Audio Note speakers

[Anton D]

I see it rather like this:

• With AN the customer comes back again and again because he is never satisfied with its sound.

The latter is certainly good for the dealer but I highly doubt that it's good for customers.

I respectfully disagree on that point.

If they aren't satisfied with the AN sound, then why come back for a second serving. "I didn't like my experience with Audio Note, may I have another?"

How many people have you met who use Genelec speakers and then go back....to buy the next model up? Is it because they were never satisfied with the sound?

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

Yes! Bravo! So nice to see this acknowledged, vs imperious declarations that The Goal Of Audio Equipment Is Thus....!!!!!

"For you" As well as for many other audiophiles, and for a good number of audio manufacturers, that task is to reproduce recordings as accurately as possible. So thankfully you can find gear aligned with your goal.

And thankfully other audiophiles can find gear aligned with their own goals.




I disagree. I think Richard was making a perfectly good point in his analogy: people have different preferences, whether it's for music, vocalists, or reproduced sound. What is so wrong about that?

Your rejection of this seems based on the assumption that audio gear Can Have Only One Purpose...the one you have for your system (which I infer is seeking the highest possible accurate to the signal). But why should anyone accept that assumption?

Let's go back to the origin of reproducing sound. Those who originated reproduced sound generally saw live sound as the object of reproduction: You had someone singing or playing the violin, and you wanted to reproduce that sound - via recording/loudspeakers etc. The success was rated on how how well you reproduced the sound of the real thing.

But then once recordings became more common, at one point some artistic types said "actually, I don't want to just reproduce the sound exactly as it sounded live. I want to manipulate it, play with it, take artistic licence, ad effects, whatever I want."

What if the early engineers just stomped their feet and said NO! That's Just Not The Goal Of Sound Reproduction! Well...sorry...people really CAN develop new goals and interests for sound reproduction. And now we all of course accept studio manipulation just fine.

And here I can sense the ASR rejoinder clunk right in to place: But THAT is all talking about the creative aspect - sound PRODUCTION. But here we are talking about SOUND REPRODUCTION...and in that case The Correct Goal Is...(insert accuracy to the signal or whatever).

But this is just once again making the same mistake as if the original sound engineers demanded that only one goal for sound reproduction was accurately reproducing the sound in front of the microphone! People develop different goals!

Someone can decide he just really enjoys the various ways sound systems "sound different." And actually enjoy those differences, play with them, rather than seeking One Single Version. Yes, the consumer can if they want become somewhat "artistic" with how they listen to their music! It's the right of anyone to do so! Someone may want to upmix all stereo to surround, because they enjoy that effect and enjoy music in surround more. Someone may be a hard rock fan who just wants their music to "slam" - perfect frequency response be damned. Or a rap fan may want to feel that bass all the time, even if it means boosting the bass. Or you get people enjoying certain pleasures from horn and single ended amp systems, or dipoles, or any number of approaches that may not be strictly neutral. Who are we to declare That Is Just Not Right?
(And notice that most musical artists understand this, and aren't in the business of telling people how they must enjoy their music!)

So it's perfectly reasonable to say "IF you have the goal of reproducing the recorded signal as accurately as possible, THEN this is how you go about doing that."

But I think we have to avoid the dogmatism of making general declarations that "This Is THE Goal Of Sound Equipment" that come off as blinkered to other goals, and dogmatic.

Yes, but when you create a sound more to your liking, you accept that, on average, the sound of the voices and instruments you play are more altered than with a more neutral system.

 

[Anton D]

@MattHooper you appear to be probing the edges of what the term high fidelity means. What are we trying to do here at ASR? It's the pursuit of an objective standard which sweeps away all the BS and snake oil which permeates audio reproduction. To say one wants to hear it the way they want to hear it instead of how the recording engineers and artists intended is like going to see a famous work of art and viewing it through a pair of strongly tinted glasses because that's how you want to see it, or eating in a famous French restaurant and dousing the food with hot sauce because that's how you want to taste it when the essence of French cuisine is all about natural flavors.

