|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.162.26.165
Peter,As there is much negative banter about the "honesty" of the Audio Note published efficiency rating of the AN/e speaker, please be kind enough to share with us the way in which the the efficiency of the AN/e speaker is detrmined, and kindly explain why there is a difference in the AN specified efficiency and that of the Stereophile measurement.
If this question has already been addressed, please excuse this post and kindy direct me to where I may find the explanation.
Follow Ups:
Dear Openbaffle!First of all we do not use the method that John Atkinson uses to measure efficiency (1 meter on axis 2.83 volt pink noise, free field semi anachoic, using a zero impedance amplifier or similar), as R C Daniels correctly says in another post, this type of standardized measurement technique completely fails to take many aspects of speaker behaviour and design into consideration and as result is just as misleading as we are accused of being with our efficiency figures.
Before I start, let me say that the audio industry has become and is now obsessed with simplistic ways of showing off “improved” or "comparable" performance and John Atkinson’s methodology is a fine example of that, the belief that a single “simple” figure like harmonic distortion, damping factor, efficiency etc. etc. gives us any insight whatsoever into issues as complex and three dimensional as speaker design and performance is just plain ridiculous, the fact that anyone even takes this serious shows how far down the blind alley the combined marketing and lack of education of an industry more concerned with selling product than offering long term quality has lead us.
I think it is relevant to remind ourselves also that a speaker's dispersion affects the total energy presented to the room, the AN-E has exceptionally wide and even dispersion and although standardised measurements have been introduced with good intentions, these measurements are so simplified that they no longer represent reality in a meaningful way. For example, a measurement of two loudspeakers at 1m in an anechoic environment takes no account at all of the power response of the two systems. If, say, both were converting overall 1W
of electrical power into acoustic power, but one were omnidirectional and the other had a tightly constrained beamed output, the omnidirectional speaker would measure as being less efficient, a lot of its output would disappear off the horizon. However, unless you live in a field, this is not the case.By the way, Martin Colloms asked me the exact same question when he reviewed the AN system 3 - 4 years ago, as he also had difficulty believing the efficiency rating, I showed a quick if somewhat simplified example of how we arrive at the stated efficiency ratings, which is done by combining 2 far field sound pressure measurements to get a room power response which is then used to calculate the efficiency, backwards so to speak.
Martin clearly agreed with the published 96dB/watt efficiency figure having tested the AN-E/SEC Silver, as he does mention in the review.
So here is a brief outline of the procedure, using the highly sensitive system we also use to match the drivers to the crossover and the reference, to get a near perfect match within pairs and to the reference,
1.) With the speakers in the correct corner loaded position, we take two sound pressure measurements at two different output power levels in two positions, using a broadband complex waveform (music), plus a series of sweep tones 15Hz to 25kHz, why use two different powe levels you may ask?
The reason for this is that I have found that many speakers appear to have an optimised behaviour at 2.83 volt input and their efficiency drops disproportionally if presented with less and in some cases more power, why this is, is a whole different question.
2.) We repeat this procedure at 3, 4 and 5 meters, using two speakers and a 2A3 or 45 and a 300B SET amplifier, each time noting the voltage output power from the amplifier and the corresponding sound pressure level.
We then compare to two reference speakers of "known" efficiency, measured the traditional way (as JA did with ours), then repeat the way we measured our speakers, compare the difference in efficiency at listening distance, average for distance and then work their room energy efficiency backwards so to speak.
We add/subtract the difference between these reference speakers and ours to get the figure we publish.
Inconvenient?
Yes, but it gives a far better and more accurate measure of what the real power transfer and equivalent sound pressure level is, and therefore closed to what the actual efficiency of the speaker is likely to be in situ in room, because if you take a 1.5 watt amplifier and you can get 100dB plus out of a speaker measured at 1 meter before audible clipping, then the speaker must be more than 92dB efficient, wouldn't you say, or perhaps it is just the way we measure the amplifier's power that is not correct, it may in reality be more powerful than the measurement shows??
Hope this help a little.
The speaker reviewed in Stereophile has a claimed -6 dB point of 18 Hz.John Atkinson's simulated anechoic measurements indicate that the AN-E Lexus Signature is down 20 dB at 18 Hz. Now note that this is down 20 dB from his average sensitivity measurement of 92.5 dB.
