Audio Note speakers

[DanielT]

Hi Daniel - yes the key is to listen to as many different approaches as you can - as a reviewer myself I come across a lot of time on a lot of gear - espeically in the audio mecca here in Hong Kong where all the major brands are located both pro and home audio speakers.

I owned the KEF LS-50 for 4 years and was able to try them out against a number of speakers but in the end - I prefered my much less pricey (then) Audio Note AX Two which was designed by Andy Whittle of Rogers for Audio Note. Andy works at both compaies as the lead designer at Rogers and in a different role at AN. The KEF was good which is why it stayed for as long as it did alongside the AX Two - but when the time came to keep one I wanted the one that made acoustic instruments and voices sound quite a bit more natural - that was the AX Two - even though it is butt ugly compared to those KEF speakers.

In the end I always look at the gear people get hugely passionate about - like Magnepan - they measure pretty bad - I am not a fan of the sound of them - but hey - people love em to death - and if it makes them happier then go for it.

Loudspeakers and listening to the ones you like, I buy that argument. There is so much about speakers that depends on taste, for example, who knows what kind of dispersion pattern person X likes? Or how much distortion-free (which incidentally does not exist regarding speakers) SPL that person Y wants? Much of the mentioned can be read in measurements, but then person X and Y (X vs Y...it was maybe something else? ) have to test what they like.

BUT electronics, such as DACs that measure well and have low inaudible distortion and noise and straight FR what more could you want? Apart from functions and appearance then.

 

[Mart68]

Peter Qvortrup began as a dealer importer and he heard "everything" that was available - he rails about reviewers today who have not heard a list of the great speakers and equipment that went before. Peter's objective was his "comparison contrast" methodolgy which is the idea that one can't know how every recording is made but that we do know that every recording is different from every other recording. Therefore a system that shows you the most differences in the recordings is more accurate than one that makes recordings sound the same (homogenous). He co-wrot the article with Classical Composer and audio reviewer Leonard Norwitz.

And yet his speakers do exactly that because they are wilfully inaccurate - as well as being pointlessly expensive.

 

[Mart68]

All speakers that deviate from that are "inaccurate" loudspeaker/room response - so now you are choosing which "innacurate" speaker you "like the most" - that's why even amongst the so called "accurate loudspeakers" and "accurate amplifiers" people make choices as to which ones sound better to them. It's the same rigid holier than though attitude that LP and Tube and SET guys have that their choice is the best choice. Someone always trying to control the choices of others - the same people trying to control a woman's choice over their body - and no one ever convinces anyone.

That no speaker is 100 percent accurate is irrelevant. Was the music made on speakers that were 100 percent accurate? No it wasn't. That's not a reason to decide that in that case anything goes. Accuracy in speakers is a ballpark, the best we can do is to get in that ballpark, and not be in the parking lot.

No one is dictating choices, that's a pathetic argument we are all tired of hearing. It's about educating people so they can make an informed decision. It's about eliminating the situation of uninformed people taking the advice of other uninformed people.

If someone is fully informed and still wants to make a left-field choice, then that's truly their decision and not one influenced by some know-nothing guru.

The fact is that the end result of buying poor-performing speakers is that many recordings will be rendered unlistenable. Plenty of people out there complaining about how bad so many recordings are, especially rock and pop recordings with dense mixes. And this is entirely down to poor loudspeaker choice.

But they don't think the loudspeaker can be at fault because it was expensive, and it was recommended, and it has good reviews. So it can't possibly be to blame. Instead they try to fix the problem with cables, power regenerators, reclockers, NOS DACs, capacitor 'upgrades', tube amps and anti-vibration 'devices'.

And when none of that works they complain about recording quality and question why not all music is recorded like Diana Krall's LPs.

It's a hobby and if you're active in a hobby you're supposed to help out others. It is nothing to do with dictating choice. It's about education. I really do wish that there had been such education as this forum provides back when I was starting out almost 40 years ago. I would have saved so much time and money.

 

[CapMan]

It's a hobby and if you're active in a hobby you're supposed to help out others. It is nothing to do with dictating choice. It's about education. I really do wish that there had been such education as this forum provides back when I was starting out almost 40 years ago. I would have saved so much time and money.

This

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

The issue is with the validity of the DBT in terms of Validity and Reliability - but it's STILL on that guy to prove it - So we're not really in disagreement on that - I just take issue with parts of the test and how they're constructed

DBT is proven, especially in the Validity and Reliability department - you just stubbornly refuse to accept that.
Again, I'll ask you the same question: do you really think that whole scientific community - all engineers and scientist in the AES and beyond, are so stupid for accepting the DBT as gold standard, and you are smarter than all of them?!

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

The fact is that the end result of buying poor-performing speakers is that many recordings will be rendered unlistenable. Plenty of people out there complaining about how bad so many recordings are, especially rock and pop recordings with dense mixes. And this is entirely down to poor loudspeaker choice.

But they don't think the loudspeaker can be at fault because it was expensive, and it was recommended, and it has good reviews. So it can't possibly be to blame. Instead they try to fix the problem with cables, power regenerators, reclockers, NOS DACs, capacitor 'upgrades', tube amps and anti-vibration 'devices'.

"The chain of waste". What could be done about it? The only 'positive' aspect of it I can think of that it might prevent physical hi-fi shops going bankrupt.

 

[Richard Austen]

Audio Note has no secret knowledge about listening, engineering, or anything else. Peter Qvortrup is an eccentric who has managed to make a modest amount of money by fleecing people with no technical knowledge.

With respect to your ad hominem attacks against me, I will avail myself of the 'ignore' button. For all the words you've written here and elsewhere, none of them have contributed to our understanding of anything except for blind commodity fetishism.

I want to read something good now, so I'm turning off my phone and pulling out my copy of Ulysses. To improve the quality of your audio forum posts, you should perhaps read Floyd Toole's excellent book or Geoff Martin's textbook draft on tonmeister.ca.

You are the one making Ad Hominem attacks by ripping anyone who DARES to like the sound of Audio Note gear better than Benchmark and Gethain. I have no ssue with anyone who auditions a Benchmark/Gethain system and likes the sound better than Audio Note - but then I also have no problem with someone liking Audio Note better. Fortunately I have heard both and can understand why people like them - I don't like Magnepan but I certainly get why people like it - the same for most stuff that people like. Each of them does something a little different.

I know what forum I am on - I am not trying to convince anyone they're wrong and they should sell their great measuring equipment and go rush out and buy a Single Ended Triode. This is a measurements first (and to some only) audio forum so my posts are merely to tell people my experiences and preferences in spite of the fact that the stuff is technologically "ridiculous" compared to some modern gear. Discussions of blind tests are somewhat red herrings too because AN measures so badly that you will be able to tell it apart in a blind test. Hi-Fi Choice Magazine is one of the only magazines who used to do Blind Level matched sessions and had several listeners opine as to what they liked better. I am not sure if they still do as I have not read the magazine in over a decade. AN did well in those blind sessions.

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

I think this sounds a lit more like music

Like vibrating and resonating cabinet walls for example, perhaps resembling a piano, or a violoncello, coloured anyhow. But it's always the same music.

 

[Richard Austen]

To take something concrete. You mention PS Audio so let's take an example:

Amir:
This is a review and detailed measurements of the PS Audio PowerPlant 12 (P12) AC regenerator. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $5,499.

PS Audio PowerPlant 12 Review (AC Regenerator)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the PS Audio PowerPlant 12 (P12) AC regenerator. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $5,499. PS Audio nails the industrial design of the unit. I really like the casework as well as the look of the various graphical meters as you see above...

audiosciencereview.com

So for $5,499 a gadget is added to the audio chain that adds no audible differences to the sound according to Amir's measurements. Even so, would you say that a PS Audio PowerPlant adds something audible that is NOT measurable? If so, what is it? And if so, how did the engineers at PS Audio "listen" when they created their PS Audio PowerPlant?

Or can you highlight other specific products that, according to measurements, have inaudible distortion and noise and flat FR where you can point out that they nevertheless have a sound signature? Can you prove it really is so? How do you prove it? Without proof, it can only be imagination on your part that this is the case. If you want to convince a skeptic like me, the proof is on your side that this is the case, but then you have to bring up something concrete, a specific DAC for example where measurements exist. Otherwise, it will just be sweeping generalizations on your part.

Please forgive me but it's hard to reply to so many posts - First - I am not the manufacturer or dealer of this product nor do I own this or any PS Audio product. I am not "selling you this" in any way shape or form or even suggestiong that you will hear a difference. I have no idea if you or I will find any of their stuff to merit being worth the extra money.

I am a Single Ended Tube amp and Tube based Non-Oversampling CD player kind of a guy - the stuff that measures so bad - you will, in all likelihood, be able to tell it apart from a SS amplifier and SS equipment.

If I WERE a SS amplifier and SS CD player kind of a guy - I'd probably be in the ASR camp of spending as little as I humanly can to get the power that I need from gear no one can tell apart from other SS gear. I have looked into buying Benchmark myself for example because I wanted a system of "high technical accuracy" to give myself a reference point that is "beyond reproach" on that front. I STILL consider this.

I just pointed out that PS Audio has all the best test and measuring equipment at their disposal - they make deliberate products - are they better or worse - can anyone tell their Class D or SS power amp apart from a Benchmark in a DBT or a Rotel or Naim or Sim Audio etc? I don't know. If you need to see a DBT to be convinced to buy it - then don't buy it. Hell most of the SS stuff I don't like when I am listening to it sighted because most of it all sounds the same to me - or enough the same that I am pretty certain I would not pass a DBT so I am not doling out 5x the money for some amp because it's big and heavy and has a famous name.

I am not sure why people get agitated over a preference based purchase when the person acknowledges that what he is buying measures worse. My KEF LS-50 probably measures better than my AN speakers - but when I play Eva Cassidy or the Right of Spring or audiophile recordings or AC/DC or Motley Crue or Lady Gaga or Jackson Browne or Ella or Julia London - all of it "sounds much much much better" on all of my AN speakers than it did on the KEF. My brain can tell m on an intellectual level that "the Kef measures better" but the feeling in my gut is my AN speakers sound better. And since I am the one paying the dollars the only person I gotta make happy is me.

 

[Richard Austen]

Who are they to adjust the sound of a correctly measuring DAC to their personal preference?
Maybe they should ask the performers to change the way they play to their preference?
Or maybe even talk to God, he may be able to help them out.

Their design philosophy on the DAC is similar to their amplifiers - they believe that the simplest signal path is best. A NOS CD player doesn't oversample. The idea is that the laser reads the disc once - the data is sent to the DAC once and it is output - no error correction, no oversampling, no jitter reduction no digital or analog filters. SET amps are analogous to that using no corrective feedback. They want the least amount of any kind of error correction in the chain. Turntables and speakers also follow that approach - high torque low mass (for low energy storage) of the platter - the speakers are braced but lightly damped to release energy out of the cabinet as fast as possible. IME when they are set up properly the speakers tend to sound more open and alive like a good horn system without sounding dead with energy stored in heavily damped speakers.

 

[GM3]

[...]

Basically, in one sentence, you're advocating against sound reproduction; you are against the notion of high fidelity, and apparently so is Audio-Note. You believe that your audio system should re-imagine the music instead of playing it accurately, because then it's more realistic or sounds better or whatnot, even if it's less technically accurate. IMHO; and with all respect, you're what's wrong with the audio industry; it's basically objective vs subjective, and you're with the anti-scientific subjective crowd.

It would be great if companies openly took sides, that way either camp could ignore the products from the other side. Maybe they're not worse indeed... Who's to say which is better? For instance, which of these 2 bikes is the better bike? It's subjective right?

 

[Mart68]

Not sure that the LS50 is an especially good speaker to be using as a reference.

I didn't find them impressive in any way.

No-one has a problem with personal choices. Much of my system does not conform to what might be described as 'ASR Principles' but I don't try to defend my choices by cutting and pasting pseudoscience from the maker's adverts or telling the experts that they are wrong about everything.

Audionote are not doing it 'better' they are just doing it differently. If you're truly happy with your choice then you bought wisely.

 

[Richard Austen]

Loudspeakers and listening to the ones you like, I buy that argument. There is so much about speakers that depends on taste, for example, who knows what kind of dispersion pattern person X likes? Or how much distortion-free (which incidentally does not exist regarding speakers) SPL that person Y wants? Much of the mentioned can be read in measurements, but then person X and Y (X vs Y...it was maybe something else? ) have to test what they like.

BUT electronics, such as DACs that measure well and have low inaudible distortion and noise and straight FR what more could you want? Apart from functions and appearance then.

Well, logically, I agree with you. I try to come up with analogies as to why people strongly gravitate to AN CD players and DACs when they measure so badly and it usually comes down to the reviewer saying something like it sounds "analogue" which is unhelpful because I am not sure what that means - I am sure what they are trying to say (me as well because I too have likely said it) is that it sounds warmer or less sterile - the leading edge perhaps is softened a little bit - bad recordings can sound quite acceptable.

On another forum, there is one of those "what's spinning" threads and people post a photo of a record or CD they are playing. I put up a record of The Outfield's "Voices of Babylon" and 80s recording that is a little lean but I can happily play this whole album - someone with a big-time SS system said they liked the music but it was completely unplayable on their system because it was excessively bright.