After all, there is scientific support for speakers with a flat frequency response on axis and even response off axis. A statistically significant portion of listeners did prefer those. Which leaves me with the feeling that Audio Note is selling snake oil with nice woodworking.

It is really tough determining objective standards for a subjective experience.

Even if a statistically significant proportion of listeners report a specific preference, others are no obliged to a agree at risk of being 'wrong.'

My heretical notion is that once a musical performer, visual artist, of chef has created their product and 'released' it, the consumer may alter/augment/defile/modify/enhance that product as they desire.

Those people you mention might simply state that hot sauce is composed of natural flavors and they prefer food with that added. (I agree with you on this, but I'm busy being obtuse here. )

Look at how many recipes say, "Salt to taste."

I don't like salt, but others might...and we are all correct.

I like the science of engineering, and I like the subjectivity of allowing the end use to do what he finds most pleasing.

 

[Anton D]

Yes, but when you create a sound more to your liking, you accept that, on average, the sound of the voices and instruments you play are more altered than with a more neutral system.

That's fine.

The listener can't be wrong unless he insists on making sonic claims on your behalf.

There are brands/models of speakers I don't like , but you are free to love them and I love that.

 

[MattHooper]

@MattHooper you appear to be probing the edges of what the term high fidelity means.

That's part of it.

But I think my point is clearer if instead you see that I'm talking not strictly about "fidelity" but the broader question of:

What is the role of Audio Equipment? (And more specifically for this niche, what is the role audio systems have for audiophiles?)

And to answer such questions we need to ask: What role for whom, and why?

And since people have different goals (and to some degree different preferences as to what they value most), there's going to be different answers.

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

Other people may actually enjoy that there is variety to how different systems/speakers sound...and may enjoy a certain sonic profile in a system, or maybe various different sonic profiles. So they may take a more creative approach.

I don't think either of these (or likely many other varieties) are just "wrong."

This is one thing I was getting at when I started a thread a while back asking "do we want all loudspeakers to sound the same?" That is: do you want all loudspeakers to converge on a specific technical standard, which implies all 'properly designed' loudspeakers would sound, in principle, identical. A lot of ASR members answered "yes." And I understand that. I (and some others) answered "no." That's because I really enjoy the DIFFERENCES in sound systems, and loudspeakers. Maybe that's because I have always approached sound as a "creative" - my own work is all about playing with and manipulating sound - and I get similar pleasure playing with different sounding systems. It's one reason I often owned numerous speakers at the same time, from stand mounted speakers, to floor standing box speakers, to omnis etc. I liked to switch things up. Other people may just not be in to that. Which is fine. But it's dogmatism to suggest that one goal is THE goal, from which it is ignoble to depart.

What are we trying to do here at ASR? It's the pursuit of an objective standard which sweeps away all the BS and snake oil which permeates audio reproduction.

I see the ASR goal as producing accurate information about how audio gear works. Not dictating what gear any reader must or ought to use. So, yes, let's keep revealing dishonest, untruthful claims in audio. But that doesn't require dictating "therefore you MUST choose gear that measures X, Y, Z..." It just helps inform people so they can make their own informed choices if they want.

To say one wants to hear it the way they want to hear it instead of how the recording engineers and artists intended is like going to see a famous work of art and viewing it through a pair of strongly tinted glasses because that's how you want to see it, or eating in a famous French restaurant and dousing the food with hot sauce because that's how you want to taste it when the essence of French cuisine is all about natural flavors.

That's fine if you or anyone else approaches what you want that way. On the other hand, it doesn't seem most artists are as concerned about the accuracy of someone's stereo system as some audiophiles are. As I pointed out in a previous post, as one musician/producer put his view: ""The best or proper way to listen to your favourite artist or your favourite album is defined by you."

After all, there is scientific support for speakers with a flat frequency response on axis and even response off axis. A statistically significant portion of listeners did prefer those. Which leaves me with the feeling that Audio Note is selling snake oil with nice woodworking.

I think there is snake oil in Audio Note's claims about any number of things. But it's also possible that, irrespective of the b.s. portion of their marketing, they nonetheless produced some gear that produce a sound that some people really enjoy. I could see why some enjoy AN speakers when I've heard them demonstrated well.
I was just talking with my friend who reviews for soundstage, and he reminded me of an Audio Note show report he wrote not long ago. He covered a super expensive Audio Note room, hundreds of thousands of dollars, featuring Audio Notes top amplifiers, with Avantgarde speakers. He thought it sounded quite bad, track after track - muffled, bloated bass etc - and said as much in his show report. On the other hand to his surprise he was utterly blown away by another Audio Note room, featuring the Audio Note speakers in their room corner set up. He couldn't believe the scale of the sound, the impact of the bass, the imaging etc. Since I'm very familiar with how my friend's impressions track the same gear I've heard, I wouldn't be surprised if that AN system didn't sound impressive in the ways he described. There's b.s. technical claims, but then there is "how the gear ends up sounding (which may have nothing to do with the b.s. technical claims)."

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

I see it rather like this:

• With most brands the customer buys a new device, brings it home and is satisfied with its performance for a very long time.
• With AN the customer comes back again and again because he is never satisfied with its sound.

The latter is certainly good for the dealer but I highly doubt that it's good for customers.

The low damping factor of AN tube amplifiers even seems to compensate partly for the erratic fr of their speakers, if I understand these graphs correctly - https://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-e-lexus-signature-loudspeaker-measurements
"Dear customer, wait until you hear them on this amplifier!"

A bit like what bose, bud, heineken are for the masses, but then for the 'happy few': "Better profits through marketing than through quality".

Edit: I just realize I know nothing yet about the marketing of bud beer

 

[Duke]

@MattHooper you appear to be probing the edges of what the term high fidelity means. What are we trying to do here at ASR? It's the pursuit of an objective standard which sweeps away all the BS and snake oil which permeates audio reproduction... how the recording engineers and artists intended...

I want to perceive a convincing illusion of a live performance. I want it to be spatially convincing, timbrally convincing, and dynamically convincing, all without distracting colorations or aberrations. This is not necessarily the same thing as prioritizing "how the recording engineers and artists intended".

For instance, upmixing a stereo recording to create a more convincing sense of space would be an example of prioritizing "a convincing illusion of a live performance" rather than prioritizing "how the recording engineers and artists intended."

If someone else has a different target, that is totally fine. If that different target is "what the recording engineers and artists intended", that is fine too. Even if we don't really know exactly "what the recording engineers and artists intended", we can do our best based on reasonable assumptions.

 

[Ron Texas]

I want to perceive a convincing illusion of a live performance. I want it to be spatially convincing, timbrally convincing, and dynamically convincing, all without distracting colorations or aberrations. This is not necessarily the same thing as prioritizing "how the recording engineers and artists intended".

For instance, upmixing a stereo recording to create a more convincing sense of space would be an example of prioritizing "a convincing illusion of a live performance" rather than prioritizing "how the recording engineers and artists intended."

If someone else has a different target, that is totally fine. If that different target is "what the recording engineers and artists intended", that is fine too. Even if we don't really know exactly "what the recording engineers and artists intended", we can do our best based on reasonable assumptions.

I like that. Stereophile used the term "musically satisfying experience". That could be interpreted different ways, but I believe the right answer is uncolored and undistorted.

 

[Ron Texas]

@MattHooper your sounding like the "if it makes you happy" crowd. So go to the Louvre and view the Mona Lisa through a pair of glasses which are tinted strong pink and it's OK because it makes you happy. That doesn't do it for me and it leads to all sorts of strange results like being high on fentanyl all day is fine because that's how you like to experience reality. There is an objective standard in audio and in many other areas. With respect to audio that's why ASR is here.

