|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
125.133.32.103
In Reply to: Snell Speakers these days posted by Frihed89 on March 23, 2007 at 10:58:27:
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.
Follow Ups:
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"? :)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: