Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Return to Critic's Corner

Dudley Zu Speaker Review: Clarification Requested

210.17.151.114
Posted on October 8, 2009 at 00:16:17
Spendor Harbeth
Audiophile

Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast
Joined: May 15, 2009
 Art Dudley's review of the Zu Audio Essence claims they sells through dealer, network, abandoning a direct to consumer model. Mr. Dudley makes a BIG deal about this, calling them a "real" company.

I am interested in hearing the speaker, as recently having bought a pair of Paradigms, I'm hooked on high efficiency designs.

On the the Zu Audio website, they cheerfully announce:

"Zu Returns to Direct Sales | New Lower Prices Effective Now

and:

"OGDEN, Utah—August 31, 2009—Effective September 1st, Zu Audio once again sells our acclaimed loudspeakers, cables and accessories directly to our U.S. customers, via ZuAudio.com or telephone. After nine months serving our market through authorized dealers in the U.S., you’ve collectively spoken loud and clear: Zu customers want to buy from Zu. We also believe the radically changed economy of the past 12 months has reset music lovers’ perception of value. So we’re using the more efficient economics of direct sales to give you more for less: Our new critically acclaimed Essence loudspeaker, formerly starting at $5,000 per pair now starts at $3,495 per pair -- its new everyday price!"

Was Mr. Dudley blind sided here, or does he have egg on his face?

RE: Dudley Zu Speaker Review: Clarification Requested, posted on October 20, 2009 at 01:54:21
Spendor Harbeth
Audiophile

Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast
Joined: May 15, 2009
 As a coda to all this, I actually got to hear the Zu speakers driven by a Melody tube amp......and loved them. Excellent sound and build quality.

The process worked out for well for me., posted on October 8, 2009 at 20:14:29
powermatic
Audiophile

Posts: 5600
Location: central oregon
Joined: November 24, 2005
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 2008
 At the juncture of 'direct' sales to 'dealer' sales, I was able to buy a Zu/D103 cartridge from them at half price.

And really, isn't that what it's all about-how the whole process affects 'me'?

(-:





"dammit"
JA's Sensitivity Measurement Spin, posted on October 8, 2009 at 15:46:50
Gerry E.
Audiophile

Posts: 1655
Location: Hartford, Connect-I-Cut
Joined: February 19, 2000
Contributor
  Since: March 2, 2004
 Here's the beginning of the first paragraph of John Atkinson's measurements accompanying the review:

"One of the Zu Essence's unique selling points is its very high efficiency. While my estimate of it's sensitivity, 92.5dB(B)2.83V/m, is lower than the specified 97dB (due, I suspect, both to the 12 ohm impedance and to the lack of presence-region energy in on-axis response-see later), it's still 10dB higher than the sensitivity of the BBC LS3/5A."

Why can't JA just tell it like it is instead of making excuses for the manufacturer? His sensitivity measurement is significantly less than ZU's spec. That's just plain bad. Then he has the cojones to compare it to one of the least sensitive production speakers ever made. That's just plain stupid.

Gerry

RE: JA's Sensitivity Measurement Spin, posted on October 10, 2009 at 02:35:13
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 6143
Joined: August 8, 2001
 The point gets lost when people quibble over the measurements of these things. Suffice it to say the Zu is not hard to drive.

The same issue was blathered on endlessly about the Audio Note E - which also didn't meet spec and if I recall AN claimed 98db and the speaker got ~92db in Stereophile. And yet the lower sensitivity version (rated as 94db by AN) of the speaker was measured in Hi-Fi Choice and Hi-Fi News under Martin Colloms - who knows how to measure - and both got or exceeded AN's spec. But AN's spec is the "in room response with the speakers positioned in corners." You add ~3-4db for corner gain and the bass and all of a sudden AN's specs seem very plausible and not nearly as out of whack as it looked when the Stereophile review came out. The German magazine Audiophile also mustered 95.5. 4 reviews all reviewing the same speakers with people who know what they're doing and the range is 92db - 97db. Different ways of measuring.

These kinds of things yield different results. Obviously they're easy to drive since the amps they design for them are typically 5-15 watts.

Let's put the practical aspects ahead of arguing over rather pointless numbers. If I have an 8 watt tube amp can I play it real loud with good bass and an open treble - the answer is yes with the AN E (It's a SET friendly speaker period - so who cares?)- I can't comment on the sound of the Zu but it doesn't look too tough. That's why you read what Art had to say.

Try not to get too tied up in star ratings, numbers, Class A, B, or C, or scores out of 10 or 100 or whatever the magazines use.

If I reviewed my amp in such a scheme I would have to knock it down several pegs for its lack of power and lack of features - as Hi-Fi Choice did and scored it 4/5 but they also liked it for music reproduction better than the amps that won their amp shootout. This happened to a Sugden back in the day - the Roksan was awarded the shootout winner - 150 watts or something and remote and sexy looks and inputs and outputs. But they said the Sugden very easily sounded the best - but 25 watts no remote old looks and picky with what speakers would work well with them. Ask them which one they pick as their winner ok but ask them which they'd rather have a bottle of wine and relax listening to their tunes to. And it's not always the same.

So with the review hat on you award based more on the lowest common denominator as to what you suspect will work with the most systems. Oddballs that are designed for specific speakers or speaker types lose out.

And designers who design to ear and purposely stray from exceptional measurements could be in some trouble. It's safe to go with the safer choices - big watts low noise floor, less box colouration (or no box - if you avoid "real" bass then you can avoid a lot of problems) ruler flat response - and accept what a billion dollar private company tells you you ought to consider the best - Cough (*Harmon*).

I should not post at 2:40am Sorry for and lack of sense this makes.
Audio Note lies, flat out, on a number of important measures, posted on October 10, 2009 at 14:14:37
keith_d
Audiophile

Posts: 931
Joined: June 15, 2002
 That's a poor example for you to bring up, since you're so wrong, but also because the Zu case is at least arguable.

Audio Note also over-charges, imo. What a beautiful scam. Not quite as good as $90k interconnects, but still....

RE: Audio Note lies, flat out, on a number of important measures, posted on October 11, 2009 at 13:44:07
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 6143
Joined: August 8, 2001
 How exactly am I wrong?

Martin Colloms in Hi-Fi News measured the 94db AN E as reaching 94.5db sensitive and 17hz-6db corner loaded. Hi-Fi Choice got 22hz -3db (not in corners).

Corner gain adds ~3db to the sensitivity results - that goes for any loudspeaker - and in the AN E's case 9db to the bass results. measuring the speaker free standing on axis is fine for speakers designed to be put free standing which is probably 98% of all loudspeakers on the market but I am far more interested in the result at the listening chair.

Art Dudley gets from the articles I've read in Sterophile anywhere from 25hz - 31hz flat to -3db. Either result is outstanding for a two way bookshelf loudspeaker. I am wondering if there is a two way standmount that gets as good of bass response.

As for being overpriced that is highly subjective. If someone likes the speaker they're a bargain - if someone doesn't like it then it's a ripoff.

I have heard the AN E/LX HE for about $6,500 and IMO it's a far more enjoyable speaker to actually listen to music on for hours at a time than the B&W 801, B&W 800D, Sonus Faber Cremona M, JM Labs Mezza Utopia, Magnepan 20.1, Quad 2905, Paradigm S8, Wilson Sophia, Revel Ultima Salon. All of these speakers cost 50-300% more money.

And frankly I don't think it's even a horserace. But I place micro-dynamics, tonality cohesiveness, and an overriding sense of "rightness and balannce" over bass slam treble air and soundstaging pyrotechnics.

But if you're into bass at very high levels the AN E isn't going to muster it over some of these others. Nor is the E going to match the holographic nature of the Quads.

Then again you could always add 2 $5000.00 subwoofers to the AN E and you'd have a $16,500 system with bass depth and slam that will completely destroy any of the speakers I listed every which way - you could also spend $2k and hire a pro to set it up for you so you get it all working perfectly. Room treatments - you'd have to do that anyway.

Value is subject to preference. Someone else may see $6500 for two drivers and balk - many have. So be it.

RE: Audio Note lies, posted on October 11, 2009 at 18:59:28
keith_d
Audiophile

Posts: 931
Joined: June 15, 2002
 It doesn't matter if you think the frequency extension is outstanding for a two way, dynamic speaker.

You're right: Over priced is subjective.

I love the 100k Audio Note speakers that look somewhat like the original Boston Acoustics speakers. I'm sure you think they're worth every penny. I think they're hilarious.

Long post..., posted on October 11, 2009 at 22:16:12
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 6143
Joined: August 8, 2001
 First why judge the Audio Note E because they make a $125k version? They also make a $2k kit version.

I will not justify a $125k speaker - the fact that a speaker using 12 woofers that cost $50 may and be 14 feet tall and 5 feet wide and weigh 400lbs doesn't actually mean that A) it sounds any good or B) that it's worth the money.

There is a lot of gear out there that to me sounds rubbish weighs more than a boat anchor. It's not terribly difficult to make audio jewelry - just put a sexy finish on the front - with big heavy 1/2 inch thick steel or brushed aluminium face plates and put in a bunch of "known" parts. Doesn't make it any good.

The $125k Version of the speaker is a one off for the manufacturer to take the speaker as far as he could take it. The outboard crossovers used more than 22KG of Silver, Alnico Hemp woofers, the Tweeter are Alnico tweeter - the only tweeter in the industry that I know of that uses Alnico. The outboard crossovers are very expensive to make and the crossovers boxes need to be rather massive - the size of a big Krell power amp.

But even if one still considers that silly prices - why focus on that?

Why not focus on the $6,900 AN E/SPE HE? Art Dudley of Stereophile liked them enough to buy em - he's heard a lot of loudspeakers over the years and despite only having two drivers seemed to be good enough to ward off a helluva lot of competitors.

One reason I like the AN E is that whether you want to spend $2k or $125k or about 12 models in between there is one available.

And when you start looking around at all the magazines in print or online and you look at the reviewers systems - and you look at what speakers they own - the AN E comes up a helluva LOT. Considering how many speakers are on the market and from manufacturers that dwarf an outfit like AN, I see a lot of Audio Note speakers. Stereophile, Dagogo, Hi-Fi Choice, Hi-Fi Critic, enjoythemusic.com, 6moons all have at least one critic who owns an AN E. In some cases several reviewers who own an AN speaker.

That is an amazing coincidence - if one believes in coincidences. And what is more interesting is that whether you're a huge mostly classical music listener like Art Dudley or or a vinyl guy like Art Dudley or your Constantine Soo of dagogo who listens primarily with digital they both got drawn to owning the AN E. If you're a drummer critic like Steven Rochlin of enjoythemusic he still bought AN J speakers. Rock, classical, jazz, pop, trance - the AN speakers are the artful dodger of the boxed speaker world. They manage to entertain, get the goosebump level up, create emotion, excitement without sounding fatiguing or getting in the way - and that's despite some audible weaknesses in the frequency range and some colouration here and there. They're some of the best balanced loudspeakers available at any price. Which is why I suspect many critics like them - they're not really a speaker for critics - they're a speaker to simply let play and enjoy.

My dealer, Terry, in Victoria BC who runs Soundhounds, probably the best dealer I've ever come across, has been to the audio shows, has run the shop for 35+ years. He has sold and auditioned more gear than any reviewer. He works with it all day day in day out and listens to music at home. The store is vinyl wall to wall, CD, they carry a huge array of very good gear. He goes home to Audio Note E's. This is a list of what they currently carry http://www.soundhounds.com/

A $125k AN speaker may seem nuts - but the people who think that probably think $125k speaker from anyone is nuts. This kind of speaker is the progression from a platform.

The people who love the AN E/SPE HE and listen to the next model up will hear the benefit of the added money. And then it keeps going up the line. If one does not like the AN E signature (and of course not everyone will) then spending more may seem idiotic.

The Boston Acoustics A100 looks a little like an AN E - that is true. So what? Why is that a bad thing?

Why not mention that there are about 100 loudspeakers on the market right now that have two to five 6inch plastic woofers and some sort of metalic tweeter in a skinny tall box deeper than they are wider. You know the carbon copy speakers from PSB, Revel, Klipsh, Paradigm, Totem, PMC, Audio Physic, B&W, Monitor Audio, Athena Technologies, Axiom, Jamo, Energy Acoustics, Sonus Faber, Boston Acoustics, JM Labs and the list goes on endlessly. The difference being an extra 6 inch plastic or kevlar woofer a different color life sucking cabinet material and some sort of different tweeter design to separate themselves a little bit from their direct competitor - maybe a horn tweeter or white woofers or silk domes. Or you pay a bit more for the odd one and get real wood like Totem.

It's no wonder so many people after listening to that stuff gravitated to some sort of panel or horn. The AN E is the middle ground. It has a lot of what the best horns provide - dynamics bass volume hit in the chest pressure but are surprisingly open very fast and supurbly transparent. Not quite the equal of the better bigger horns for what they do - and not quite the equal of the better panels but factoring in the average room, owners with space for only one audio system, price, ease of drive - I am not spurprised to see panel lovers go to the AN E - it's one of the few boxes they could stomach. And Horn lovers may grumble a bit about the lower sensitivity and absolute slam but they will love the tube friendliness and non shouty horn attributes - and for people who don't have the room to support ridiculous Avantegarde Trio sized speakers the small footprint makes a lot of sense.

IMO Goldilocks would say the AN E is "just right" - now if only Audio Note could actually keep up with demand so people didn't have to wait 6 months to a year to get one - that would be icing on the cake.
RE: Long post..., posted on October 13, 2009 at 20:36:17
Tom Brennan
Audiophile

Posts: 5056
Joined: January 2, 2000
 "the only tweeter in the industry that I know of that uses Alnico."

Yopu don't know many tweeters. Alnico tweets are made by TAD, ALE, GOTO, JBL, Fostex and GPA and no doubt there are others.

Note that among hornys, the group of audiophiles most familiar on a day to day basis with Alnico drivers, there's no agreement that Alnico drivers sound better and as many will be found touting ferrite drivers as Alnicos.

Having owned scads of both alnico and ferrite tweeters and compression drivers I've heard no differences I attribute to magnet naterial. Sometimes such as with Altec 802-G and 902-8A drivers the magnet material is the only difference in otherwise identical drivers.

RE: Long post..., posted on October 13, 2009 at 23:57:54
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 6143
Joined: August 8, 2001
 I am sorry I did not know that any of them were making Alnico tweeters currently for high end audio applications. I am not aware of speakers using an Alnico tweeter in current production. Is JBL making Alnico tweeters for their speakers - or are they outsourcing them to other companies. I do know that several companies made Alnico tweeters in the 1950's etc and that Alnico was abandoned over a war in Africa and Alnico supply was ended forcing companies to switch to ferrite.

There is Alnico and there is Alnico. I would not suggest that it is better by virtue of it being Alnico just as I would not say a speaker using a paper woofer is better than Kevlar. Depends on the paper and the implementation of the design. I am not aware however of companies in current production who are using Alnico tweeters.

For instance I looked up JBL's you listed and their upper scale K2 S9800 and they use Alnico woofers but not Alnico tweeters.

Do you know of an actual production retail loudspeaker that has an Alnico tweeter?

RE: Long post..., posted on October 12, 2009 at 17:21:26
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: October 11, 2001
 RGA,

Is your industry affiliation with Dagogo or Audionote? For a reviewer, you seem very passionate about protecting Audionote.

He's just going "AA" with his AN zealotry ..., posted on October 12, 2009 at 18:23:15
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 that's he's been rehearsing for years on another site (much to the annoyance of the bulk of the members there).

:)
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Don't forget over at AR, too -nt, posted on October 13, 2009 at 13:48:58
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 rw

I feign surprise!, posted on October 13, 2009 at 13:57:18
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 LOL
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
RE: He's just going "AA" with his AN zealotry ..., posted on October 12, 2009 at 19:57:12
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: October 11, 2001
 Very Interesting. Thank you for posting that.

RE: Long post..., posted on October 12, 2009 at 17:59:55
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 6143
Joined: August 8, 2001
 I have no affiliation with Audio Note - though I am an enthusiastic fan of "most" of the equipment that I have auditioned and might explain why I have bought several pieces of equipment from them. Although I am passionate about equipment I don't own as well.

What I find is that attacks on them seem to focus on one end of the price spectrum and the baby tossed with the bathwater. They offer piles of products at lower price points that are quite outstanding.

People are often put off by what is perceived to be "sick" prices but why focus on that? You can buy a nice reliable Toyota Tercel that is very good for the money or a top of the line Lexus that many people will say is overpriced bragging rights and not worth the money.

Since "most" people buy at the lower end of the price spectrum - even the reviewers because most of us don't have millions to drop either - that is what should be evaluated.

My view is to take the E/SPE HE at $6900 (or their lower priced E/LX HE) and then start doing the comparisons and it suddenly looks like a ridiculous steal in the high end speaker world to my ears.

If I had $7,000 right now that is the speaker I would buy - Don't get me wrong it's not that I don't like some of those speakers - I do - the Cremona M was wonderful - liked the Harbeths I heard - Quad's 2905 is very classy sounding - enjoyed an all Meridian system I heard. But in almost every case they cost double and I do not hear an "audible" advantage that says to me they're better loudspeakers. And in most of the cases the AN speakers offer non sonic advantages like placement, size, ease of drive so I can run more variety of amplifiers.

So if it sounds like I am more passionate about AN than some - it's probably because I am. People tend to be more passionate about the stuff they themselves would and do buy.

There is an objectivity and subjectivity issue that comes with reviewing. But this really is a blurred line with virtually any review. A film critic likes a movie and then justifies to his reader why he likes it. Nevertheless, the opinion is formed from a gut reaction to the film based of the personality of the reviewer.

An audio reviewer has several considerations including gut reaction to consider. Bang for buck, what will the speaker be used for - if it's part of a home theater package that gets factored in. What they are comparing the speaker/amp or whatever to. What's the baseline. Did it give them an emotional response - next to impossible to qualify with graphs and charts.

I own the Audio Note OTO - fantastic amp IMO and I bought it. Now if I worked at a magazine that do amplifier shootouts and had a 5 star rating system - my subjective response is 5 stars all the way - but as a reviewer I would probably only give it 4. Simply because it's not an amp that will work across a broad range of consumer expectations. It is not feature rich, doesn't have preouts or remote control, build quality is good but not class leading for the price, and it only has 10 watts. It may sound great but objectively there are limitations for mass appeal and it's a big factor. I may give another amp 5 stars that sounds very good as well but has far more features and power the edge because it will do a far better job in more systems than the OTO.

In some respects the AN E can be knocked down objectively too. Because the speaker is designed for near wall and corners - that is an issue for a lot of buyers in newer homes where designs are not rectangular. The clear preferences for SET amps makes it an issue as most owners own Solid State and their retro looks don't do it for most folks.

It's the critics board - one should be critical of the components and the critics but the critics should be able to be critical of the comments as well.

I just see AN get beat up largely because of the size of the speaker and being a two way. As if quantity and size were the main indicators of quality. I don't get that mentality.
RE: Long post..., posted on October 12, 2009 at 21:08:04
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: October 11, 2001
 Hi RGA,

Having owned a 2003 Audionote CDT-2 transport & 2004 Audionote 4.1X balanced DAC and listening to Audionote demos at all the shows and at dealers for many years, I believe many of the criticisms attributed to Audionote products are warranted.

IMHO Audionote's mid and upper-end products are grossly overpriced in the U.S. With the devaluation of the American dollar, import fees, importer mark-up, and dealer mark-up, many Audionote products just don't represent a good value here in the U.S. compared to other product lines. Especially with some products being sold direct.

Build quality, fit & finish of Audionote products is subpar. My Audionote CDT-2 transport (MSRP of $3,300 in 2003 and made in Korea) looked and felt like a shoebox put together by a ten year old. For the prices being charged for Audionote products, you'd expect a product built along the lines of Jeff Rowland products.

As far as I'm concerned, many Audionote products have a euphonic monotone coloration that gets old and boring after awhile. This has been stated by a couple of reviewers and I share that opinion. My Audionote 4.1X balanced DAC (MSRP $12,000 in 2004) was not the most resolving DAC on the market and was easily bettered by several players costing half as much. One being a Great Northern Sound Modified Resolution Audio Opus 21 which I still own.

Being an Audionote customer was a nightmare. Audionote switched importers four or five times in the last seven years. Adding to the confusion, Audionote got rid of many dealers that were trying to off-load left over product. They now only have 10-12 dealers throughout the U.S. These are primarily home-based dealers that have very little product to demo, usually nothing in stock to sell and in 2003 & 2004 ha very little knowledge about the product line. One Audionote dealer tried to talk me out of purchasing an Audionote product from him in hopes that I would purchase his in-house product instead. His main argument was that Audionote's products were overpriced. Last but not least, It took me five months to get my Audionote DAC after I placed an order.

Having said all that I usually don't get too upset at the Audionote faithful who have drank the Kool-Aid. Unfortunately, there are two obnoxious AA inmates (not you) who apparently have nothing else better to do then to argumentatively promote Audionote's philosophy on AA. RGA, if you like Audionote products, then more power to you. Don't let the people who disagree with you get you upset. It's just Audio. I'm just wondering what the hardcore Audionote faithful is going to do when/if Audionote disappears from this economic downturn. We will soon see. Take it easy.

The Longer Vision., posted on October 18, 2009 at 10:19:06
Peter Qvortrup
Manufacturer

Posts: 872
Joined: December 8, 2000
 Dear Eric,

Whether our products represent good value is a matter for whoever is looking to buy them and from that perspective your opinion is what it is, I am not going to argue with that because it is pointless, what I can say about this that our cost relative to pricing is about the same as the industry average, what always attracts attention are the very high prices for our top of the range products, where parts and material quality is pretty unique to our products, which largely supports their cost, it is perhaps also relevant to mention that out products hold their price really very well, even over very long time and very little Audio Note products is generally available secondhand perhaps also a sign that the pricing is not as crazy as you and others imply?

So I make no excuses for our pricing, but being constantly at the receiving end of this pretty one sided criticism shows, at least to me and other people in the know, how relatively uninformed many posters are about the cost of manufacturing highly specialized products in very small quantity, starting with the cost of the R&D that goes into creating them to start with followed by the immense cost and up front investment that is needed just to make the first sample (for example, if you started from scratch, you would need to put up about $ 400K to buy the specialist parts and the associated tooling etc. in the minimum quantities needed, just to be able to make the first DAC5 Signature prototype), this really is no cheap game to "play", which probably explains why so few other companies make products like ours.

It is therefore also worth mentioning that to make our full product range you need a specialist inventory worth more than most of the companies in the specialist audio industry turn over in a year, which again limits the field significantly, especially in times like this, such an investment also has to be amortized, whether in audio or any other field.

The issue of having changed distributor in the US 4 times over the past 7 - 8 years has certainly been a nuisance, but what can one do when people choose not to pay or grossly misrepresent the products or commit other commercial faux pas??

We actually have fewer than 10 dealers in the US now, but you need to understand that we do not rely on the US market for our sales, the US represents less than 5% of of our total turnover, we sell more in Kazakhstan, Poland, Laos, Croatia, Vietnam, Denmark, Sweden and Lithuania than we sell in the US (or the UK for that matter!) so whilst we retain an interest in supporting the US market, mainly due to lack of capacity, I see little point in pushing anyone to sell more if they have to wait for 5 - 6 months for many items.

So as you can see, in spite of more than doubling production capacity since you bought your DAC4.1x Balanced, our delivery times have not changed much, demand is still outstripping capacity to the point of embarrassment (well, for me at least) and it may even irritate you to know that it is mostly the very expensive products that are drawing the majority of the sales, which shows that there are more people out there who do appreciate the difference they make and are willing to put their money down to own them than you think (and don't insult anyone's intelligence by saying that every customer that pays a high price for a product has more money than sense, because that will say more about you that it does about them!), so whilst other companies in the specialist audio industry may be struggling, our sales are actually on the increase in spite of the economic conditions, wherefore the likelihood of Audio Note being unable to support its customer base is not really an issue.

Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup


Time will tell...., posted on October 19, 2009 at 20:07:57
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: October 11, 2001
 Hi Peter,

"Whether our products represent good value is a matter for whoever is looking to buy them and from that perspective your opinion is what it is, I am not going to argue with that because it is pointless, what I can say about this that our cost relative to pricing is about the same as the industry average, what always attracts attention are the very high prices for our top of the range products, where parts and material quality is pretty unique to our products, which largely supports their cost, it is perhaps also relevant to mention that out products hold their price really very well, even over very long time and very little Audio Note products is generally available secondhand perhaps also a sign that the pricing is not as crazy as you and others imply?"

Boy, that's one long sentence : ) Nice marketing material nonetheless. Yes, I agree that arguing value is a pointless, but it was one of the Audionote groupies who attempted to hijack and make Audionote the subject of this thread.

My comments about Audionote's value center around the the U.S. market. In the U.S market, Audionote's cost relative to pricing is significantly higher than U.S. manufacturers. You're dealing with the shrinking U.S dollar, distributor mark-up and customs and shipping fees In 2003, your top-selling U.S. dealer informed me that for years Audionote's cost relative to pricing was twice that of U.S. manufacturers. IMHO, companies like Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, and BAT make products that offer better value than Audionote products.

"We actually have fewer than 10 dealers in the US now, but you need to understand that we do not rely on the US market for our sales, the US represents less than 5% of of our total turnover, we sell more in Kazakhstan, Poland, Laos, Croatia, Vietnam, Denmark, Sweden and Lithuania than we sell in the US (or the UK for that matter!) so whilst we retain an interest in supporting the US market, mainly due to lack of capacity, I see little point in pushing anyone to sell more if they have to wait for 5 - 6 months for many items."

Its a little disconcerting that after nearly 20 years in high-end Audio you have not mastered the distributor/dealership aspect of the business and it appears to be getting worse. Its amazing and telling that after all these years, Audionote is only doing 5% of their business in historically one of the richest most extravagant spending countries in the world.

"So as you can see, in spite of more than doubling production capacity since you bought your DAC4.1x Balanced, our delivery times have not changed much, demand is still outstripping capacity to the point of embarrassment (well, for me at least) and it may even irritate you to know that it is mostly the very expensive products that are drawing the majority of the sales, which shows that there are more people out there who do appreciate the difference they make and are willing to put their money down to own them than you think (and don't insult anyone's intelligence by saying that every customer that pays a high price for a product has more money than sense, because that will say more about you that it does about them!), so whilst other companies in the specialist audio industry may be struggling, our sales are actually on the increase in spite of the economic conditions, wherefore the likelihood of Audio Note being unable to support its customer base is not really an issue."

Yes, there appears to be some people who are willing to spend $50K on a DAC or $12K for a one meter interconnect cable, just like there are some people willing to spend $5,000 on a designer dog like a Puggle, labra-doodle, and malti-poo. AKA: A Mutt. Are there enough of these people out there in this tough economy to keep Audionote afloat. The rumors circulating at the recent Rocky Mountain Audio Fest suggest otherwise. Peter, I think this subject has been beaten to death. Good luck.








RE: Time is the Ultimate Judge, That is True., posted on October 20, 2009 at 07:17:48
Peter Qvortrup
Manufacturer

Posts: 872
Joined: December 8, 2000
 Dear Eric,

Perhaps one more post to further clarify?

"Boy, that's one long sentence : ) Nice marketing material nonetheless. Yes, I agree that arguing value is a pointless, but it was one of the Audionote groupies who attempted to hijack and make Audionote the subject of this thread."

I should have punctuated it better, I agree.

As far as hijacking is concerned, I think all RGA was only trying to do was highlight the inadequacies in JA's general measurement methodology using us as an example, rather than hijack the thread, because it does appear that Zu are in a similar position to us, so to me it was the responses to his thread that caused the longer thread (hijack) rather than anything else.

"My comments about Audionote's value center around the the U.S. market. In the U.S market, Audionote's cost relative to pricing is significantly higher than U.S. manufacturers. You're dealing with the shrinking U.S dollar, distributor mark-up and customs and shipping fees In 2003, your top-selling U.S. dealer informed me that for years Audionote's cost relative to pricing was twice that of U.S. manufacturers. IMHO, companies like Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, and BAT make products that offer better value than Audionote products."

As you rightly say, the "value" of an imported brand, especially if it made in a high cost country like Britain, will always be judged as lower when seen against locally made competition, freight, handling, import duties etc. will always put the imported product at a notional disadvantage, at least superficially, but that would apply to any imported brand, not just Audio Note wouldn't you say, so why are we selected for this criticism??

The other, perhaps more relevant question is whether it is a proper sonic or purely a monetary valuation?

I know the dealer in question and all I can say here is that if he indeed did say what you quote then it probably has more to do with selling his own in-house brand than a true broader market value judgment.

The manufacturers you mention do not really make as wide and deep a product range, either end to end or bottom to top, as Audio Note does, nor do they use a comparable technology or the level of exotic parts and material in their products, as neither use silver or Black Gate caps or make true single-ended triode amplifiers or non-oversampling DACs, or turntables, or cartridges, so to make a broad statement about value is not really fair or relevant as it does not compare like with like.

"Its a little disconcerting that after nearly 20 years in high-end Audio you have not mastered the distributor/dealership aspect of the business and it appears to be getting worse. Its amazing and telling that after all these years, Audionote is only doing 5% of their business in historically one of the richest most extravagant spending countries in the world."

From a conventional stand point you are right, but there are a number of reasons for this, here is a small list of the more important ones,

1.) Our products are grounded in a set of very strong philosophical beliefs, so not unlike Linn and Naim, we insist that dealers are able to demonstrate at least one complete Audio Note system, however, unlike Linn and Naim, we were not around during the time when it was relatively easy to persuade dealers to do this, in fact the very fact that Linn and Naim were there first and pushed this principle so relentlessly has made it far more difficult to implement such a dealer strategy, a read of Mancur Olson's, "The Rise & Decline of Nations" is a good guide into how established power structures protect and retain their position stifling competition, choice and progress in the process, there are other books on the subject that I can recommend if you like Olson's.

2.) As a result of 1.) above, and as the company's only salesman with an obviously finite time resource available, I have chosen to put my main efforts into the emerging markets rather than take the road of "most resistance" fighting my way into overcrowded markets like the US and Germany at great cost, which explains why we have our main strength in markets other than the traditional and declining "old world" markets (apart from Italy where we have always been very strong), this focus on smaller and more virgin markets has proven to be a very good strategy as it has given Audio Note a strong and well established position in the only growth markets left, which puts us well ahead of our "competition", leaving them to play catch up.

3.) Because I prefer to spend the company's money on research and product development, I am loath to spend vast sums of money on advertising and generally find that reviews are broadly ineffective, so the majority of our sales are generally generated by word of mouth, more of that later.

4.) Having dealers is not the only way to gain market presence, although it helps to have points where customers can audition the product, although there are alternatives, a couple of which are being explored.

5.) A limited production capacity is a very effective deterrent against all sorts of risky expansion strategies, in addition it ensures that only people who really really want your product are willing to wait and the Americans are not exactly the most patient species of humans on the planet, be they dealers or customers and that has limited the dealer interest as well.

"Yes, there appears to be some people who are willing to spend $50K on a DAC or $12K for a one meter interconnect cable, just like there are some people willing to spend $5,000 on a designer dog like a Puggle, labra-doodle, and malti-poo. AKA: A Mutt. Are there enough of these people out there in this tough economy to keep Audionote afloat. The rumors circulating at the recent Rocky Mountain Audio Fest suggest otherwise."

I don't know much about designer dog breeds, so I am happy we are not in that market, what I can tell you is that we generally run a 3 to 5 months $ 1 - 2 million order book out of which over half (by value) is related to the high cost products, so there are far more of these people than you may realise.

Over the years the challenge has been to find a way to attract these customers' attention and get them to give our products a listen; as mentioned earlier because Audio Note does not have an advertising budget and partly as a result get very few reviews, so we almost totally rely on word of mouth and for us that is proving a very effective as a sales tool; mainly because it attracts a different and largely non-audiophile customer base whose main focus is their love of and interest in music, rather than a narrow audiophile "high-end" equipment focus.

As a result we do not share much of our key market segment with many competitors, something that may explain why rumours about our imminent demise circulate from time to time, as people draw conclusions based on the fact that we are not seen selling much through any of the conventional sales channels.

So rumours about our imminent demise are mostly either wishful thinking or malicious gossip, as the owner of the company I can tell you that Audio Note is exceptionally conservatively managed (no bank finance or debt whatsoever, apart from monthly supplier accounts, we are always cash flow positive and growth is only allowed if it can be financed from internal resources, in addition I am frequently able to take advantage of any good deals on tubes, parts or materials that come along which helps build strategic inventory for the future, as a result I now have more than a million NOS audio tubes in stock and enough Black Gate caps to last a decade, just to give you a couple of examples) so I think I can say with some justification that ANUK is about as solid as a company can ever be, now why the obsession with this, you may ask?

Because one thing I have learned from 30 years in this industry is that long term survival depends on not having any debt and that is only possible if you continually reinvest the company's earnings back into the company, rather than spending it frivolously, as is so much the fashion these days, so that if there is a severe drop in business you can retrench to fight another day or year.

"Peter, I think this subject has been beaten to death. Good luck."

Luck always helps and I wish you were right, perhaps this post will go some way to manage that happy end?

Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup
RE: Time is the Ultimate Judge, That is True., posted on October 20, 2009 at 19:10:52
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: October 11, 2001
 Hi Peter,

Excellent well written civil response. I don't entirely agree with your philosophy, but I do have a better understanding of it. It will be interesting to see whether Audionote can survive in these bleak economic times with such an unconventional business philosophy. Maybe that's what it will take. Good luck and don't listen to too much Slipknot.

Unconventional Times Call for Matching Strategies., posted on October 21, 2009 at 03:19:57
Peter Qvortrup
Manufacturer

Posts: 872
Joined: December 8, 2000
 Dear Eric,

On a more general note, I think the title of my heading explains my view of this, I trained as an economist originally (how one ends up in audio is a long and not entirely sad tale!), so I am watching what is going down at the moment with trepidation and not a little interest and I think the current remedies (quantitative easing, FIAT money) will end in grief, so I am betting on holding "commodity currencies" with my available surplus.

At least this way, if we get high inflation as a result of all this money slushing around I am likely to still be ahead of the curve.

Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup


It's just audio...until it's poor value sopping up someone's money, with questionable claims at best t, posted on October 13, 2009 at 08:25:39
keith_d
Audiophile

Posts: 931
Joined: June 15, 2002
 Then it borders on snake oil. Of course, AN is not the only example.

RE: It's just audio...until it's poor value sopping up someone's money, with questionable claims at best t, posted on October 13, 2009 at 17:37:32
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 6143
Joined: August 8, 2001
 What claims?

You make assumptions about something I doubt you've ever heard and then presume to "know" that your opinion is fact.

If something is a ripoff and has no sonic merit to back it up then they would not survive very long because contrary to popular belief not everyone with money is stupid. If you don't believe in cable differences that's fine but a maker selling $3000 cables is "tricking" far less people than Monster cable is "tricking" people with $75 cables. And if you got $3k for cables you're not hurting for money anyway - so go after Monster if you want to save the world from those cable shucksters if you believe that.

You're complaint is that because YOU don't think it's worth it then everyone feels the same way.

Here is a fellow who did a RMAF show report and auditioned those $51,000 AN E speakers and he had a different reaction.

RE: It's just audio...until it's poor value sopping up someone's money, with questionable claims at best t, posted on October 13, 2009 at 08:52:39
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: October 11, 2001
 I tend to agree. However, no one is holding a gun to people's heads forcing them to purchase these products. The economy will put many of these comnpanies under.

RE: It's just audio...until it's poor value sopping up someone's money, with questionable claims at best t, posted on October 13, 2009 at 11:34:35
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 6143
Joined: August 8, 2001
 Is it still poor value if the company doesn't go under? The logic escapes me. Was Apogee snake-oil? NHT?

Plenty of good companies go out of business for having better engineering sense than business ability. Plenty of crappy manufacturers stay in business because they are superb marketing engines. Bose is the prime example of horrid products for high prices but terrific business model.

I am wondering how AN managed to fool so many reviewers who have, generally, auditioned more gear than most.
RE: It's just audio...until it's poor value sopping up someone's money, with questionable claims at best t, posted on October 13, 2009 at 19:43:54
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: October 11, 2001
 RGA,

Wow, you are a fanatic.

"Is it still poor value if the company doesn't go under?"

Yes, for the reasons I mentioned in my last post. These included: overpriced & poor value, poor build quality, euphonic colorations, poor distribution and dealer network, and poor service.

"Plenty of good companies go out of business for having better engineering sense than business ability."

I guess that depends on your definition a of a good company. IMHO good company's, for the most part, don't go out of business. That's one of the reasons they're good.

"Plenty of crappy manufacturers stay in business because they are superb marketing engines. Bose is the prime example of horrid products for high prices but terrific business model."

I'm not a big Bose fan. However, they make and sell products that significantly more people identify with and enjoy. Bose provides what the overwhelming majority of people want and are willing to pay for. Their customers seem to like their products. In the process, Bose employs people and earns a profit. Why does that make them a crappy manufacturer? Because you don't like their products and business model. Get over it, you're way out-numbered.

"I am wondering how AN managed to fool so many reviewers who have, generally, auditioned more gear than most."

So am I. Keep in mind, there are reviewers out there who didn't like Audionote products. Just like there are some guys who only like blondes and some guys who only like brunettes. What's your point?

RGA, I don't really understand why you tried to hijack this thread. What is with webzine reviewers and Audionote?

RE: It's just audio...until it's poor value sopping up someone's money, with questionable claims at best t, posted on October 14, 2009 at 00:53:36
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 6143
Joined: August 8, 2001
 I am not trying to hi-jack the thread and my last response was not really about Audio Note. Whether you or anyone else likes them or not is totally irrelevant but if you're going to state your view as absolute fact then why not back it up.

I have separated the issue with what I perceive to be non logic. So if something sells well it is good and if something doesn't sell well it is bad. Rolls Royce went belly up because it was a bad product - Ford Focus sells more cars so it is a better car. A Bose 901 is better than (enter in any other $2k speaker) because more people buy a Bose 901 - you make no account for people who do their homework and don't do their homework.

Bose is a good product because more people buy it and because more people buy something then democracy is correct - more people eat at McDonalds over a a Gordon Ramsey meal so it must be less good than McDonalds. Micheal Jackson is a better musician than Yo-Yo Ma because he sold more albums?

You can;t think of a single instance in the history of sales where something didn't sell as well as something that sold great was actually the better quality product? Ever?

Surely you have studied enough history to know that just because a democracy agrees on something doesn't mean it was the right choice.

Taking your issues
These included:
"overpriced & poor value" - I accept that that is your opinion but that is all it is. Because a CD player didn't sound good in your system then every product from them must be lousy? Even though they recommend their cd players be used with their amplifiers, cables and speakers?

"poor build quality" - Do you have any evidence to support that? For instance do you have a statistical chart that shows us that AN products break down more than the next guys. According to my dealer AN has the fewest breakdowns of everything they sell - and they sell Bryston incidentally. Their boxes are nothing great IMO as well - but it's not hard to slap a 1/2 inch thick brushed aluminum front on something and have it weigh 80lbs. None of that actually serves one bit of purpose in an amplifier or cd player. The circuits, transformers, volume pots and parts inside are the only thing that matter a damn.

"euphonic colorations" Definition = –noun, plural -nies.
agreeableness of sound; pleasing effect to the ear, esp. a pleasant sounding or harmonious combination.

Naturally we can't have any of that in an audio system!!! ??? Heaven forbid an audio system exhibit a pleasing effect to the ear or an agreeableness of sound - I'd much rather have a system that is totally not agreeable to the ear and is completely unpleasant. Eeesh - shun the non believer Charlie Shuuuuun!!

"poor distribution and dealer network" - What does that have to do with the actual products? One of the largest high end dealers in the U.S. took on Audio Note not only as a dealer but as their U.S. distributor in 2007. www.audiofederation.com

"poor service." I dunno - you can e-mail the owner of the company and he usually gets back to you within a couple of days. If the dealer gave you a hard time that's the dealer's fault.

The issue was a difference in spec sheet numbers from manufacturer and what Stereophile got. My response was that that is not uncommon and to make sure one looks at other sources of measurements. Martin Colloms worked for Stereophile and knows as much about measuring as anyone else including JA. He got the manufacturer spec once he knew how AN measured them and rates them.

All I was saying is that may in fact be the case with ZU and a host of other makers and it's not fair to blast the manufacturer because their spec is different than manufacturer spec. Art Dudley reviewed the AN speaker and got 25hz flat in room. I am not saying the AN spec is perfectly correct but 17hz-6db and AD's 25hz flat is "in the ballpark" enough to be plausible that the speaker would meet spec. 98db versus 92.5db not in corners adding 3db-4db for corner loading would give it 95.5db - 96.5db - that's 1.5db - 2.5db off. -- I'd hardly call these numbers way off the mark - it's pretty damn good.

"So am I. Keep in mind, there are reviewers out there who didn't like Audionote products. Just like there are some guys who only like blondes and some guys who only like brunettes. What's your point?"

100% agree with you - again I am not talking about preference. I have no problem if anyone thinks they're complete caca, overpriced, overrated, and that everyone who likes them are senile tone deaf fools. You are certainly within your rights to think that - of course I can think the reverse. But not liking the sound of something is one thing - making factually incorrect statements and generalizing is something else.

RE: Long post..., posted on October 12, 2009 at 21:48:28
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 6143
Joined: August 8, 2001
 Thank you.

A wonderfully civilized response. Like I said not everyone will agree with me and experiences count. At least you came you saw you auditioned and heck even owned the product.

In my long post on CAM I stated several times that this was a point in time reaction. That means this is the way I feel about what I heard. Gut reaction. And you never know I keep open every chance that I will hear something I like better.

IMO Audio Note makes too many products. A small outfit can't possibly meet demand with so much stuff.

If you were a retailer the brand is a nightmare. Customer walks in and listens and even if they like it you tell him he's gotta wait 8 months then there is every chance that he is going to buy the competing line. The fact that tubes and worse SETs are being offered and you already have a built in set of people who will say no thanks.

Like I say it become a highly personal subjective take - if you love the sound you will find it well priced - if you don't like the sound you will find it overpriced.

"two obnoxious AA inmates (not you) who apparently have nothing else better to do then to argumentatively promote Audionote's philosophy on AA."

Wow someone (two!!!) have unseated me :-) Thank Heaven.
RE: Audio Note lies, posted on October 11, 2009 at 19:38:12
Spendor Harbeth
Audiophile

Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast
Joined: May 15, 2009
 Harbeth Monitor 40.1s. 12K. Just put in my order. No stupid measurements to worry about, no corner placement, no marketing mystique, and no bullshit. Just music.

RE: Audio Note lies, posted on October 11, 2009 at 21:23:37
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 6143
Joined: August 8, 2001
 Harbeth has several similar design priorities that Audio Note possesses. I like the Harbeth speakers that I have heard. Indeed the two speakers were somewhat compared in Stereophile with both loudspeaker graphs plotted. They were even similar in the measurements in a number of ways. Still the AN E is easier to drive than the M40.1 which allows it to be used with low powered SET amps (which IMO are the best sounding) has as good low end bass for half the price.

And for the $6,000 difference - a lot of money can be put to subwoofers or superior front ends.

RE: Audio Note lies, posted on October 11, 2009 at 22:02:59
Spendor Harbeth
Audiophile

Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast
Joined: May 15, 2009
 No doubt, it a matter of taste and priorities. And yes, the 6k difference is something to consider.

I gave up on sub woofers long ago. They are for the well medicated. lol.

And I plan on buying a flea watt SET to use with a pair of Paradigms in my den. I agree that the simpler the circuit the better. I like low powered amps in general, 50 pwc or less. I am not in the Mikey camp of more is better. He is such an American. (tongue firmly in cheek).

The Monitor 40.1 is not as difficult to drive as you might think. Heard them in larger rooms than mine with both 50 wpc and 100 pwc amps and never wanted more.

RE: JA's Sensitivity Measurement Spin, posted on October 9, 2009 at 07:48:32
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 1900
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >Here's the beginning of the first paragraph of John Atkinson's
>measurements accompanying the review: "One of the Zu Essence's unique
>selling points is its very high efficiency. While my estimate of it's
>sensitivity, 92.5dB(B)2.83V/m, is lower than the specified 97dB (due, I
>suspect, both to the 12 ohm impedance and to the lack of presence-region
>energy in on-axis response-see later), it's still 10dB higher than the
>sensitivity of the BBC LS3/5A."

Yup, those are my words. Note the distinction I am making between
"efficiency," which is related to a speaker's impedance, and
"sensitivity," which is not.

>Why can't JA just tell it like it is instead of making excuses for the
>manufacturer? His sensitivity measurement is significantly less than
>ZU's spec. That's just plain bad.

You appear to be confusing efficiency, which is how Zu specs its
speakers, and sensitivity, which is what everyone measures. The two are
related but are not the same. Consider the example I gave many years ago
in an AES presentation, of two speakers, a Westlake with measured
sensitivity of 92dB and an Acoustat with a sensitivity of 75dB. (All
figures from memory; both referred to 2.83V drive, which is equivalent to
a power level of 1W into 8 ohms). The question is: Which speaker has the
higher efficiency, ie, is more efficient at turning electrical power into
acoustic power?

Everyone will point to the Westlake, but the correct answer is the Acoustat!

This is because, as I said above, you cannot refer to a speaker's
"efficiency" without also considering its impedance. Think about Ohm's
Law. (The late Peter Walker told me decades ago that almost all questions
in audio engineering can be reduced to Ohms's Law and the application of
commonsense.) The Westlake has a nominal impedance of 2 ohms, so is
sucking gobs of current, hence power, from the amplifier; the Acoustat
does not go nearly as loud but with an impedance of well over 50 ohms, at
the same 2.83V drive is merely sipping current from the amplifier. The
Acoustat is therefore considerably more efficient than the Westlake.

Zu specifies efficiency, _not_ sensitivity, so, because of the Essence's
generally high impedance, at 2.83V drive, it is being supplied with less
than 1W of power. Its efficiency will therefore be higher than its 8-ohm
voltage sensitivity, which is the point I made in the review, that you
don't appear to comprehend.

>Then he has the cojones to compare it to one of the least sensitive
>production speakers ever made. That's just plain stupid.

_All_ my speaker measurements are referred to a 1978 sample of an LS3/5A,
which I routinely measure as a check on my methodology, test gear, and
accuracy. Not "stupid," just plain good sense and necessary experimental
rigor.


John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
RE: JA's Sensitivity Measurement Spin, posted on October 10, 2009 at 06:13:10
Gerry E.
Audiophile

Posts: 1655
Location: Hartford, Connect-I-Cut
Joined: February 19, 2000
Contributor
  Since: March 2, 2004
 "You appear to be confusing efficiency, which is how Zu specs its speakers, and sensitivity, which is what everyone measures."

I am not confusing anything. Printed on the first page of the review, under the heading DESCRIPTION, is the following:

"Frequency range: 30Hz-40kHz, Sensitivity: 97dB/W/m."

If that is not a sensitivity spec, then you failed as the editor of the magazine. The bottom line here is that Zu has played "fast and loose" with their sensitivity specs since day 1. This, in violation of Hoffman's Iron Law related to low frequency capability, cabinet size and efficiency (Hoffman was the "H" in KLH).

Also, notice that I included the frequency range spec above. Without a +/- tolerance range, that spec is virtually worthless. Actually, I take that back, it is totally worthless. Zu's specs, at least for sensitivity and frequency range, are misleading at best.

I do appreciate you and RGA trying to explain this. At least your posts had some merit, unlike Charlie Hansen's. Maybe Charlie was fatigued from RMAF, his post made no sense at all.

Gerry

Thanks, John, for clarifying that, posted on October 9, 2009 at 22:24:19
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 Once upon a time (the pre-SS time of decently powered push-pull pentode tube amps?), output in dB at 1W/M was the standard way to measure speakers. Am I correct in assuming that output at 2.83V/M became the standard about the same time that better SS amps, capable of sinking reasonable current into low impedances, became standard equipment?

"Efficiency" shouldn't even really be discussed in terms of dB, but rather as the percentage of electrical energy converted to acoustic energy. Ratio of output SPL to electrical input is still more about "sensitivity," regardless of the units in which you measure that electrical input. The Zus appear to be reasonably sensitive speakers by either method, to not demand a whole lot of current except at the highest frequencies, and should play LOUD without a whole lot of amplifier power.

Problems arise when you attempt to drive these speakers with an amplifier seriously limited in both current and voltage capability. The wild impedance swings of the speaker then play havoc with the frequency response, as shown in Fig. 8. The "average" sensitivity then needs to be qualified as +10/-15dB from 25Hz to 20kHz. Hardly a reassuring measurement, when the industry standard is +/-3dB across a speaker's operating range, and many decent entry-level speakers are within +/-1.5dB from ~50Hz to 20kHz.
this stuff gives me a headache!, posted on October 9, 2009 at 14:59:00
Bruce from DC
Bored Member

Posts: 18019
Location: U.S. Capital
Joined: October 13, 1999
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 1999
 Every time I read it. Somewhere, I believe you have explained the same point on the pages of Stereophile; and I read it, trust me.

But thanks for writing it again.

However, doesn't the root of the problem lie with the fact that people implicitly equate 2.83 volts drive to 1 watt (which it is, into an 8 ohm impedance)? In the old days, IIRC, folks who measured just said "1 watt" and then reported the resulting SPL from the speaker. So, if you said a speaker produced 90 db of output (at 1 meter) with a 1 watt input, that was that . . . and no one worried about the level of voltage drive or the impedance of the speaker. Perhaps that made sense in an earlier era where most amplifiers were vacuum tube, using output transformers with multiple taps . . . for 4, 8 and 16 ohm speakers. I think most of those amplifiers could deliver about the same power into any of the common speaker impedances (assuming the user matched the speaker to the correct tap), so "watts" was what mattered.

Of course, today's tube amps usually have only one output tap, and most transistor amps develop more power (watts) into lower impedances. Still, as makers of 8-ohm speakers sometimes remind us, a 4-ohm speaker that plays as loud as an 8-ohm speaker with the same voltage drive is taking twice as much power from the amplifier.

I guess I'd still favor expressing everything as "watts" just to keep the playing field level and avoid the anomalies that led to the poster's comment. Because the only utility of this measure to the consumer is that he wants to know if his amplifier will drive this speaker to an acceptably loud level . . . and that's a matter of watts, not volts.


RE: this stuff gives me a headache!, posted on October 9, 2009 at 21:15:30
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 "Of course, today's tube amps usually have only one output tap, and most transistor amps develop more power (watts) into lower impedances. Still, as makers of 8-ohm speakers sometimes remind us, a 4-ohm speaker that plays as loud as an 8-ohm speaker with the same voltage drive is taking twice as much power from the amplifier."

Isn't it ... taking twice as much current?

Oh forget it! ... gives me a headache too.

:)

Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
RE: isn't it taking twice as much current?, posted on October 13, 2009 at 13:35:31
Bruce from DC
Bored Member

Posts: 18019
Location: U.S. Capital
Joined: October 13, 1999
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 1999
 Yes it is, since voltage is assumed to be constant, whether the load is 8 or 4 ohms.

So 2x the power (watts) and 2x the current (amps).


Not only that, but, posted on October 9, 2009 at 18:47:43
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 since the Acoustat is a line source, its output level drops in a linear fashion with respect to distance and not the logarithmic fashion that point sources do. So unless you listen at a distance of three feet, the actual level experienced at more reasonable distances, i.e. likely triple the nominal one meter range, will be vastly different. :)

rw

you reminded me, posted on October 13, 2009 at 13:32:01
Bruce from DC
Bored Member

Posts: 18019
Location: U.S. Capital
Joined: October 13, 1999
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 1999
 of another reason I still miss my Magnepans, 31 years after having sold them -- the non-exponential decrease in SPL with distance meant that you could play them at a comfortable loudness level in the room, whether you were close or farther away.

Still a planar-head after all these years, I guess!


Sensitivity of another sort., posted on October 9, 2009 at 08:58:15
regmac
Audiophile

Posts: 1843
Joined: April 7, 2002
 Leave it to a transplanted Englishman to master American comma and period usage, while an embarrassing number of Americans continue to dwell in ignorance. (American usage places commas and periods inside the quotation marks.) The *rare* exception being when the last item of a sentence is merely a number or letter. Example: Most contributors to CC wouldn't recognize correct usage if it were marked with a large "X".

British usage demands the opposite approach. Which, I might add, is the *logical* approach. Therefore, Mr. Sircom's stylistic divergence is entirely understandable. However, JA resides in the U.S. and understands that he is writing for an audience that is largely American. I wish more of you did.

What is it with you guys?, posted on October 8, 2009 at 19:13:28
Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 4320
Joined: August 1, 2001
 Did any other magazine give you the sensitivity measurements?

I didn't think so.

And then you have to complain because he didn't give it to you the way you *liked*.

Go subscribe to Consumer Reports or something...

RE: What is it with you guys?, posted on October 8, 2009 at 20:24:44
powermatic
Audiophile

Posts: 5600
Location: central oregon
Joined: November 24, 2005
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 2008
 Come on Charles-the poster has a point. Zu is well known for 'massaging' both the efficiency and the frequency response of their speakers. It would be nice for someone to make a stand, and call them out on it-and Stereophile's well-respected testing process would be the logical place for that to happen.

Saying that, I agree with your larger point that we're lucky to have S'philes testing process, but at the same time, no one is above criticism.



"dammit"
"no one is above criticism", posted on October 9, 2009 at 03:50:57
mt10425
Audiophile

Posts: 1211
Location: midwest
Joined: January 23, 2004
Contributor
  Since: March 7, 2009
 hahahahhahah...your first time in CC?...hahahaha



"Apparently, people now believe that mental telepathy is the foundation of communication and magic is the source of daily events. Consequently, we no longer have to participate in our own lives."
RE: "no one is above criticism", posted on October 9, 2009 at 21:31:24
mpw
Audiophile

Posts: 39
Joined: November 30, 2000
Are we going to base a components worth just on measurements? I am really
glad that John gives the technical specs of the reviewed equipment because it is an object view of the component.

You really should not rule out a component strictly because its true measurements don't happen to meet you expectations. I believe one has to at least listen to the component before making a final judgment on "it".

Michael

RE: "no one is above criticism", posted on October 10, 2009 at 10:11:21
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: October 11, 2001
 "You really should not rule out a component strictly because its true measurements don't happen to meet you expectations."

I think the argument in this thread is the fact that the John's measurements did not coincide with the manufacturer's claims. Fudging specs & numbers appears to be a common practice in high-end audio. However, I agree that listening is the only real indicator of whether a product is worthy.

Plus..., posted on October 10, 2009 at 11:38:54
powermatic
Audiophile

Posts: 5600
Location: central oregon
Joined: November 24, 2005
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 2008
 the rationalization of the manufacturer's specs by the tester.



"dammit"
RE: Plus..., posted on October 10, 2009 at 18:20:28
mpw
Audiophile

Posts: 39
Joined: November 30, 2000
 yes, that is all true. manufactures can fudge specs.
the 'specs' might get one initially interested in the component.

however, most people that are going to spend thousands on a component are not going to care that much if the 'specs' are not exactly accurate and slightly fudged in favor of the manufacturer.

Buyers, including myself want to know how the component sounds and if it
will create synergy in my system.

-- Michael
Yesterday, CNN said the Dow was 9725. Today they say it's 9786. Egg on their face, or were they blindsided?, posted on October 8, 2009 at 15:39:01
Enophile
Audiophile

Posts: 7139
Location: Las Vegas
Joined: October 15, 2005
 ;)
RE: Yesterday, CNN said the Dow was 9725. Today they say it's 9786. Egg on their face, or were they blindsided?, posted on October 8, 2009 at 18:12:49
Spendor Harbeth
Audiophile

Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast
Joined: May 15, 2009
 Hmm. I hope not. I got in at 6500.

Spendor Harbeth..., posted on October 8, 2009 at 19:14:55
Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 4320
Joined: August 1, 2001
 ... audio critic extraordinaire and financial genius! It's almost too much for one man to bear...

RE: Spendor Harbeth..., posted on October 10, 2009 at 17:29:42
Spendor Harbeth
Audiophile

Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast
Joined: May 15, 2009
 ALMOST at that Corvette Z. Bought 10,000 shares of Citigroup at a buck.

Buy low sell high. Works for me.

FYI, if there is anything left over maybe I'll by some Ayre Myrtle Blocks.

RE: Spendor Harbeth..., posted on October 8, 2009 at 20:34:45
jdza
Audiophile

Posts: 68
Location: South Africa
Joined: December 7, 2006
Contributor
  Since: December 14, 2007
 Just be grateful he didn't call himself Ayre Krell or something.Mind you Pass(ing) Ayre may have been an appropriate moniker.

Haha!, posted on October 9, 2009 at 06:43:37
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 rw

LOL! Good one...(nt), posted on October 8, 2009 at 20:52:01
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 (nt)

What possibilities!, posted on October 9, 2009 at 06:40:41
Dave Pogue
Audiophile

Posts: 7491
Location: DC Area
Joined: October 9, 2001
Contributor
  Since: March 18, 2003
 Consider that he might have been smitten by Ayre and the Head-Fi offerings.

Under the "Favorite Reviews" thread below..., posted on October 8, 2009 at 13:38:58
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...Mr. S/H finally got sent where he belongs.

I vote all his subsequent similar posts on Critics go there as well.

RE: Under the "Favorite Reviews" thread below..., posted on October 8, 2009 at 18:19:08
Spendor Harbeth
Audiophile

Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast
Joined: May 15, 2009
 Aw cmon man, you would miss me If was gone.

"Aw cmon man, you would miss me If was gone. ", posted on October 9, 2009 at 06:15:55
Wendell Narrod
Audiophile

Posts: 7966
Location: Louisville, KY
Joined: June 2, 2000
 Wanna put it to a vote? :-)


-Wendell
Zero to whiner, posted on October 8, 2009 at 13:55:52
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 in under six months. Impressive. Took RBNG far longer...

rw

RE: Zero to whiner, posted on October 9, 2009 at 11:32:25
srdavis2000
Audiophile

Posts: 2063
Location: Deep South
Joined: January 11, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 16, 2004
 I wondered where RBNG went. I haven't felt irritated in some time.

Mods gave him a vacation -nt, posted on October 9, 2009 at 11:42:14
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 rw

Came back as "Bob.wire," but has disappeared again already...(nt), posted on October 10, 2009 at 15:21:18
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 !

We'll see how long it takes his alter ego "Bob Wire" to flip out...(nt), posted on October 8, 2009 at 14:53:06
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 (nt)

You are hereby nominated (by me)..., posted on October 8, 2009 at 13:29:24
SF tech
Industry Professional

Posts: 5219
Location: San Francisco
Joined: March 24, 2005
Contributor
  Since: February 4, 2008
 For assignment to the esteemed post of Official Stereophile Postpress Inspector General!

Your abilities to spot well camouflaged reviewer bias and minor controversy are simply unrivaled.

Your first mission in your new official capacity is to examine the apparent lack of cabling observed in many of the so-called "advertisements" for audio equipment appearing in Stereophile... There's something fishy going on, and I trust you will shine the light of righteous truth down upon this conspiracy.

Good luck to you, and congratulations!

SF



I'll second that nomination., posted on October 8, 2009 at 18:03:25
Bruce Kendall
Dealer

Posts: 26637
Location: SoCal
Joined: February 4, 2005
Contributor
  Since: February 4, 2005
 I've been dying to get to the bottom of that power cord(s), speaker cables and interconnect issue for a long time. And after that our nominee can find out why the photographers sometimes stage the speakers in a huge room with glass walls, with one speaker in the corner and the other in the middle of the room. And if there is any time left over perhaps we could find out if there is something about Martin Logan speakers that makes lovely young ladies pause, put their hands on them and wear a come-hither-type smile. That study needs to be handled very discretely, however. It just so happens I like looking at pictures of speakers that made a lovely young lady pause, put her hands on them and wearing a come-hither-type smile.



Ladies need to understand this too, posted on October 10, 2009 at 16:24:07
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 "perhaps we could find out if there is something about Martin Logan speakers that makes lovely young ladies pause, put their hands on them and wear a come-hither-type smile. That study needs to be handled very discretely, however."

Women look slender and beautiful next to BIG speakers. By contrast, the sort of "cute little lifestyle speakers" they tend to favor make them look unattractive and FAT! This information needs to be widely disseminated through women's magazines, and on shows like Oprah, so the ladies will quit complaining that our big speakers take up too much space in the living room.

Hey, you might be on to something., posted on October 12, 2009 at 10:20:17
Bruce Kendall
Dealer

Posts: 26637
Location: SoCal
Joined: February 4, 2005
Contributor
  Since: February 4, 2005
 But I'm not going to go home and test that story on my wife. Somebody else will have to go first.



Since there are never any cables attached to said speakers, posted on October 9, 2009 at 18:54:53
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 the lovely ladies must be the signal conductors as well. You know, the type with the bulbous unidentified thingy in the middle of them. :)

rw

LOL! That leads to the question of clothing..., posted on October 9, 2009 at 12:01:23
SF tech
Industry Professional

Posts: 5219
Location: San Francisco
Joined: March 24, 2005
Contributor
  Since: February 4, 2008
 As in, will there be any?

An investigation is in order!

SF



Bruce, Bruce, - you are slipping my friend, posted on October 9, 2009 at 11:23:17
Sordidman
Dealer

Posts: 9245
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
 Everyone knows that lovely young women putting their hands on things, makes EVERYTHING sound much better......

How do you get your car washed? :-) :-)







Surrendered to self preservation,
From others who care for themselves.
A blindness that touches perfection,
But hurts just like anything else.
I had my car washed at one of those high school cheerleaders, posted on October 9, 2009 at 11:36:22
Bruce Kendall
Dealer

Posts: 26637
Location: SoCal
Joined: February 4, 2005
Contributor
  Since: February 4, 2005
 fundraisers once, and........Look! That squirrel is fighing with that blue jay!



Pictures? -t, posted on October 9, 2009 at 11:48:19
Sordidman
Dealer

Posts: 9245
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
 .

Surrendered to self preservation,
From others who care for themselves.
A blindness that touches perfection,
But hurts just like anything else.
Oh yeah. That reminds me,, posted on October 9, 2009 at 12:13:16
Bruce Kendall
Dealer

Posts: 26637
Location: SoCal
Joined: February 4, 2005
Contributor
  Since: February 4, 2005
 I need to see if my wife's attorney is through with them yet. She has had the whole darned camera for a few weeks now.



Lawyers and Squirrels? Uh OH!!! Big trouble -t, posted on October 9, 2009 at 14:53:35
Sordidman
Dealer

Posts: 9245
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
 .

Surrendered to self preservation,
From others who care for themselves.
A blindness that touches perfection,
But hurts just like anything else.
One minor point......, posted on October 8, 2009 at 11:34:33
Bruce Kendall
Dealer

Posts: 26637
Location: SoCal
Joined: February 4, 2005
Contributor
  Since: February 4, 2005
 If you read the first few paragraphs of that review again, you'll notice that Art's "real company" comments have nothing to do with the channel Zu uses to sell their products.

Then again, I can I only judge based on the contents of the copy of Stereophile I received. Every so often I have to wonder if my copy is some kind of special edition or something.



RE: "special edition", posted on October 8, 2009 at 12:26:47
Bruce from DC
Bored Member

Posts: 18019
Location: U.S. Capital
Joined: October 13, 1999
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 1999
 No, Bruce. You and I get the regular edition of Stereophile. Mine actually came this month . . . thank you, U.S. Postal Service!

"Spendor Harbeth" gets a special edition of all the audiophile slicks . . . in recognition of his leading role in "Critics Corner" here at AA.

;-)


Yes, as befits his professed liking of high efficiency speakers, posted on October 9, 2009 at 09:53:52
keith_d
Audiophile

Posts: 931
Joined: June 15, 2002
 From which his moniker derives....

Why is it so bad to enjoy SET or hi-eff or both?, posted on October 9, 2009 at 11:06:15
Steyr
Manufacturer

Posts: 79
Joined: September 11, 2009
 Or hi-eff with hi-power? Or whatever system you enjoy. Seems many act like its a bad thing to be efficent, low powered or to enjoy your system. If systems are set up to have synergy you can get great sound with excellent measured performance with such hi-eff low power. Just seems most SET themselves up for failure by forgeting synergy careful matching of system which incs the room. I get to design for all types of system. I dont have favorites as such but seem to end up running SET and horns as my office system which I use the most. Have much kit most all types of amp. And its not distortions of absulte fidelity that Im groving too,its great music reproduction nothing more.

Hi eff. Fine, if you want it. But the individual who declared his like for this has a certain moniker, posted on October 9, 2009 at 18:26:04
keith_d
Audiophile

Posts: 931
Joined: June 15, 2002
 My post made that clear enough, didn't it? Neither Spendor nor Harbeth are high efficiency, so I am suggesting that this is yet another example of BS from the apparently drunken troll in question.

Becaus it dont meke no sents.

Thanks Bruce, that makes perfect sense! -t, posted on October 8, 2009 at 13:29:56
Bruce Kendall
Dealer

Posts: 26637
Location: SoCal
Joined: February 4, 2005
Contributor
  Since: February 4, 2005



Now that Zu has discovered speakers need tweeters none of their old dealers will deal with them, posted on October 8, 2009 at 10:27:24
keith_d
Audiophile

Posts: 931
Joined: June 15, 2002
 It's all very controversial, these tweeter things.

Not that Im a fan but ZU always used tweeters....nt, posted on October 9, 2009 at 11:10:43
Steyr
Manufacturer

Posts: 79
Joined: September 11, 2009
 nt

Thank you for the correction, posted on October 13, 2009 at 08:28:29
keith_d
Audiophile

Posts: 931
Joined: June 15, 2002
 After seeing your post, I looked at models back to 2006 or so and of course you're right.

Although I'm still skeptical of large, conventional drivers going that high if there's a high crossover point to the tweeter.

RE: Dudley Zu Speaker Review: Clarification Requested, posted on October 8, 2009 at 05:02:13
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 1900
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >Art Dudley's review of the Zu Audio Essence claims they sells through dealer,
>network, abandoning a direct to consumer model.

That was correct at the time the review was being prepared, June-July. Art
submitted the review text to me on July 15.

>"OGDEN, Utah—August 31, 2009—Effective September 1st, Zu Audio once again
>sells our acclaimed loudspeakers, cables and accessories directly to our U.S.
>customers, via ZuAudio.com or telephone."

Note the date on the Zu press release, August 31. The October issue of Stereophile
in which the Zu review appeared shipped to the printer Monday August 3.

So without access to a time machine, neither Art nor I could know that Zu was going
to terminate its dealer network at the end of August.


John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
RE: Dudley Zu Speaker Review: Clarification Requested, posted on October 8, 2009 at 06:31:22
Spendor Harbeth
Audiophile

Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast
Joined: May 15, 2009
 Thanks JA. I'm quite disappointed in that decision. A good friend of mine took on the line and now he is screwed. He really loves the products.

I suspected Art did not know about the decision at the time of the published review. Thanks for clarifying.

I feel bad for him because he really went out of his way to praise their business model.
"I suspected Art did not know about the decision at the time" translates to:, posted on October 8, 2009 at 10:28:50
keith_d
Audiophile

Posts: 931
Joined: June 15, 2002
 I was a drunken troll when I made my transparently incorrect, accusatory post.

Zu probably had compelling reasons . . ., posted on October 8, 2009 at 09:28:12
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 . . . for returning to factory-direct sales. At a more attractive per-unit price, they can probably move more units, and possibly realize a higher per-unit profit.

Given that these had some of the most hideously awful measured performance -- in every parameter -- ever seen in a Stereophile review, they might not fare well in side-by-side showroom comparisons with more accurate speakers. Their primary virtue appears to be that they are highly efficient, and hence dynamic as all get-out, which may be sufficient to impress enthusiasts of voltage-challenged, euphonically distorted flea-powered tube amps. This small and specialized market segment, not really concerned with accurate reproduction, may be better served by factory-direct marketing.

RE: Zu probably had compelling reasons . . ., posted on October 9, 2009 at 07:46:17
jdouglas51
Industry Professional

Posts: 651
Location: arizona
Joined: November 11, 2005
 that sums it op

Whoa... that's what I call backhand 'compliment...', posted on October 8, 2009 at 10:24:28
ElDragon
Audiophile

Posts: 1437
Joined: February 19, 2009
 ...you singlehandedly insulted the pretty wide group of the audio enthusiast. However, run me down the list of the books you read or music you listen, so we can tell, how wrong YOU ARE!


RE: Whoa... that's what I call backhand 'compliment...', posted on October 8, 2009 at 19:50:15
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 No intent to insult anyone (just maybe tweak their noses a bit -- heh heh). De gustibus non est diputandum. If people get a kick out of listening to grossly inaccurate sound reproduction, more joy to 'em! Like the folks into BDSM, they're probably having a lot more fun than I am!

I fail, however, to see what my musical tastes (which run to well-recorded jazz, classical, and international folk music) or my literary tastes (which likewise run to the classics) have to do with the FACT that JA's measurements show the speaker to perform rather atrociously.

The quasi-anedchoic on-axis frequency response shows deep suckouts around 160 and 4,000Hz. There is small consolation in the fact that the off-axis response flares at the higher of those frequencies. As JA notes, this somewhat (but not nearly enough) levels things out in the room. But all that's a function of that particular "fullrange" driver in that particular baffle, and not much can be done about of it, short of active digital in-room EQ, which I'm sure is anathema to the sort of analog/tube purists who would purchase such a speaker.

The impedance roller coaster presented little problem for JA's SS test amp, but seriously challenged Art's little Shindo. Look at the in-room curve -- ripple in the LF rolloff, 5dB hump at 70-90Hz, -10dB dip at 150, rising to a broad plateau in the midrange, then rolls off about 6dB/octave above 2k. The sort of amp most likely to be used with these speakers becomes the little engine that couldn't. (Hint to manufacturer: a couple of decently designed conjugate filters in parallel with the drivers could level out the big impedance bumps without compromising the output level, and make the thing a LOT easier to drive).

And then there's the panel resonances. The front baffle is a hashy mess, and JA didn't even measure the side and back panels, which are probably worse. NO WAY this won't color the sound. (Hint to manufacturer: constrained layer damping is your friend, and a few judiciously placed braces could kill a lot of this ringing). Of course, it's possible that this behavior will actually appeal to people who think speaker boxes should resonate like musical instruments.

Which brings us back around to the original point. If you enjoy this sort of highly colored sonic presentation, then enjoy it with all your heart! Wallow in your lush, euphonic decadence. Just don't mistake it for fidelity.

RE: I can tell, you a Dreiser fan!?, posted on October 9, 2009 at 09:17:34
ElDragon
Audiophile

Posts: 1437
Joined: February 19, 2009
 ...still no audio gear should 'live or die' exclusively by the measurements.
And you probably Like Tolstoy too? Yikes!




Regards! ;)


RE: I can tell, you a Dreiser fan!?, posted on October 9, 2009 at 11:59:02
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 "...still no audio gear should 'live or die' exclusively by the measurements. And you probably Like Tolstoy too? Yikes!"

Not really, on the Dreiser. The whole social realist school, going back to Hardy and Zola, is just a bit too unrelentingly grim to read for pleasure. Sinclair Lewis seems the most humane of the lot. Of that era, I find Hemingway to be the most compelling storyteller, and Faulkner the most entertainingly weird.

Tolstoy . . . along with Chekhov, one of the more serene of the Russians. I somewhat prefer Dostoevsky and Gogol, just for their wild humor and sheer bizarreness.

Right on the Shakespeare, though.

I agree that measurements don't tell anywhere near the whole story of how something will sound. But they can give you a general idea. If the measured performance is just grossly WRONG, it doesn't give me much incentive to seek out an audition.

"...you singlehandedly insulted the pretty wide group of the audio enthusiast", posted on October 8, 2009 at 11:52:30
mt10425
Audiophile

Posts: 1211
Location: midwest
Joined: January 23, 2004
Contributor
  Since: March 7, 2009
 And did a mighty fine job of it too.;)



"Apparently, people now believe that mental telepathy is the foundation of communication and magic is the source of daily events. Consequently, we no longer have to participate in our own lives."
Wow Art D and phile made a mistake!, posted on October 8, 2009 at 04:55:58
Steyr
Manufacturer

Posts: 79
Joined: September 11, 2009



I thought all things human where perfect, now I know there not, thanks spending on Harbeths. And now a puppy pic to smooth your angry mind.

Hey! You're supposed to use a bunny! nt, posted on October 8, 2009 at 07:49:29
DustyC
Audiophile

Posts: 502
Joined: November 4, 2000
 nt

I think this guy ate the bunny. NT, posted on October 9, 2009 at 11:44:55
srdavis2000
Audiophile

Posts: 2063
Location: Deep South
Joined: January 11, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 16, 2004
 nt

No mistake..., posted on October 8, 2009 at 05:04:23
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 1900
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 See my earlier posting about the timeline of this review,


John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
WTF?, posted on October 8, 2009 at 00:31:11
agattu
Audiophile

Posts: 219
Location: Southcentral Alaska
Joined: March 27, 2005
 ?

RE: WTF?, posted on October 8, 2009 at 00:35:36
Spendor Harbeth
Audiophile

Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast
Joined: May 15, 2009
 Whaaaaaaaaaaat?

Page processed in 0.193 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]