 

[Anton D]

@MattHooper your sounding like the "if it makes you happy" crowd. So go to the Louvre and view the Mona Lisa through a pair of glasses which are tinted strong pink and it's OK because it makes you happy. That doesn't do it for me and it leads to all sorts of strange results like being high on fentanyl all day is fine because that's how you like to experience reality. There is an objective standard in audio and in many other areas. With respect to audio that's why ASR is here.

His looking at the Mona Lisa that way would upset you? I find it less threatening, I guess.

It's not like he's saying you have to do that. He saying that you may enjoy the Mona Lisa as you desire, and he doesn't care. It's kind of libertarian.

That's quite a slippery slope from wanting to look at a painting in a way that upsets you to equating Matt's point with promoting fentanyl use.(Thanks for not saying it will encourage people to marry animals and other such ski runs on that slippery slope.)

I'd say the beauty of ASR is that one can approach any part of the hobby in a scientific way to maximize one's sonic journey. ATMOS, stereo, CD, streaming, whatever. The science exists to enhance our subjective enjoyment, not to make us slaves to it.

We can talk about parameters in all niches of the hobby and discuss how to make things more enjoyable.

The whole hobby makes me happy, if that means there's a "makes you happy crowd."

 

[Duke]

I like that. Stereophile used the term "musically satisfying experience". That could be interpreted different ways, but I believe the right answer is uncolored and undistorted.

@MattHooper your sounding like the "if it makes you happy" crowd.

Glad that you liked my post, but @MattHooper and I are pretty much saying the same thing, just with emphasis in a bit different areas.

And imo @Anton D says it better than I could:

I'd say the beauty of ASR is that one can approach any part of the hobby in a scientific way to maximize one's sonic journey. ATMOS, stereo, CD, streaming, whatever. The science exists to enhance our subjective enjoyment, not to make us slaves to it.

We can talk about parameters in all niches of the hobby and discuss how to make things more enjoyable.

The whole hobby makes me happy, if that means there's a "makes you happy crowd."

 

[MattHooper]

that’s often due to directivity problems , you can’t EQ all speakers to sound like any other speaker . Nr one reason seems to be how they project sound in all directions not just on axis .

Which is why sometimes selecting an idiosyncratic speaker is going to get you the result you wanted. If you hear a speaker that sounds as you want it for your music, and it can't be easily duplicated by some other speaker using EQ, then it makes sense to get the first speaker.

a peculiar speaker like the AN could probably not be properly mimicked, but should you ? It’s the sound of music you want not the sound of another speaker that’s not a goal ?

"Should" is up to the goal of the person in question. If someone enjoys "how my favourite music sounds through this speaker" then what's wrong with that?

How weird .

It's no more weird that people can enjoy the differences in sound systems as they can enjoy the sonic differences in anything else. My system is nirvana for me. It might not be for you. Plenty of non-audiophiles may find your own interest in audio gear "weird" but does that make it objectively "weird?" Nah, just means you get a kick out of one thing, they get kicks out of something else.

there are room for plenty of variations in audio . Not just weirdness like AN they actually don’t make sense they can’t be defended by rational arguments , some of the things they “do” actually does not do anything like making you pay for special wires etc .

I understand why someone would just write off components by a company who has made bogus claims, like special wires etc.

My own approach is not to do that, necessarily. By which I don't mean "I accept the snake oil claims" but rather "I think it's possible for a company to hold to some bogus ideas, while STILL producing some compelling sounding audio gear."

And that's based off my experience of liking some gear from companies that also make some claims I find to be unsupported.

So for instance, I think, like so many high end manufacturers, Conrad Johnson makes some dubious claims for their amplifier design. Still, I really like how my CJ amps sound, even though I don't buy all their explanations.

Another example: I own Joseph Audio speakers. Joseph Audio seems to buy in somewhat to some high end cabling claims (especially focused on how cardass cables "perform" with the speakers). I personally don't buy in to that. But damn the speakers sound fantastic! It doesn't rule out that there is a level of competency involved in the product.

Another more extreme example: I reviewed some speakers by Shun Mook Audio, many years ago. Shun Mook is one of the more notorious brands associated with snake oil, their claims about the special qualities of "mpingo discs" placed on speakers or around the room to "tune the sound," especially. I never for a moment took those claims seriously and still don't. But one day when I was moving through the rooms of a high end audio store I encountered some nondescript black-box speakers producing some of the most gorgeous sound I'd ever heard. After listening I inquired and found out they were Shun Mook speakers, which shocked me. I went back and listened to those more than once, with plenty of my test tracks.

I later requested a review pair. That's when I learned more about the approach Shun Mook took: they were designed not just with measurements but 'by ear.' They approached designing a loudspeakers as if it were something like a musical instrument. They felt that resonance was a "good thing" and so wanted to take advantage of this, rather than rid their speakers of resonances. They claimed to carefully select the right sounding wood for the cabinate, with the right resonance, and eschewed the approach of drivers in separate compartments feeling that this could result in less cohesion to the sound, so in their case all the drivers were mounted in a big resonating cabinet. With...mpingo discs placed within to "tune" the cabinet.

Now, did I think the little mpingo discs did anything much? No. (I tried them out of due diligence, on the speakers: no sonic change). Do I think all their claims make sense? No. Is it possible that their speaker cabinet resonated audibly? Well, that seems possible. But that doesn't make every thing they said about it true. But what I did experience were the characteristics I originally heard in the store demos: Just an amazing coherence, richness and density to the sound. Voices sounded more "human" than on so many other speakers, gobs of detail that wasn't artificial sounding, beautiful rich tone with intrument after instrument, incredible soundstaging and imaging...it was entrancing. Plenty of my guests felt it was the best sound they'd ever heard in my room.

So, to my thinking, the fact that some of Shun Mook's claims about some of their products are flat out false, and that some of their design philosophy for the speaker seemed dubious, in any case...for whatever reasons...they managed to produce a beautiful sounding loudspeaker.

Hence, on such experience I don't personally write off all the products a company makes simply on the grounds that some of their claims are bogus. A designer can have some dubious beliefs while still doing enough things right to produce products that sound good to me, and some portion of other audiophiles.

 

[Ron Texas]

His looking at the Mona Lisa that way would upset you? I find it less threatening, I guess.

It doesn't upset me (and you are going too far with that language). I just think it's dumb or neurotic. It also ties in with a loss of morality, where everything depends on the context.

 

[MattHooper]

@MattHooper your sounding like the "if it makes you happy" crowd.

Don't you want to be happy?

Again, what is the role of audio equipment? What, ultimately, are we doing this for?

Isn't selecting our audio gear our way to enjoy music? Otherwise, what is the point?

Look at who is making the claim "You Need To Have X Equipment To Listen To Music Correctly".

It's some audiophiles, with their particular goal and interest in certain technical performance parameters; it's generally not the artists making such admonitions! The artists generally "want you to be happy" in terms of whatever allows the individual listener to appreciate their music. Taylor Swift doesn't give a damn (in all likelihood) that her fans don't have studio monitors. Whether it's listening to her music streaming, through earbuds, a laptop or spinning vinyl on turntable, whatever gets the listener off on her music is doubtless meeting her ultimate goal as a musician. Likewise for countless musical artists.

So go to the Louvre and view the Mona Lisa through a pair of glasses which are tinted strong pink and it's OK because it makes you happy. That doesn't do it for me and it leads to all sorts of strange results like being high on fentanyl all day is fine because that's how you like to experience reality. There is an objective standard in audio and in many other areas. With respect to audio that's why ASR is here.

Because that is the route that makes you happiest with your audio system.

I mean, I presume you do not approach music listening as some science experiment you have to grin and bear "just for the sake of objective neutrality" right? I presume you are motivated by achieving the type of sound quality that enhances your listening experience.

Acknowledging this doesn't negate anything at all about the objective accuracy of equipment, high fidelity, reasons why you would want high fidelity equipment, the usefulness of ASR etc.

 

[Anton D]

It doesn't upset me (and you are going too far with that language). I just think it's dumb or neurotic. It also ties in with a loss of morality, where everything depends on the context.

If it 'ties with a loss of morality,' that's a pretty big threat, I would would venture.

I had not considered the moral imperative of viewing the Mona Lisa in the proper manner.

Maybe I don't take Hi Fi seriously enough.

Or, perhaps we are stuck in a context rut and our ruts don't converge.

I think fentanyl is great in the proper context. Not great in other contexts. I don't care how people want to view art. You could watch TV upside down for all I care, or put ATMOS speakers on the floor instead of the ceiling. Ketchup on a hot dog? Go right ahead. For me, the bottom line is not insisting to others that my idiosyncratic ways (or yours) are the definitive way for everyone to do things.

"If it makes you happy" is the whole point of the hobby. There are multitudes of wonderful ways to enjoy it!

 

[Selkirks]

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.

+1

Single driver speakers were my satisfaction destination after a long journey of speakers, including Audio Note AN-E and AN-J. I keep objectively superior speakers around but my mains are single driver.

 

[MattHooper]

It doesn't upset me (and you are going too far with that language). I just think it's dumb or neurotic. It also ties in with a loss of morality, where everything depends on the context.

Do you think choosing a sound system that isn’t strictly neutral is “immoral?”

(I presume not, so not sure where morality comes in to this discussion)

 

[Mnyb]

Which is why sometimes selecting an idiosyncratic speaker is going to get you the result you wanted. If you hear a speaker that sounds as you want it for your music, and it can't be easily duplicated by some other speaker using EQ, then it makes sense to get the first speaker.



"Should" is up to the goal of the person in question. If someone enjoys "how my favourite music sounds through this speaker" then what's wrong with that?



It's no more weird that people can enjoy the differences in sound systems as they can enjoy the sonic differences in anything else. My system is nirvana for me. It might not be for you. Plenty of non-audiophiles may find your own interest in audio gear "weird" but does that make it objectively "weird?" Nah, just means you get a kick out of one thing, they get kicks out of something else.



I understand why someone would just write off components by a company who has made bogus claims, like special wires etc.

My own approach is not to do that, necessarily. By which I don't mean "I accept the snake oil claims" but rather "I think it's possible for a company to hold to some bogus ideas, while STILL producing some compelling sounding audio gear."

And that's based off my experience of liking some gear from companies that also make some claims I find to be unsupported.

So for instance, I think, like so many high end manufacturers, Conrad Johnson makes some dubious claims for their amplifier design. Still, I really like how my CJ amps sound, even though I don't buy all their explanations.

Another example: I own Joseph Audio speakers. Joseph Audio seems to buy in somewhat to some high end cabling claims (especially focused on how cardass cables "perform" with the speakers). I personally don't buy in to that. But damn the speakers sound fantastic! It doesn't rule out that there is a level of competency involved in the product.

Another more extreme example: I reviewed some speakers by Shun Mook Audio, many years ago. Shun Mook is one of the more notorious brands associated with snake oil, their claims about the special qualities of "mpingo discs" placed on speakers or around the room to "tune the sound," especially. I never for a moment took those claims seriously and still don't. But one day when I was moving through the rooms of a high end audio store I encountered some nondescript black-box speakers producing some of the most gorgeous sound I'd ever heard. After listening I inquired and found out they were Shun Mook speakers, which shocked me. I went back and listened to those more than once, with plenty of my test tracks.

I later requested a review pair. That's when I learned more about the approach Shun Mook took: they were designed not just with measurements but 'by ear.' They approached designing a loudspeakers as if it were something like a musical instrument. They felt that resonance was a "good thing" and so wanted to take advantage of this, rather than rid their speakers of resonances. They claimed to carefully select the right sounding wood for the cabinate, with the right resonance, and eschewed the approach of drivers in separate compartments feeling that this could result in less cohesion to the sound, so in their case all the drivers were mounted in a big resonating cabinet. With...mpingo discs placed within to "tune" the cabinet.

Now, did I think the little mpingo discs did anything much? No. (I tried them out of due diligence, on the speakers: no sonic change). Do I think all their claims make sense? No. Is it possible that their speaker cabinet resonated audibly? Well, that seems possible. But that doesn't make every thing they said about it true. But what I did experience were the characteristics I originally heard in the store demos: Just an amazing coherence, richness and density to the sound. Voices sounded more "human" than on so many other speakers, gobs of detail that wasn't artificial sounding, beautiful rich tone with intrument after instrument, incredible soundstaging and imaging...it was entrancing. Plenty of my guests felt it was the best sound they'd ever heard in my room.

So, to my thinking, the fact that some of Shun Mook's claims about some of their products are flat out false, and that some of their design philosophy for the speaker seemed dubious, in any case...for whatever reasons...they managed to produce a beautiful sounding loudspeaker.

Hence, on such experience I don't personally write off all the products a company makes simply on the grounds that some of their claims are bogus. A designer can have some dubious beliefs while still doing enough things right to produce products that sound good to me, and some portion of other audiophiles.

That’s goes for many normal brands too still having biwire terminals and spikes, to be able to sell to audiophiles influenced by all this nonsense.

Regarding AN its not just some of their claims it’s almost all their claims and their whole method and mo is bogus.
AN is so far into to la la land that’s they are very unlikely to make a functional hifi component by chance their very existence makes a mockery of our hobby . They are truly a part of the problem not the solution. I would not give money to those.

high end is so bizarre that you can’t even find functional preamplifiers anymore from anyone in the 1970’s you could still see tone controls balance and mono and loudness buttons and tape loops etc.

somewhere in th early 80‘s ? ( my subjective experience ) it seems like the hobby self destructed and let the charlatans run the show it was some irrecoverable tipping point where prices started to accelerate exponentially and bogus claims slowly become the normal “truths”.
it was also when I became interested in audio and I fell for the BS for decades and have spent to much time and money on this hobby.

the inefficiency of doing it “the high end way” is staggering you can’t defend brands Like AN .
I bet some snake oil contains vitamin D or something as a pure side effect , should I buy more ?

it’s destroying the hobby more than you think for every person becoming interested in audio there at least 100 that runs to the hills when they encounter stuff like this as a first experience ? The likes of AN and TAS are literally scaring away every sane person.

if audio became normal again it would benefit all and probably make more enthusiast . We could have decent respectable hobby again .
but of course a niche .

sites like ASR and DIY enthusiasts saves the hobby for us I think so I’m actually hopeful computer based audio streaming and headphone enthusiasts did something good for us too in saving the hobby I think we reached bottom a couple of years ago and are on our way up again and could just leave the likes of AN stuck in the bottom mud where they belong.

Other surprising good developments are moFI and PS audio starting to develop loudspeakers ? Who would have thought.
They done so by teaming up with external experts it’s almost like it’s only the labels that ties them to the original company.
They seems to perform to ?

 

[Ron Texas]

Do you think choosing a sound system that isn’t strictly neutral is “immoral?”

(I presume not, so not sure where morality comes in to this discussion)

Choosing a sound system is not about morality. However, the arguments you make are on the slippery slope of variable ethics and relative morality. Men who say they are women and want to play on women's sports teams just want to be happy. That one's for you @Anton D

Even happiness has some standards.

 

[Anton D]

Choosing a sound system is not about morality. However, the arguments you make are on the slippery slope of variable ethics and relative morality. Men who say they are women and want to play on women's sports teams just want to be happy. That one's for you @Anton D

Even happiness has some standards.

Hi Fi as a death march.

So, choosing Hi Fi gear you find pleasing = something to do with moral threats and the slippery slope to how you feel threatened by people whose gender identity doesn’t conform to your own.

And this idea is so overwhelming to you that it compels you to drag it into chatting about a brand of speakers.

Getting back to the topic, the speakers demo really nicely and are reasonably unobtrusive regarding placement. If someone enjoys the sound, I think the world can survive the moral peril their existence creates.