You are already claiming 5.5 dB gain from corner placement and the reverberant field contribution.
So, anechoically your speakers are down 20 + 5.5 = 25.5 dB at 18 Hz. This is 19.5 dB below your claimed level at that frequency.
Okay I'm willing to concede about 7.5 dB of gain from corner loading (assuming non-rigid room walls, which is the norm at least here in the US). That still leaves you about 12 dB short.
Where oh where do you pull 12 dB of bass at 18 Hz from?
Eh?
Dear Duke,Whatever JA measured was not correct, that is all I can say, I can to some extent understand why you would not believe a manufacturer's figures, but why do you choose ignore Martin Colloms and several other reviewers measurements most of which agree far more closely with our published figures, why is it only John Atkinson's measurement in the bass and his efficiency measurement that counts here??
We get 17Hz at minus 6 dB in room when we measure the AN-E in the correct position, Art Dudley got 25Hz 3 - 4 feet away from the wall, that is all one can say, choose to believe John Atkinson if you prefer that is entirely up to you, there is no more to say about that.
The fact that it clearly irks you enormously is actually quite funny.
That will show everyone how smart you really are and no one will notice that the evidence you cite actually refutes your claim.Art Dudley's measurement of the AN-E Lexus Signature near a corner is entirely consistent with John Atkinson's measurements. Atkinson shows the speaker roughly -6 dB at 25 Hz. It is certainly no surprise that placement near a corner would result in response that is "flat to 25 Hz".
But, that's nowhere near what you claim.
Thanks for pointing out Dudley's in-room measurement. That's just one more example to support Atkinson's measurements and discredit your claims.
I was unable to navigate to the Martin Colloms review. Needless to say I'm anxious to see if it says what you claim it does.
Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof, Peter. I'd expect you to hold me to the same standard if I were the one making them.
Dear Duke,25Hz at minus 6dB at 4 - 5 feet from the corner easily equals 17Hz when correctly placed in the corner, you need to read what I said properly.
If you email me, I shall send an attachment with Martin Colloms's review if you like.
Uncomfortable as it may be, the low frequency response of the AN-E stacks up when measured in the correct circumstances.
Martin's measurements make sense to me for the most part. And so do John Atkinsons.Martin recorded a 2.83 volt sensitivity of 94 dB, noting that the speaker's minimum impedance was 3.6 ohms. So this version of the AN/E is apparently a 4-ohm speaker, and its 1-watt efficiency would be 91 dB. Nothing earth-shaking here.
Martin also measures the speaker as -3 dB at 28 Hz when placed near a wall. That also seems within reason to me.
He identifies the tuning frequency of the vented enclosure as 29 Hz, and then notes:
"...an in-room -6 dB point of 18 Hz..."
This is better than I would have expected from a 91 dB efficient woofer in a 2.1 cubic vented enclosure assuming the theoretical maximum 9 dB of gain due to rigid corner loading. Theory predicts -9 dB at 18Hz under those conditions, so according to Martin Colloms you beat the computer by 3 dB.
So I concede that there is a measurement in print that partially supports your claims. I'm not conceding that it's accurate because it sounds to me like it was taken under casual, uncontrolled conditions. The margin for error below 20 Hz may well be more than 3 dB. And I say partially, because it would take much more than 3 dB to get the AN/E Lexus Signature's in-room measurement to meet your claimed bass extension.
I still haven't seen anything to convince me that your claimed bass extension for the AN/E Lexus Signature is other than "misleadingly optimistic".
Exaggeration number one: Art Dudley had the speaker 4-5 feet from the corner when he measured them as "flat to 25 Hz".The truth, from Dudley himself: "...Bear in mind that Peter Qvorthrop intends for these speakers to be installed close to the wall behind them - preferably IN THE CORNERS - for maximum bass reinforcement. I TRIED THAT, and while I was amazed by their extension - flat to 25 Hz! - I simply didn't care for their spatial presentation that way, being more used to a nearfield listening experience with my Quad electrostatic panels. I proceeded to move the Es AWAY FROM THEIR CORNERS A LITTLE AT A TIME, listening and measuring..." [emphasis mine].
As you can plainly see, his "flat to 25 Hz" comment was with the speakers ALREADY IN THE CORNERS! There was no additional gain available to him from corner placement - they were already there!
Exaggeration number two: You state that "25Hz at minus 6dB at 4 - 5 feet from the corner easily equals 17Hz when correctly placed in the corner."
Peter, you cannot make this statement without knowing how far down the speaker is at 17 Hz relative to its level at 25Hz. In this case, at 17 Hz the speaker is down about 13 dB relative to its 25 Hz level. This is consistent with the fourth order rolloff below tuning frequency (29 Hz in this case) that characterizes a vented box. I do not think it is possible for a corner to impart a rise in response greater than second order, and maybe not even that fast. You might get a peak somewhere in the room, but that's not the same thing.
Your statement quoted above may be true for some speakers under some circumstances, but it is false for a vented enclosure tuned to 29 Hz.
I haven't seen any extraordinary proof yet for your extraordinary claims. Quite the contrary, I'm afraid.
You have said twice now that I am irked by or uncomfortable with the low frequency response of the AN-E, implying that I know its low frequency response to be what you claim it is. Kindly stop doing that - I do not accept your claim, so don't imply that I do. What is true is that I am irked by your "misleadingly optimistic" claims, to borrow a quote from John Atkinson.
When you said that Dudley had the speakers 4-5 feet from the corner, was that an honest mistake?
Do you now see that his measurement supports Atkinson's measurements, and refutes your claim just as I stated?
I've e-mailed you requesting a copy of the Martin Colloms review.
Dear Duke,So you are saying that "flat to 25Hz" cannot mean minus 6 dB at 17-18 Hz??
Which means they would drop by 12dB per octave, what is so problematic about that?
I misread Art, but that still has little bearing on what the implications of what he said is.
JA says that the port is tuned to 29Hz, which is probably about right, what he also mistakenly says is that we imply that the port is tuned to 17Hz, we say no such thing.
I have looked again more closely at the frequency graph that John measured and as far as I can see it actually shows a free field response at minus 10dB at about 24Hz, so with a 12 dB corner reinforcement, what we state is entirely reasonable.
Since you are taking a close look at Atkinson's measurements, why not look at 17 Hz? Let's look there instead of at 24 Hz and extrapolating, because that's the frequency you specify as -6 dB in-room.Free-field, the AN-E Lexus Signature is about -21 dB at 17 Hz by Atkinson's measurements. Adding in 9 dB of corner reinforcement (where do you get 12 dB of gain from??), you're now down 12 dB. And you claim -6 dB.
But wait - it's worse than that! Atkinson's zero-dB level is 92.5 dB, and your claimed zero dB level is 98 dB. You get to 98 dB by factoring in room gain. Sorry but you can't use it twice - you ALREADY used it to arrive at your efficiency claim! So if we subtract 5.5 dB from -12 dB we come up with -17.5 dB at 17 Hz.
That's a far cry from your claimed -6 dB.
I think a key point where we disagree is on how much gain can be expected from corner placement. My understanding is 9 dB theoretical and more like 7-8 dB real world. You are assuming between 15 and 20.5 dB of gain at 17 Hz from corner loading (depending on whether or not we count that 5.5 dB efficiency mismatch between your claim and Atkinson's measurements).
Can you explain to me or point me to a source that can explain the physics behind 15 dB or more gain at 17 Hz from corner placement?
A loudspeaker placed in a corner can gain up to 18dB in SPL at very low frequencies with perfectly rigid walls. Your reference of 9dB for corner reinforcement is of power output, not SPL.
Given that the reflected energy off the walls is in phase with the rer-firing corner-loaded port's output, the theoretial maximim gain would be 18 dB instead of 9 dB (the actual power increase). Is that the way it works?Duke
Very interesting, Donald. That would explaing the scientific basis for Audio Note's measurements.I'll have to look into it for myself, as I don't really understand how power power output can be 9 dB and yet gain can be 18 dB, but if you are correct then I'll be eating a big slice of humble pie and offering an apology to Mr. Qvorthrop.
Thank you for posting this.
Dear Duke,I recommend Don Quixote.
You are assuming here that JAs measurements represent some kind of "absolute", your entire argument is based on that, has it not occurred to you that perhaps JAs measurements are not telling the full or even the true story?
Perhaps a rear ported speaker drops off faster under his measurement conditions than under Martin Colloms's for example.
Just to give you an interesting discrepancy, the speaker Martin measured was the AN-E/SEC Silver which we specify at 95 - 96 dB, so his 94dB at 2.83 volt at 1 meter is far far closer to our figure and this clearly put into question JA's 92.5dB of what is a clearly more efficient speaker.
I don't know where you get the 9dB from either, all I can say is that if the port is tailored for corner position and the speaker is set up very close to both the rear and side wall and angled to take out standing waves, then the low frequency gain measures more like 12 dB, perhaps one needs to refine the standard calculation from the text book you read?
The concept of corner loading a rear ported speaker is not exactly common, so perhaps the figures you refer to do not apply, or does it specifically say that it does??
Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup
Peter, I think that Donald North has nuked my theory. As far as I can tell the theoretical maximum gain from corner placement is indeed 18 dB because the energy reflected off the floor and walls (or directed by the floor and walls) is in-phase with the rear-firing port's output.Simply put, I was wrong.
I apologize for saying that your speakers cannot do what you claim they can even with corner loading. I gave you a hard time about it and you took it like a gentleman.
I guess that different people are convinced by different kinds of evidence, and as long as I had the mistaken conviction that 9 dB was the theoretical maximum gain from corner placement I wasn't going to believe your claimed in-room measurements bass extension. Now I have no solid basis for disputing your claim of -6 dB at 17 Hz with corner loading.
Ah, there's my dessert now. Yum.
Dear Duke,Apology gratefully accepted.
I also wanted to commend you for keeping a cordial and professional tone throughout this long thread.It seems to me that Standardized tests are only relevent for speakers designed to be used in a standard placement, nothing else. It doesn't make any sense to measure in free air, a speaker designed specifically for corner-loading. All that results is a speaker used improperly.
Hi Peter,In the description of your measurement method, I notice you say "two speakers". With your method are you powering a stereo pair of speakers simultaneously?
I think that you are trying to confuse the situation.First of all what people call efficiency is not efficiency in the engineering sense because it the ratio of a sound pressure level (dB SPL) and a voltage - neither of which is a power. Now its easy to get the power from the voltage IF the impedance is a resistor, which it is not, but always assumed to be, but the power of the radiated sound is altogether another thing. SO yes let's just admit that what people call efficiency is not efficiency.
That said it's ludicrous to say that accepted standards of measurement (ala free field anechoic) "are so simplified that they no longer represent reality in a meaningful way". What is meaningless is to define your own measure procedures that give better numbers and then to call them something that everyone else knows by a completely different measurement technique. And then call of them dummies!!!
"let me say that the audio industry has become and is now obsessed with simplistic ways of showing off “improved” or "comparable" performance and John Atkinson’s methodology is a fine example of that, the belief that a single “simple” figure like harmonic distortion, damping factor, efficiency etc. etc. gives us any insight whatsoever into issues as complex and three dimensional as speaker design and performance is just plain ridiculous, the fact that anyone even takes this serious shows how far down the blind alley the combined marketing and lack of education of an industry more concerned with selling product than offering long term quality has lead us."
I am not a fan of Stereophile, but I do know John Atkinson and he is no dummy. His measurements are meaningfull, much better than most, but perhaps not complete. Your comment makes it sound like everything that everyone else does is "plain ridiculous". I think that it's your post that I have trouble taking serious.
Dear Earl,Not trying to confuse at all, so I shall try again, note that we do not say that our measurements are arrived at by the same method as the one JA used, quite the contrary in fact and no-one is accusing anyone of being a dummy, I don’t know where you read that but it cannot have been in my post, what I did say was that taking as gospel and therefore making this much fuss out of a couple of simplistic measurements was ridiculous and I stand by that, because it is.
Everything in audio has a voice and that includes the methodology and measurements used to assess or develop the end result, be that an amplifier, cartridge, speaker or CD player and no matter how hard we try we can never remove the influence of whatever method we use to arrive at the end result.
Every measurement technique influences the end result in a way can be heard from the speakers it has helped create and as a result the speakers made using the same method/measurement technique also perform better within the same measured environment, which again drives people to develop their products in that "direction", simply because it is easier to get good independently “verified” figures this way, which in turn makes it easier to sell the speakers, because they got a good review from the test equipment. The circle is complete and can now take another loop by another manufacturer who gets a “better” result using the same set of figures that is what passes for progress, computers with “ears”.
Somewhere in my brain there is the feeling that "science" is not what it appears to be. And what we are in fact doing is not objectively mapping the universe, but mapping how some humans perceive it.
BUT we are doing it with a system which describes perfect Platonic solids, so the theory describes nice neat circles and polyhedra.
Any speaker not created to “suit” the prevailing measurement “climate”, therefore naturally has a harder time, as it does not perform as well, but does that make the design incorrect or the measurement technology that created it incompetent?
I would never claim that the way we developed our speakers or the way they measure is perfect, far from it, I do the development, so I am keenly aware of their shortcomings and where improvements can be made, but I object strongly to being “judged” by a set of figures that describe my efforts poorly and then be berated by people who have not heard them properly or at all.
There is more to education than knowledge!
Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup
Why your rambling may or may not be true, I can accept some and reject some, but that has nothing to do with the fact that standard measurements are just that "standard". And voltage sensitivity is a stadrad measurement doner exactly the way that Mr. Atkinson did it.If you want to do a "different" set of measurements be my guest. But then it is your obligation to point out, in no ill-defined terms, that your measurements are not "standard". It is not the obligation of the consumer to figure out that what you mean by sensitivity is not what everyone else means.
To not do so is misleading and dishonest.
Dear Earl,If you go back and look at the various threads on this subject, I continually point out that we do not measure the way John Atkinson does, as it makes no sense to do so, I do the same on our web site, what should also be pointed out is the fact that several magazines have measured the AN-E and gotten far better efficiency and low frequency extension figures, which puts a question mark over the whole subject.
I accept that there is a large responsability on us the manufacturer to provide realistic information, but should there not be the same responsability on JA and Stereophile as well to ensure that their measurements are not misleading, why is their methodology and "opinion" sacret or does that only apply when it can be used to selectively discredit what one does not like??
Martin Colloms and others have taken the time to investigate our claims more thoroughly and they have all come far far closer to the figures we state, so why not JA?
The argument that it is a standardized industry measurement and therefore equal for all is no argument at all and just goes to demonstrate exactly what I said earlier that the industry is not interested in anything to do with sound, but only in the cosmetic exercise of providing simplistic figures for meaningless comparisons and then proporting they describe anything of value to the reader.
For some reason known only to the posters trying to make hay out of JA's measurements (discounting off course the obvious reason that they are acting as shills for other speaker manufacturers), they so clearly choose to ignore any "evidence" from other independent sources that may support what we say by showing far better figures (meaning closer to what we publish datawise), which one can only interpret as an attempt to discredit everything we say, and not just relating to speakers.
To me that is what this discussion is really about, and that includes your discourteous remarks about my "rambling", I can ramble in 4 languages, how many can you ramble in?
I shall emphasize what I said in one of my previous posts, JA's measurements are meaningless, as they in no way describes properly what our speakers (and many others, for that matter) are designed to do, if JA and Co were responsible, they would feel a stronger obligation to provide their readers with usable information and that would include a small study of the subject under investigation to ensure that what is said relates to the reality of how it was designed to be used.
A good judge knows the Law that is true, the application of Law that John Atkinson uses is similar to a judge using the same law to convict a bank robber and a speeding offender.
Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup
There are standards. These standards are a selected set of measures that the audio community agrees are important. That makes your opinion of them at odds with a vast array of expertise in the field. I sit on an AES standards committee, standards are quite rigorously evaluated for importance, but mostly they are concerned with procedure.The voltage sensitivity is a standard. JA uses the standard procedure and his reported results are therefor backed by the AES, and the ISO and an entire army of experts. You seem to have one or two people on your side.
The fact is that you reported a number that was intended to look like a "standard" number and it was not. You claim that the standards are "meaningless" then why report number that can be confused with the meaningless numbers.
If you don't like the "stanard" tests, then fine, develop your own. I Just don't call it by the same name as a standard - use something descriptive like "Peter's far more meaningful sensitivity". That way we'll all know that we are not to take these numbers as comparable to anything else.
I too do a lot of tests in addition to the standards and I even consider the voltage sensitivity of only a little importance and some tests like THD totally meaningless, but I simply ignore them. I would never replace these metrics by a measurement that I made up but still want to call it sensitivity. I recently did make up a new test for distortion, but I gave it a new name, I didn't call it "THD".
Dear Earl,So the main industry forum is pre-occupied with setting standards which are largely useless as measures of real world performance, I am surprised they have not been swallowed up by a Government organisation.
No wonder there is no progress.
I don't care how many people are on my side, if the "opposition" is completely out of step with reality, why would that matter?
It would not be the first time anyway, I have build my company over the past 20 years against the prevailing wind and done so quite successfully.
You appear to have missed what I said in earlier postings, we are NOT claiming that our figures are arrived at by the standard 1 meter 1 watt measurement, quite the opposite, we clearly say that our figures are in room in situ and always have.
JA clearly did not do his homework when he said that our figures were overly optimistic, because that assumed that we arrived at our the same way that he arrived at his.
Therein lies much of the confusion, which can hardly be blamed on us.
Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup
> > > …because if you take a 1.5 watt amplifier and you can get 100dB plus out of a speaker measured at 1 meter before audible clipping, then the speaker must be more than 92dB efficient, wouldn't you say…No. The amp may ‘soft clip’ past it’s 1.5 watt rating. Especially if it’s a tube amp.
I think it’s plenty fine for a two way to be rated at 92db without boundary reinforcement and 98db in a corner.
I dream about cloning your speakers. I want them.
maybe it's best to recall that 'specs' are published by manufacturers to begin with, and that these so called 'specifications' are marketing earmarks.. would you believe energy cost analyses published by enron? then why would you possibly believe specs published by speaker manufacturers- in particular efficiency specs? thiele-small, sure. somebody's gotta use the drivers in a box or baffle.. so they NEED those.. but you can't tune a crossover by specs alone, and anybody who's ever designed one'd tell you that every application is different! that's why those same manufacturers put lpads on their own crossovers...look at the wierd specs on old altec or WE drivers.. something like 90 db efficient at 1w at 4 meters? that's some strange stuff! what's it mean? your guess is as good as mine.. only way to tell is to use the damn things! the jbl le8t-h was marketed at 89 db efficient- but it sure seems much more efficient than that when you put the screws to it in an open baffle.
anyhow-- what i'm trying to say IS, specs are specs. AN speakers ARE efficient as all getout-- sure, they're not horns. but they also don't advertise to be horns, either. you can't adequately predict their synergy in a system or a room without LISTENING anyway- much like any other piece of gear, cable, tube, capacitor.. the john atkinson army may want it to be so-- but that's just not reality. don't forget the 'benign impedance' curve part of the equation.. because that certainly plays into percieved 'efficiency'- a stable load is just that: stable. at least it's predictable, which a badly designed crossover with 'efficient' drivers may not be.
i'd just say use yer ears, and don't let specs inform your listening unless it's as a start to BUILD a speaker. otherwise, battling a companies published specs is time you could be using to listen to music..
Sort of on topic, but one thing I can confirm is that my AN-J/Spx, rated at 93db/w IIRC, is not much if any more efficent then my 89db/w Merlins in the same placement area. I tried this last night so this thread has some coincidental relevance.
The AN J/SPE freestanding was rated 89.5db "freestanding" by Hi-Fi Choice magazine. In the corner all speakers gain at LEAST 3 decibals of sensitivity. Thus the AN J/Spe would be 92.5db. Audio Note claims and I quote "Around 93db". I don't know but 92.5 is pretty darn close and hey they rounded up which is what you're supposed to do in math.What is more impressive about the AN J is that according again to Hi-fi Choice is that it presents an impedence that does not dip below 5 ohms and mostly hovers around 10 ohms. In a way one could argue that the AN J is actually an easier loudspeaker to drive than the E.
HiRooms effect speakers, a lot in fact. There is a large variation in what you measure depending on the room size, shape construction and speaker, its location within that room.
Like they say, your mileage will vary, a lot.On the other hand, the idea of using the standard measuring approaches (half space, out doors etc) is that these conditions are the same anywhere in the world and so are fully universal and independent of room effects.
A manufacturer choosing to use in room measurement while alluding to that meaning something like 1W 1M, is like a lumber yard cutting lumber with a ruler that Frank in the back drew up with a profit in mind.
Frank’s “8 foot studs” end up actually being 6 or 7 actual feet long, you just don’t know because he uses a non-standard ruler and this error is nearly always flattering for the seller, leaving the buyer a bit short.
Hope that helps,
I suppose your argument would hold true if not for the fact that AN (PQ) clearly state (and recommend) their speaker be used in the corner and state (again clearly) that all measurements ans specs are relevant to their being placed accordingly. ie: they are not trying to hide anything nor are they attempting to deceive in any way.
HiCorner usage is not uncommon and depending on the speaker design it even has differing effects.
In Commercial sound, where realistic (universal) specs are more important, a corner loaded speaker might well be measured in a group of four in half space which provides that fractional space.
The fact remains a manufacturer can choose a standard universal frame of reference or not, or in the interest of information, provide both.
TomI agree with you. How the speaker is used has nothing to do with the use of a standardized measurement. One can only assume that they are attempting to place a rather large thumb of the scale and got caught.
And like you said, all rooms difer and all loudspeakers will benefit by a corner. Soo lets just add 6 dB to everything. At least thats fair if not logical.
Earl Geddes
Not all loudspeakers will benefit from a corner. Put a Paradigm Studio 100 or a Magnepan in a corner and see how you like the sound. Yes all will benefit on the spec sheet but you MUST measure where the designer listens to the speaker.Example -- read Paradigm';s brochure and it will most certainly NOT tell you to listen to their speakers in the corners and they NEVER present them at shows like that. Why? Because they sound TERRIBLE in a corner. The honest thing is to measure freefield.
Audio Note presents the AN E and J at trade shows in corners because that is where in Peter's opinion they sound best. That is where they are designed to go and that is where they OUGHT to be measured period. The fact that if the buyer or reviewer chooses to put them in the freefield well Audio Note will be happy to tell you, and most every reviewer has said, that the freefield will sacrifice ultimate bass depth.
I have the Audio Note J and so I can offer the user's perspective. The corner position takes a lot of experimentation to find it's optimal hot spot. Too close and it booms too far and in fact it can boom. Not enough toe in and side walls become a problem. The free standing position has more colouration though and the treble is more pronounced. Finding the correct corner position takes some work but once it was done I felt the biggest improvement came from the treble band interestingly enough and yes the J has wall rattlingly deep neighbor complaining bass and with next to no cone movement. The E is a much bigger and has significantly deeper bass -- I run a 10 watt per channel AN OTO SE.
I don't see why Audio Note's Orange design has to fit most of the industry's total caca loudspeaker's "apple" measurements which were only designed to put their junk in the best light.
It's a sad fact that people's hearing must be this bad that they can;t simply go and listen to two speakers in the same room and withing a few cuts figure out what's really nailing it. Hell bass and treble are non issues -- the E has plenty more than most(not all) but it will fit most all users needs -- indeed, I can say that with all the one speaker systems I have heard that the AN E has bass to the point where the only way to get truly deeper at level will require a big subwoofer -- and no one's stopping anyone from buying one for the AN E. If you need to buy a subwoofer for the AN J or AN E You'll "certainly" have to buy one with EVERY other standmount on the market.
You missed the point.
Earl Geddes
I don;t think I did -- you want Audio Note to publish a bass spec that is going to make their speaker look considerably worse because the "VAST majority" of other speaker makers make a freestanding design and measurements are "GEARED" for those speakers.You are effectibvely asking Audio Note to publish a spec for its speaker that is not designed to go. Of course I find it amusing that his speaker even when NOT positioned correctly still has excellent bass depth and efficiency. In corners the speakers lives up to Peter's claim -- and he never claimed anything but an in room response with his speakers in the corner. I don't see how that is misleading anyone -- it is JA who is misleading people by insinuating that Peter's numbers are optimistic without also noting that Peter's numbers are from a corner position.
I would agree with you Earl if this was a free standing loudspeaker and Peter posted the corner specs -- that would merely be a way to make the numbers look a lot better...but that is not the case here.