On another thread, I posted that I played Aurora's "All My Demons Greeting Me As a Friend" and again a person found it unrelentingly unplayably bright - completely fine on my system. I think of those two guys and I think - man - they have spent way more money and can't play a whole bunch of music unless their recordings are of utterly elite recording quality. I remember way back when I played an Amanda Marshal CD - which sounds fine but sounded godawful on the Bryston/PMC setup - - "Well sir - this system is so good it shows you how awful your CD was recorded." Wow - where do I hand over my credit card - I definitely want a system that will make all my recordings sound lousy forcing me to only buy and play boring dreck from Patricia Barber and Diana Krall and pipe and slippers Classical music from Reference Recordings and Chesky Records. I listen to everything - I do not own a recording that sounds so bad it's unplayable - and that was the problem with the top ATC speakers and Bricasti system I auditioned not long back - I pulled out tracks from 5 different albums and they all sounded too fatiguing - I understand why those guys complained about Aurora and The Outfield - but I also thought - gee 5/5 randomly selected tracks and all had the same "sheen" in the high-frequency band - I would not be able to play any of those discs on that system - 5/5 so I thought - well how many of the rest of my music collection could I play. I also had the dealer set up the Parasound JC 1 monoblocks which i was interested in purchasing at the time. It faired marginally better to me (albeit again a sighted not blind audition so I wouldn't bet on it as perhaps I liked them better because they were much cheaper than the Bricasti and we tend to want to like the stuff we can afford).

The other dealer also using ATC speakers had them connected to Line Magnetic 219IA SET amplifier - and it sounded quite a lot better - Goddamn stupid SET amps with their goofy low power and bad measurements keep making AC/DC sound better. Shake me all night long vs twist a fork in my ear all night long.

Anyway - no one holds a gun to anyone's head to buy any of this stuff - the vast majority of even audiophiles - go and listen - not blind or level matched - and they listen to their recordings and they choose what they "like best" if it sounds bright as hell - no amount of blab blab on forums about the measured response is going to change their minds. Nor will most people spend $5,000 to cover all their walls with room treatments their wife won't allow anyway. Most people are not after the "absolute best-measuring systems" they want to be able to play their music collection fatigue-free - do that and you're ahead.

If you're one of those guys who agonizes over cables or wire lifters or putting tape markers down to get the frequency at the chair just so - etc - that's fine - it's not me.

 

[Purité Audio]

I have never understood the ‘buy a poor sounding system to make my poorly recorded records sound ‘better’ argument.
If the system adds something then that addition is added to everything both poor and excellent recordings.
Keith

 

[Richard Austen]

Not sure that the LS50 is an especially good speaker to be using as a reference.

I didn't find them impressive in any way.

No-one has a problem with personal choices. Much of my system does not conform to what might be described as 'ASR Principles' but I don't try to defend my choices by cutting and pasting pseudoscience from the maker's adverts or telling the experts that they are wrong about everything.

Audionote are not doing it 'better' they are just doing it differently. If you're truly happy with your choice then you bought wisely.

Exactly, perhaps I come across the wrong way - it's an Audio Note thread and being the only AN owner here I felt the OP would have wanted at least one person who has owned the stuff for over 20 years.

AN believes they are making the most "accurate systems" - that's NOT what I believe - I think people are so used to forumers who post something that that is the same thing as me backing everything they're saying - I am not. Someone asks a question - I post the response from the manufacturer but it doesn't mean I am the one saying it.

Peter Qvortrup made comparison by contrast his company philosophy - ok that's fine - but he also has "levels of quality - level zero is entry level - level 6 or whatever is at the top.

But at level 3 he has the Jinro(211)/Meishu Tonmeister 300B integrated amplifiers as well as Vindicator(2a3)/paladin(45)/Empress Silver (2as parallel)

If you sit down with all of them - they all sound quite a lot different from each other - so how can FIVE different amplifiers all sound different and also be accurate? Answer: They can't. Thus, yes I agree with you - they are doing it "differently" even within the company.

I remember Bryston noting way back that all of their amplifiers sound exactly the same - the only difference from the 3B to the top model was power output and the ability to handle lower impedances - but they should all sound "identical" but tube makers - they make an EL34 and a KT 88 because fans of those push-pull tube amps like the "characteristics (read colouration or distortion if you like)" better than the other one.

PS: my reason for buying the KEF was that it was hugely popular in the press and I felt that everyone had easy access to auditioning them - a lot of reviewers buy esoteric gear that no one can audition so commenting on how something sounds on a totally unknown speaker is less helpful. This made some sense to me - but I simply do not have the space in Hong Kong for all this gear.

I'd rather have the stuff that is the size of the Wyred4Sound class D gear that has universal voltage so I can stick it in my suitcase when I return to Canada in a few years. I am also looking into a Music First Audio preamp - a TVC Passive. No power supply - which makes it easy for world use and should last forever.

 

[Mart68]

I just use a bit of PEQ to make a 0.5dB narrow band cut around 1Khz, I find that cures the fatiguing problem without killing the life or the detail in the music. Before that I was usually done after three albums, now I can listen all day.

Buying specific equipment to try to get a 'mellow but still exciting' balance is a bit hit and miss and not really necessary IME.

 

[Richard Austen]

I have never understood the ‘buy a poor sounding system to make my poorly recorded records sound ‘better’ argument.
If the system adds something then that addition is added to everything both poor and excellent recordings.
Keith

Yeah, but the argument can be flipped - that all the recordings are better than we have been made to believe and that some gear "sucks the life of out it" or "highlights relentlessly" the trouble spots.

Whichever way someone wants to land on it is fine - but I want to listen to music - not win forum arguments that mine is more accurate. If I can't play my favourite music - and I can only play audiophile-approved recordings - I would rather play the music I like and give up a little on those audiophile recordings - the audiophile recordings are still going to sound better relative to the weaker recordings.

 

[Mart68]

Exactly, perhaps I come across the wrong way - it's an Audio Note thread and being the only AN owner here I felt the OP would have wanted at least one person who has owned the stuff for over 20 years.

AN believes they are making the most "accurate systems" - that's NOT what I believe - I think people are so used to forumers who post something that that is the same thing as me backing everything they're saying - I am not. Someone asks a question - I post the response from the manufacturer but it doesn't mean I am the one saying it.


. I am also looking into a Music First Audio preamp - a TVC Passive. No power supply - which makes it easy for world use and should last forever.

Fair enough, I thought you were quoting PQ to back up your position.

I'm familiar with the Music First, good units, but I would also class them as 'needlessly expensive.' - But if you want and can afford go for it. I paid a lot of money for my CD transport, even though I know it's no better than a much cheaper unit. No regrets.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

I put up a record of The Outfield's "Voices of Babylon" and 80s recording that is a little lean but I can happily play this whole album - someone with a big-time SS system said they liked the music but it was completely unplayable on their system because it was excessively bright.

On another thread, I posted that I played Aurora's "All My Demons Greeting Me As a Friend" and again a person found it unrelentingly unplayably bright - completely fine on my system.

So, those two records (and many more, I believe) when played on conventional "flat response" loudspeakers are "excessively , unplayable bright", but they are "fine" on your Audio Note speakers.
Ever wondered why?
Because of the wrong frequency response of Audio Note loudspeakers! Here is measured frequency response (by Stereophile) of Audio Note AN-E Lexus: (https://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-e-lexus-signature-loudspeaker-measurements):

High-frequency response above 1 kHz is 6 dB down! No wonder those records with excessively bright spectra are "fine" on your loudspeakers! But what about records that are better produced and mixed, with neutral and natural spectra? Than, on your speakers they will be dull. lifeless and unplayable!
Anyway, you choose to buy expensive loudspeaker with depressed high-frequency spectra, only to use it as a very expensive equalizer.
Is there any other solution to this problem, but much more cheaper? Yes, there is - ever heard of "treble" tone control , which come free with some amplifiers, including the tubed ones?

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

- the speakers are braced but lightly damped to release energy out of the cabinet as fast as possible. IME when they are set up properly the speakers tend to sound more open and alive like a good horn system without sounding dead with energy stored in heavily damped speakers.

That is a perfect example how Audio Note marketing bull$... can be more powerful than obvious truth - at least to some gullible, naive customers, supporters and forum enthusiasts.
Here is the naked truth:

These are measured resonances from Audio Note cabinet (https://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-e-lexus-signature-loudspeaker-measurements) - huge resonances which lasts more than 62 msec!!! Plus cabinet flexing for all frequencies below 200 Hz.
"Releasing energy from cabinet as fast as possible"?! In your dreams only!

Now, compare that with conventionally made cabinet from Triangle Antal (https://www.stereophile.com/content/triangle-antal-40th-anniversary-edition-loudspeaker-measurements):

Resonances die faster (less than 62 msec) than Audio Note! Also, this Triangle Antal has exemplary flat frequency response and about the same sensitivity, for a fraction of price.

Also, compare measured resonances for conventionally made cabinet from KEF LS60 (cheaper, also):