|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
87.53.108.34
I haven't heard a Snell speaker since I heard the old Ks in the early-mid 1980s. I haven't seen or heard one since.How do the new ones sound? Does the company have the same "sound philosophy" as when it started?
I don't read much about them these days. Back in the late 70s-mid 80's everyone wanted them.
Follow Ups:
I am currently using a pair of Snell Type A-II speakers and very much enjoy them. I drive them with either Rogue Audio 120 Magnum mono blocks or an Aragon 8008. I am hardly a critical listener so my opinion should come with a disclaimer, but I enjoy them as much as my B&W 805N, Chapman T-7, or SF Grand Piano. Even though the Snells are in almost new condition I will admit they are big and ugly as hell.
I've heard the new K7's and thought they were extremely good. Great resolution and extremely well balanced. In a side by side comparison they easily beat the Parradigm Studio 20v3 and the Revel M12( the concerta series?). For a smaller room they would be incredible.
I've only heard the E-IVs of the newer vintage(post Peter) & even these are 15-18 years old. I had tube power on the E-IVs & thought the setup sounded very good. Sweet & clean mids & highs, good bass, imaging & soundstage all very good...particularly for what they cost me.
The original ones were the only ones designed by Peter Snell -- then Voecks took over and made rubbish (The Snell B-minor is a collosal bomb - with the usual good reviews from the good review fairy) and then the company was purchased by Boston Acoustics -- which was then purchased by Denon.The new Snells are called Audio Notes. Since by name the only company that continues Peter Snell's vision of loudspeaker design is what Audio Note is doing. Voecks and followers follow the marketing and acounting and profit margin. WHich is why Snell ent tits up and the name got bought.
Oh please, I get so sick of the Audio Note folks explaining how Kevin Voecks designs sucked. That's complete crap. Most of the folks who love Snells have early model versions designed by Kevin Voecks--Peter Snell has been dead a long long time. I'll take a stab in the dark and guess that if Peter Snell was still alive, his speakers would look and sound nothing like the Audio Note AN-K, J, E whatever. Snell did not head South until after Kevin Voecks moved on.
Dear Badger,No-one says the Voecks designs sucked, all we contend is that they are not as good as the originals they replaced.
I believe this is pretty easy to demonstrate.
I don' know how familiar you are with Peter Snell's work, but I can guarantee you that nothing he would have made would have been anything like anything made now or before, but the product of possibly the greatest mind that has worked acoustics since N. W. McLachlan and Harry Ohlsson.
If you are familiar with the highly unconventional theory and design behind the Snell Type 1 you will recognise the truth in this.
"but the product of possibly the greatest mind that has worked acoustics since N. W. McLachlan and Harry Ohlsson."Hyperbole with a gigantic h.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Dear TAH,Not at all, if you know differently then mention some better and more deserving candidates.
*
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Dear TAH,You disappoint me, is that really the only significant people you can think of?
Their "fame" is mainly based on the commercial success of their ideas and designs, is that really the most important measure you can come up with?
Whilst by no means wishing to demean the achievements of the people you mention, none of their products are anywhere near as ground breaking or original as you give them credit for.
Why not mention true innovators and contributors like, P. G. A. H. Voigt, Leo Beranek, Harold Beveridge, Phil Hill or Oscar Heil to mention some more individuals whose contributions to our understanding of aspects in the fundamentals of acoustics are far more significant and ground breaking?
Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup
"Their "fame" is mainly based on the commercial success of their ideas and designs, is that really the most important measure you can come up with?Whilst by no means wishing to demean the achievements of the people you mention, none of their products are anywhere near as ground breaking or original as you give them credit for."
That's rather ironic, because by stating that commercial success was the main claim to fame of John Dunlavy and Peter Walker, it certainly sounds like you're trying to demean their achievements.
Dear Oxia,You can off course choose to put that interpretation into what I said which perhaps goes to show that you have as much of an agenda as you accuse me of.
Believe it or not, but my main interest in discussions like this is to try to bring about some balance, by pointing out what separates genuine and fundamental scientific progress and advance of relevant knowledge and the more superficial achievements that are based more on commercial prowess, advertising and hype and in this regard the people I mention contributed to a real expansion of the understanding and knowledge base in acoustics and the people theaudiohobby mentions either used or ignored this knowledge to commercial ends.
My hope is that some of the readers will Google some of the names I brought up and perhaps read up on what they contributed and then draw the same conclusion as I.
My agenda, Mr Qvortrup, is to point out that you are needlessly and unfairly impugning the reputations and achievements of John Dunlavy, Peter Walker, and Joe D'Appolito, in order to play a childish game of one-upmanship with one of the inmates. What exactly was the point of that? To prove that you worship better idols than theaudiohobby? You could have taken the highroad and discussed the merits of Peter Snell's applied theories on their own, but instead you chose to have a pissing match and you dragged the names of Dunlavy, Walker and D'Appolito into it. If you want to continue the discussion on this level, that's your choice. Go ahead and please yourself. I'm done with you.
Dear Oxia,Firstly, I did not drag either of the people you mention into this discussion theaudiohobby did, and I then challenged him to give some examples that were more deserving.
Secondly, if politely pointing out the fact that there are more fundamental and important scientific aspects of acoustics than what the three designers have contributed is a pissing match, then what does that make your comments?
It may come as a terrible shock to you, but I have actually very little to prove here, other than realign and attempt to bring balance to the discussion.
So perhaps rather than accusing and being negative, it might be appropriate if you "took the high road" as you call it and put forward some real arguments for why they should feel insulted by my comments, a short list of achievements should suffice, we can then discuss further.
I am equally happy to discuss Peter Snell's achievements given the right opportunity and an environment where the respondents do not read all manners of political correctness and subliminal implied criticisms into what I say.
Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup
I suppose that you think your dog is bigger than mine too.
Whatever objections I may have about your comments pale in the light of the fact that you have done a better job than me in illustrating why your original comments were hyperbole, good job!
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Dea TAH,Displaying your ignorance and need to have the last word yet again, well done.
Displaying your ignorance and need to have the last word yet again,The frustrated response of the outwitted!
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Jesus, look who's talking! At the risk of sounding like PQ's acolite here, I find it amazing how much you consider your rhetoric a satisfactory stand-in for knowledge. Any chance to take a whack at your neighbor is justified, so long as it keeps you up on the podium with him. If you're serious about all of this, what not tell us why you think your heroes' contributions are more significant than his? Or is it just the air-time you want here?
Horse, you're the kind of guy the eighteenth century satirists used to die to find. The perfect puffed up character who gets a thrill out of attacking people with ideas and true passions who has none of his own. Wow, lookie me, I can throw darts at significant people! I must be significant too! Actually, Ben Jonson loved your type too. Of course nowadays, it's impossible to write satire, as they say. Life is too ridiculus on its own. What would we do without the Hobby Horses. Rant on, rant on, you're wonderful.
Peter,I'm by no means an expert on Peter Snell's designs--I've just heard some of his and his predecesors speakers and liked them all up through the C-IVs I've still got lurking around one of my systems. I've also heard several of your Audio Note models, all of which I have enjoyed (you have a very dedicated dealer here in VA).
It just gets old hearing some posters (pretty much always the same ones) talk about the 2nd gen Snells being "rubbish" all the while acting like they are the "cool kids in school" and the only ones who "get it", all the while failing to realize the one universal truth of audio--that there is no universal truth and people have different tastes and likes.
Cheers,
Dear Dave,I think calling Kevin Voecks' designs for Snell rubbish is a bit harsh, but perhaps understandable given what they replaced at the time and regard with which many people, including myself, hold Peter's creations.
I have say that the issue of different tastes, to me, only applies to the music you prefer, not the way it is reproduced, as in my view there can only be one correct rendition of what is on the software and that is what we should strive to reproduce, so in that sense there is a universal truth.
Does the review fairy start with an "S"? :)
The new Snell speakers are designed by Joe D'Appolito, one of the best, most knowledgeable designers around today. One of his designs got a rave review a while ago in Stereophile.
I still have my original E's and dig'm. They're mated with my VTL ST-85 and the combo sounds great. Never cared much for the updated versions.
...if you liked the old models you probably wouldn't like the new ones. And vice-versa.The newer Snells fall into the "slim-line" crowd (at least the ones I have heard) - possibly for HT or decor reasons. Then again, my "experience" with them is confined to one store.
You're right... I lusted after the older Snells at the exact time period you mention. They were a bit outta my price range, settled on a pair of Boston A70s.
Problem is I recently had a pair of J IIs that were very poor... "muddy" and closed-in would be the adjectives that come to mind. Rose-tinted memories? Not sure. I now have a pair of Boston A100s, and they're not as good as I remember either. Don't get me wrong, they're nice (especially for the price) but not what I expected.
I wonder if the 20 year old electrolytics are any good?
...and I was told that by the mid-70s the Japanese have figured out how to make a cap that didn't leak. Both speakers sounded the same, so that would mean both speakers went South at the same rate. But, by definition, it is possible.By Bostons (same period) sound OK...
My bro-in-laws (even older) Advents sound OK...
Maybe the "East coast" thing isn't for me, that's all.
I have heard other speakers from the 80s that tried to capture the Snell sound and they aren't as open as today's "accurate" speakers. Maybe that's the wrong term to use, as some romantic speakers are open, namely: the newest JMR models.But the Snell Es and Ks were a radical concept then. Too bad .
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: