and engineers.

 

[DMill]

I personally would never pay this kind of money for a speaker with no published measurements. That said, I personally wouldn’t bet money Andrew Jones didn’t build a killer speaker. I’m sorry, but reputation based on past success is worth a lot! Even if it tilts tonality when it is measured.

Anyone with money can buy a Klippel. Hire a good engineer. Is that the criteria for building a great speaker? I love science but when the art leaves the equation we are left with white toast that everyone likes.