The numbers are moot anyway to people who actually listen to them -- since when you do you are not given any brochure -- because AN doesn't have any there is nothing in the immediate to "go to" to be deceived. So people will be forced to trust their ears anyway -- and AN will do quite nice when people hear the speakers on 8 watts of power blow them out the door on pedal organ.
means we have consistency (of sorts) in our measurements, even though these may have little to do with practical use. Seems convenient, if somewhat misleading in a practical sense. Hmmmm, so who is (unintentionally) doing the misleading? Should manufacturers quote both the standardised (as a minimum) and in-room measurements?I am not supporting either party here; these are just a few 'off the top of the head' thoughts.
Raymond -you have what I believe may be the best solution to the problem. The manufacturer should publish the spec measured via "conventional" means, as well as the spec meausered with any enhancements which could increase the efficiency of their design.
That they never claimed what the "standard" guys claimed. Peter Qvortrup has ALWAYS put down for the AN E that it was 17-18hz -6db and 94-98db sesntive (depending on model) at the listening position IF and only if the speakers are placed correctly in the corners.The stupid thing about the whole thing as far as I can tell is that A) Art measured the speakers in his room at the listening positionas 25hz flat. two other review magazines have already measured the J and E speakers and have confirmed the sensitivity rating as 94db (for the NON HE speaker version). Audio Note is a SET making company so why people even care about a couple db either way -- (in either sensitivity or in hz) is puzzling.
Clearly the AN J and E will play very loud with exceptional bass response. I heard for myself Peter's level 5 system with AN E Sec Silver Sigs and $40,000.00 8 watt power amps running from an M8 preamp and through a Dac 4 balanced and CD two two transport. I also hear the Void based TT3 with a cartridge that had it's own generator.
I have not heard anything in league with that on a pure sound quality level. It had resolution and a clarity that I did not think possible and considering that tubes supposedly subvert the sound it still makes me shake my head.
Also, do what I actually DID do. Listen to the AN E and one of their tube amps in the SAME room against a B&W N801, or 800D (yup the $20k diamond) and ANY SS amp. Tell me which one actually gives the impression that it has an idea of what bass is all about. The AN E is still on the showroom floor selling speakers to amazed customers -- the N801 got booted from the premises. So clearly I'm some people are not just buying with their eyes and reading magazine graphs.
If magazines did the same there would be some further 'evidence' to support / refute manufacturer's claims. Cost would be a factor (minimal), though should not be overly burdensome for a publication interested in serving its readers.As always, measurements will not tell the whole story, but do offer some important insights etc...
I hope I`m not off the subject, but is there a difference between effiency and sensitivity? I`m not an engineer or technical wiz, but I remember reading something back in the mid 70`s regarding efficency in relation to impedence match with an amplifier and sensitivity relating to SPL. If I`m way off base, it`s OK to laugh....because I laugh alot when I read some of these posts ( not this one in particular ), maybe the one about "Shoot out at the OK Corral" WOW.
I think this speaker is still relatively hi eff... but it's measurements are taken in the position the speaker is meant to be used... in a corner. This takes the 92 db per watt speaker to 98 db per watt due to reinforcement from the corners of the room adding approx 6 db.Tho the rating is inflated compared to the way other manufacturers measure, their rating can be supported and justified in the correct context.
I like the idea of a 'pure, hi quality two way' design and bet they sound very good. In fact, i'd love to clone this design.
Not whether Q's (is he descended from Guthram?) corner measuring is legit but whether or not he's really getting 98db sensitivity through the midrange and highs, that's what I'm skeptical about.By the way the Klipsch company makes the same corner measurement plea when called to task for the claimed f3 and efficiency of their "Reference" series Klipschettes.
Now i dont feel the desire to clone the ANs as much... since they really arent as hi eff as they claim. I was so curious as to which drivers they were using... seems just some mysterious custom Seas woof and a Fostex tweet (93db)... Thanks for the info on the little klipsches too.
Had the ANE´s. My custommade enclosures were constructed by a musicinstrument builder upon original drawings by Audio Note UK, that used to be for sale from the AN distributors. Bought the silver voicecoil edition drivers at USD 1.100. But they´re still based on the same driver from Seas that then cost around USD 110/pair.
.
__________________________________________________
Boo!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: