[Mr Fox]

The new Quad electrostatics are getting rave reviews. So who is
planning to buy? Anybdy actually receive a pair already?

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Mr Fox wrote:

The new Quad electrostatics are getting rave reviews. So who is
planning to buy? Anybdy actually receive a pair already?

I'm not sure they're much different from the 'old' Quads! but all I know
is what I read in the brochure.

Stephen

[Mr Fox]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:06:14 GMT, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
Mr Fox wrote:

The new Quad electrostatics are getting rave reviews. So who is
planning to buy? Anybdy actually receive a pair already?

I'm not sure they're much different from the 'old' Quads! but all I know
is what I read in the brochure.

Stephen

The are supposed to have better bass.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Mr Fox wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:06:14 GMT, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
Mr Fox wrote:

The new Quad electrostatics are getting rave reviews. So who is
planning to buy? Anybdy actually receive a pair already?

I'm not sure they're much different from the 'old' Quads! but all I know
is what I read in the brochure.

Stephen

The are supposed to have better bass.

Possible! I like the idea of a brace for the "cabinet" Quads aren't
supposed to have.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Mr Fox wrote:

The new Quad electrostatics are getting rave reviews. So who is
planning to buy? Anybdy actually receive a pair already?

I'm not sure they're much different from the 'old' Quads! but all I know
is what I read in the brochure.

The structure around the drivers is much more solid and well-built,
mostly. This does translate to deeper bass.

I came close to buying a pair of the smaller ones when I still had a
pair of Quad II Classic monoblocks. But, with a low-powered SET, I'm
more interested in things like Audio Note AN-Es or those Yamamoto Sound
Crafts with the Altec-Lansing drivers.

Boon

[MiNe 109]

In article .com,
wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Mr Fox wrote:

The new Quad electrostatics are getting rave reviews. So who is
planning to buy? Anybdy actually receive a pair already?

I'm not sure they're much different from the 'old' Quads! but all I know
is what I read in the brochure.

The structure around the drivers is much more solid and well-built,
mostly. This does translate to deeper bass.

I came close to buying a pair of the smaller ones when I still had a
pair of Quad II Classic monoblocks. But, with a low-powered SET, I'm
more interested in things like Audio Note AN-Es or those Yamamoto Sound
Crafts with the Altec-Lansing drivers.

You'd need one of those 30 watt monster amps!

Better structure can't be bad. Mine make all manner of flimsy rattling
sounds when struck lightly.

Stephen

[Mr Fox]

On 2 Oct 2006 15:41:30 -0700, wrote:


MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Mr Fox wrote:

The new Quad electrostatics are getting rave reviews. So who is
planning to buy? Anybdy actually receive a pair already?

I'm not sure they're much different from the 'old' Quads! but all I know
is what I read in the brochure.

The structure around the drivers is much more solid and well-built,
mostly. This does translate to deeper bass.

I came close to buying a pair of the smaller ones when I still had a
pair of Quad II Classic monoblocks. But, with a low-powered SET, I'm
more interested in things like Audio Note AN-Es or those Yamamoto Sound
Crafts with the Altec-Lansing drivers.

Boon


Is there something about the SET amp that makes the choice of speaker
secondary for you? (I have yet to hear one.)

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Mr Fox wrote:

The new Quad electrostatics are getting rave reviews. So who is
planning to buy? Anybdy actually receive a pair already?

I'm not sure they're much different from the 'old' Quads! but all I know
is what I read in the brochure.

The structure around the drivers is much more solid and well-built,
mostly. This does translate to deeper bass.

I came close to buying a pair of the smaller ones when I still had a
pair of Quad II Classic monoblocks. But, with a low-powered SET, I'm
more interested in things like Audio Note AN-Es or those Yamamoto Sound
Crafts with the Altec-Lansing drivers.

You'd need one of those 30 watt monster amps!

Better structure can't be bad. Mine make all manner of flimsy rattling
sounds when struck lightly.

Stephen

And they look much, much better. Never underestimate the importance of
that!

Boon

[[email protected]]

Mr Fox wrote:
On 2 Oct 2006 15:41:30 -0700, wrote:


MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Mr Fox wrote:

The new Quad electrostatics are getting rave reviews. So who is
planning to buy? Anybdy actually receive a pair already?

I'm not sure they're much different from the 'old' Quads! but all I know
is what I read in the brochure.

The structure around the drivers is much more solid and well-built,
mostly. This does translate to deeper bass.

I came close to buying a pair of the smaller ones when I still had a
pair of Quad II Classic monoblocks. But, with a low-powered SET, I'm
more interested in things like Audio Note AN-Es or those Yamamoto Sound
Crafts with the Altec-Lansing drivers.

Boon


Is there something about the SET amp that makes the choice of speaker
secondary for you? (I have yet to hear one.)

It wasn't that the choice of speaker was secondary. I actually bought
the Yamamotos because I already had the Zu Druids, and I was told by
Sean Casey, the designer of the Druids, that this was his favorite
match. So I checked it out myself and agreed.

Boon

[[email protected]]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
wrote:
MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Mr Fox wrote:

The new Quad electrostatics are getting rave reviews. So who is
planning to buy? Anybdy actually receive a pair already?

I'm not sure they're much different from the 'old' Quads! but all I know
is what I read in the brochure.

The structure around the drivers is much more solid and well-built,
mostly. This does translate to deeper bass.

I came close to buying a pair of the smaller ones when I still had a
pair of Quad II Classic monoblocks. But, with a low-powered SET, I'm
more interested in things like Audio Note AN-Es or those Yamamoto Sound
Crafts with the Altec-Lansing drivers.


I'd get rid of the training amps and buy real ones. SET's only legit
purpose is as a beginner DIY project. Like a training bra for girls.

So you've auditioned the Yamamoto Sound Craft A-08S with a pair of Zu
Cable Druid mk. IVs in the comfort of you own home and came to this
conclusion?

Boon

[Mr Fox]

On 3 Oct 2006 08:09:32 -0700, wrote:




Is there something about the SET amp that makes the choice of speaker
secondary for you? (I have yet to hear one.)

It wasn't that the choice of speaker was secondary. I actually bought
the Yamamotos because I already had the Zu Druids, and I was told by
Sean Casey, the designer of the Druids, that this was his favorite
match. So I checked it out myself and agreed.

OK- I understand.

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 08:11:21 -0700, wrote:

I came close to buying a pair of the smaller ones when I still had a
pair of Quad II Classic monoblocks. But, with a low-powered SET, I'm
more interested in things like Audio Note AN-Es or those Yamamoto Sound
Crafts with the Altec-Lansing drivers.


I'd get rid of the training amps and buy real ones. SET's only legit
purpose is as a beginner DIY project. Like a training bra for girls.

So you've auditioned the Yamamoto Sound Craft A-08S with a pair of Zu
Cable Druid mk. IVs in the comfort of you own home and came to this
conclusion?


There are some things that we just don't need to do.

I don't need to hit my pecker with a hammer to know it would be a bad
idea.

Yeah, I heard that joke on "Mind of Mencia" last night, too.
Difference is, I didn't think it was that funny.


SET amps are like that.

No, they're not. In fact, that's really, really stupid.

Boon

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 08:09:32 -0700, wrote:


Is there something about the SET amp that makes the choice of speaker
secondary for you? (I have yet to hear one.)

It wasn't that the choice of speaker was secondary. I actually bought
the Yamamotos because I already had the Zu Druids, and I was told by
Sean Casey, the designer of the Druids, that this was his favorite
match. So I checked it out myself and agreed.

That's that whole thing of trying to balance out your horribly colored
amp with a speaker that will be oppositely colored.

What matters is the end result.


Also, those amps hardly put out any more power than an iPod, so you
need to buy speakers that approximate headphones.

The Druids are definitely not designed for nearfield listening.


I bet Bose would be really good at making very resonant, efficient
speakers. Maybe you SET guys should contact Bose?

I suppose you can live in whatever fantasy world you'd like. Of
course, I can always hear what they really sound like anytime I want.
You have to guess aloud on a Usenet newsgroup, and pretend you have
experience in these matters. Personally, I'd be too embarrassed to do
that, Internet geek. Kudos!

Boon

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 2 Oct 2006 15:41:30 -0700, wrote:

more interested in things like Audio Note AN-Es or those Yamamoto Sound

I heard some Audio Note speakers and they made all recordings sound
similar. They weren't at all what I'd call neutral.

Which model? There are many. Of course, I wouldn't want you to go out
of your way to site facts.

Boon

[[email protected]]

Mr Fox wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 08:09:32 -0700, wrote:




Is there something about the SET amp that makes the choice of speaker
secondary for you? (I have yet to hear one.)

It wasn't that the choice of speaker was secondary. I actually bought
the Yamamotos because I already had the Zu Druids, and I was told by
Sean Casey, the designer of the Druids, that this was his favorite
match. So I checked it out myself and agreed.

OK- I understand.

Maybe you can explain this to Krivis. He doesn't seem to understand
the concept of system synergy.

Boon

[[email protected]]

wrote:


Which model? There are many. Of course, I wouldn't want you to go out
of your way to site facts.

Whoops. Brain fart. I meant cite.

Boon

[George M. Middius]

Marc said:

SET amps are like that.

No, they're not. In fact, that's really, really stupid.

Apparently, all Stewarts who post to RAO are stupid. This one even tops
Lord Drunkerton, though -- he actually admires the Krooborg. Just like
duh-Mikey does.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Jenn]

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Marc said:

SET amps are like that.

No, they're not. In fact, that's really, really stupid.

Apparently, all Stewarts who post to RAO are stupid. This one even tops
Lord Drunkerton, though -- he actually admires the Krooborg. Just like
duh-Mikey does.

Where is Mikey lately?

[Mr Fox]

On 3 Oct 2006 16:42:18 -0700, wrote:


Mr Fox wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 08:09:32 -0700, wrote:




Is there something about the SET amp that makes the choice of speaker
secondary for you? (I have yet to hear one.)

It wasn't that the choice of speaker was secondary. I actually bought
the Yamamotos because I already had the Zu Druids, and I was told by
Sean Casey, the designer of the Druids, that this was his favorite
match. So I checked it out myself and agreed.

OK- I understand.

Maybe you can explain this to Krivis. He doesn't seem to understand
the concept of system synergy.

My impression is that Mr Krivis will be resistant to explanations
which do not align with his preconceived notions about sound quality.

[ScottW]

wrote in message
oups.com...

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 2 Oct 2006 15:41:30 -0700, wrote:

more interested in things like Audio Note AN-Es or those Yamamoto Sound

I heard some Audio Note speakers and they made all recordings sound
similar. They weren't at all what I'd call neutral.

Which model? There are many. Of course, I wouldn't want you to go out
of your way to site facts.

Hey Marc,
Arts in town...I e-mailed you at vinylanach@aol.
Anyway e-mail to see if we can get together.

ScottW

[paul packer]

On 3 Oct 2006 16:48:12 -0700, wrote:


wrote:


Which model? There are many. Of course, I wouldn't want you to go out
of your way to site facts.

Whoops. Brain fart. I meant cite.


Are you too young for a senior's moment?

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 2 Oct 2006 15:41:30 -0700, wrote:

more interested in things like Audio Note AN-Es or those Yamamoto Sound

I heard some Audio Note speakers and they made all recordings sound
similar. They weren't at all what I'd call neutral.

Which model? There are many. Of course, I wouldn't want you to go out
of your way to site facts.

Hey Marc,
Arts in town...I e-mailed you at vinylanach@aol.
Anyway e-mail to see if we can get together.

ScottW

Didn't get the e-mail yet.

Boon

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 16:48:12 -0700, wrote:


wrote:


Which model? There are many. Of course, I wouldn't want you to go out
of your way to site facts.

Whoops. Brain fart. I meant cite.


Are you too young for a senior's moment?

I keep writing "backround" instead of "background," too. The end is
near.

Boon

[[email protected]]

Mr Fox wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 16:42:18 -0700, wrote:


Mr Fox wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 08:09:32 -0700, wrote:




Is there something about the SET amp that makes the choice of speaker
secondary for you? (I have yet to hear one.)

It wasn't that the choice of speaker was secondary. I actually bought
the Yamamotos because I already had the Zu Druids, and I was told by
Sean Casey, the designer of the Druids, that this was his favorite
match. So I checked it out myself and agreed.

OK- I understand.

Maybe you can explain this to Krivis. He doesn't seem to understand
the concept of system synergy.

My impression is that Mr Krivis will be resistant to explanations
which do not align with his preconceived notions about sound quality.

Anyone who states that they don't have to actually hear something to
know what it's going to sound like automatically loses all credibility.
Unfortunately, the audio world is full of these morons.

Boon

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 16:38:19 -0700, wrote:


That's that whole thing of trying to balance out your horribly colored
amp with a speaker that will be oppositely colored.

What matters is the end result.


Yeah, just like with the Intelligent Chip.



Also, those amps hardly put out any more power than an iPod, so you
need to buy speakers that approximate headphones.

The Druids are definitely not designed for nearfield listening.


Then they must have some totally nasty resonances to achieve enough
output to be even marginally usable in a typical home listening room.

Bose employs a similar concept in some of their products like the wave
radio.


I bet Bose would be really good at making very resonant, efficient
speakers. Maybe you SET guys should contact Bose?

I suppose you can live in whatever fantasy world you'd like. Of
course, I can always hear what they really sound like anytime I want.

You are the one with the fantasy life. You're convinced that
completely screwball speakers combined with fatally flawed SET amps
equals audio nirvana.

Maybe you need to add in a battery-powered Tripath amp? I bet you'd be
in audiophile heaven. (I bet it would go well with your wooden phono
cartridge too.)

So you're still convinced that telling me how my stereo sounds, without
actually hearing it yourself, is the way to go in this argument?

You're dumber than I originally thought, and I originally thought you
were really ****ing dumb.

LOL!

Boon

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 21:34:54 -0700, wrote:


Anyone who states that they don't have to actually hear something to
know what it's going to sound like automatically loses all credibility.
Unfortunately, the audio world is full of these morons.

I don't have to listen to the audio system in a Dell notebook to know
it's going to sound like crud either.

"I don't have to listen..." "I know it's going to sound..."

Boy, you just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.


You're the one who has no credibility, you and your sockpuppets.

Sockpuppets? Really! Perhaps you should ask Arny about the AOL
account he says he never uses.

Boon

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 16:42:18 -0700, wrote:


Mr Fox wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 08:09:32 -0700, wrote:




Is there something about the SET amp that makes the choice of speaker
secondary for you? (I have yet to hear one.)

It wasn't that the choice of speaker was secondary. I actually bought
the Yamamotos because I already had the Zu Druids, and I was told by
Sean Casey, the designer of the Druids, that this was his favorite
match. So I checked it out myself and agreed.

OK- I understand.

Maybe you can explain this to Krivis. He doesn't seem to understand
the concept of system synergy.

I understand it perfectly well. You take one really grotty component
and then pretend that another qually grotty component has
complementary distortions, so the combo is just wonderful.

The concept sells a lot of expensive crap, that's for sure. :-)

You don't need "system synergy" if you have good components in the
first place.

Name a system where the components are so good, they'll match with
anything.

Boon

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 16:40:05 -0700, wrote:


Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 2 Oct 2006 15:41:30 -0700, wrote:

more interested in things like Audio Note AN-Es or those Yamamoto Sound

I heard some Audio Note speakers and they made all recordings sound
similar. They weren't at all what I'd call neutral.

Which model? There are many. Of course, I wouldn't want you to go out
of your way to site facts.

One of the AN-J variations.

They had a very "romantic" sound, almost like some tube gear.

It wasn't unpleasant, just not neutral.

So you think you can transfer that observation magically to the AN-E?
Oh, I forgot. You're Stuart Krivis. You don't have to hear a
component to know how it's actually going to sound.

ROTFLMAO!

Boon

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

It wasn't unpleasant, just not neutral.

Oh, and don't think I'll let this comment pass unnoticed. Are you
saying you prefer neutrality, even if it's unpleasant?

Boon

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 2 Oct 2006 18:39:29 -0700, wrote:


And they look much, much better. Never underestimate the importance of
that!

Yep. I bought new speakers last summer and my wife was not thrilled
until she saw them. They're done in a really nice cherry veneer and
she loves them. :-)

Which speakers?

Boon

[ScottW]

wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 2 Oct 2006 15:41:30 -0700, wrote:

more interested in things like Audio Note AN-Es or those Yamamoto Sound

I heard some Audio Note speakers and they made all recordings sound
similar. They weren't at all what I'd call neutral.

Which model? There are many. Of course, I wouldn't want you to go out
of your way to site facts.

Hey Marc,
Arts in town...I e-mailed you at vinylanach@aol.
Anyway e-mail to see if we can get together.

ScottW

Didn't get the e-mail yet.

Friggin aol...get real isp .

I sent it again...unless your e-mail in these posts is bogus...but I
didn't get a bounce message.

Anyway...if you don't get the e-mail...e-mail me a reply to this post.

ScottW

[ScottW]

wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 16:38:19 -0700, wrote:


That's that whole thing of trying to balance out your horribly colored
amp with a speaker that will be oppositely colored.

What matters is the end result.


Yeah, just like with the Intelligent Chip.



Also, those amps hardly put out any more power than an iPod, so you
need to buy speakers that approximate headphones.

The Druids are definitely not designed for nearfield listening.


Then they must have some totally nasty resonances to achieve enough
output to be even marginally usable in a typical home listening room.

Bose employs a similar concept in some of their products like the wave
radio.


I bet Bose would be really good at making very resonant, efficient
speakers. Maybe you SET guys should contact Bose?

I suppose you can live in whatever fantasy world you'd like. Of
course, I can always hear what they really sound like anytime I want.

You are the one with the fantasy life. You're convinced that
completely screwball speakers combined with fatally flawed SET amps
equals audio nirvana.

Maybe you need to add in a battery-powered Tripath amp? I bet you'd be
in audiophile heaven. (I bet it would go well with your wooden phono
cartridge too.)

So you're still convinced that telling me how my stereo sounds, without
actually hearing it yourself, is the way to go in this argument?

Trotsky reincarnated

ScottW

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 10:56:54 -0700, wrote:


So you're still convinced that telling me how my stereo sounds, without
actually hearing it yourself, is the way to go in this argument?

Why not? It isn't going to make any difference. You're a true
believer, as evidenced by your choice of (and defense of) such
horribly flawed gear.

Actually, I have owned a lot of different equipment over the years
which I have enjoyed, and which come from completely different audio
philosophies. For instance, I love my Naim CDX2 CD player:

http://audioenz.co.nz/2006/vinyl_level.shtml

I also love electrostatic speakers, Naim amplification, BBC-licensed
loudspeakers, etc.

But don't let your own misguided preconceptions get in the way of the
truth. I have my opinions on audio published. You have your bull****,
which is becoming more and more improbable.



You're dumber than I originally thought, and I originally thought you
were really ****ing dumb.

Heh. I'm not the one with the wacko amps, speakers, and the wooden
phono cartridge.

We don't know what you have, do we? Let's see if you have the balls to
tell us.


I'm just betting you have all kinds of fancy wires, cables, and power
cords too. Any Peter Belt gear? A bottle of Brilliant Pebbles? C'mon,
fess up. You know you've got them.

I have a question for you. Why do objectivists, while in a debate,
choose to make up things out of thin air about their opponents? Don't
they realize it undermines everything they stand for? Don't they know
it makes them look like idiots? TIA.

Boon

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 10:59:36 -0700, wrote:


Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 21:34:54 -0700, wrote:


Anyone who states that they don't have to actually hear something to
know what it's going to sound like automatically loses all credibility.
Unfortunately, the audio world is full of these morons.

I don't have to listen to the audio system in a Dell notebook to know
it's going to sound like crud either.


"I don't have to listen..." "I know it's going to sound..."

Boy, you just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.


So you would expect to have to listen to the audio system in a Dell
notebook before deciding whether it sounds like crud or not?

I don't really know what a Dell notebook is, so I have no idea. I
would never make a presumption like that. It could sound great, for
all I know.

I do know the sound of my Compaq laptop is inadequate. That's because
I've actually listened to it.



You're the one who has no credibility, you and your sockpuppets.

Sockpuppets? Really! Perhaps you should ask Arny about the AOL
account he says he never uses.


Ask him yourself.

I know the answer.


Why did you feel the need to bring up Arny anyway?

Because you sound like one of his sockpuppets.

Boon

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 11:00:38 -0700, wrote:


Maybe you can explain this to Krivis. He doesn't seem to understand
the concept of system synergy.

I understand it perfectly well. You take one really grotty component
and then pretend that another qually grotty component has
complementary distortions, so the combo is just wonderful.

The concept sells a lot of expensive crap, that's for sure. :-)

You don't need "system synergy" if you have good components in the
first place.

Name a system where the components are so good, they'll match with
anything.

Why do they need to match with "anything?" We already eliminated the
hopelessly colored stuff you're using, for instance, by saying you
need good components in the first place.

Who is "we"? I don't see anyone helping you out here. In fact, it
looks like most people are on the other side of the fence, laughing at
you right now.


The best audio gear out there is very neutral. Can you get that
concept?

That's oversimplifying. Perhaps that's because you're overly simple.


However, to give you some examples that I'm quite familiar with, Frank
Van Alstine's electronics will match up with anything.

I'm betting I could find similar examples from a number of other
places. I might start with designs by Nelson Pass or John Curl, for
instance. Conrad-Johnson and ARC make some very nice products too.
Personally, I would probably start by looking at Curl's designs for
Parasound, since they are very good and not terribly expensive.

Agreed.


For speakers I think I would strongly consider some of the designs
from Jim Salk , Roy Johnson, Siegfried Linkwitz, or Vandersteen. Earl
Geddes has done some excellent (really excellent!) work, and has
speakers available. SP Tech has some very good stuff too.

Agreed.


I also think rather highly of the speakers from Fried Products.

Agreed.


ESL and other planar speakers never seem quite right to me, although
I'd say Quad has best of breed in this category.

Agreed.

So what's your problem?

Boon

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 11:04:21 -0700, wrote:


Stuart Krivis wrote:

It wasn't unpleasant, just not neutral.

Oh, and don't think I'll let this comment pass unnoticed. Are you
saying you prefer neutrality, even if it's unpleasant?

I think your logic is faulty.

Of course it is. I was being ironic, you know, considering that you
know what things sound like before you hear them.

Boon

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 11:02:19 -0700, wrote:


Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 16:40:05 -0700, wrote:


Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 2 Oct 2006 15:41:30 -0700, wrote:

more interested in things like Audio Note AN-Es or those Yamamoto Sound

I heard some Audio Note speakers and they made all recordings sound
similar. They weren't at all what I'd call neutral.

Which model? There are many. Of course, I wouldn't want you to go out
of your way to site facts.

One of the AN-J variations.

They had a very "romantic" sound, almost like some tube gear.

It wasn't unpleasant, just not neutral.

So you think you can transfer that observation magically to the AN-E?
Oh, I forgot. You're Stuart Krivis. You don't have to hear a
component to know how it's actually going to sound.


Who said I was transferring any observations? I commented on the
Audionote speakers I had heard.

These models also appear to be rather similar. If anything, the AN-E
might be worse because they trot out rubbish like "the cabinet is
lightly braced and little internal damping is used. The cabinet is
designed in such a way that it augments and supports the drivers in
their task, not unlike the box of a guitar."

That is so far away from what any normal speaker designer tries for
that even you should figure out why they're screwy.

It's just like what Bose does, BTW, although Bose uses a far more
controlled method of getting their extra resonances (and thus
efficiency).

So do you think Bose can make a better speaker than Audio Note?

Boon

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 11:05:22 -0700, wrote:


Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 2 Oct 2006 18:39:29 -0700, wrote:


And they look much, much better. Never underestimate the importance of
that!

Yep. I bought new speakers last summer and my wife was not thrilled
until she saw them. They're done in a really nice cherry veneer and
she loves them. :-)

Which speakers?


They're not available commercially, although they are similar in some
ways to these: http://www.friedproducts.com/monitor7.html (Mine have
better tweeters though. They felt they were too expensive to use in a
$4K/pr. loudspeaker, so they chose a Vifa model at 1/2 the cost for
the Monitor 7.)

Since I've never heard your speakers, I will refrain from judjging
them. See how that works?

Boon

[Mr Fox]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:14:54 -0400, Stuart Krivis
wrote:

On 4 Oct 2006 10:59:36 -0700, wrote:


Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 21:34:54 -0700, wrote:


Anyone who states that they don't have to actually hear something to
know what it's going to sound like automatically loses all credibility.
Unfortunately, the audio world is full of these morons.

I don't have to listen to the audio system in a Dell notebook to know
it's going to sound like crud either.

"I don't have to listen..." "I know it's going to sound..."

Boy, you just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.


So you would expect to have to listen to the audio system in a Dell
notebook before deciding whether it sounds like crud or not?

I have heard two notebooks with intergrated sound that defy
expecation. One a HP Presario (dont remember model; speakers were JBL
something) -- another Toshiba Qosmoi. Neither sound like "crud;". You
of course can claim otherwise; after consulting your crystal balls.

[dizzy]

wrote:

I don't really know what a Dell notebook is, so I have no idea.

Thanks for the proof that you're a bald-face liar.

I would never make a presumption like that. It could sound great, for
all I know.

I do know the sound of my Compaq laptop is inadequate. That's because
I've actually listened to it.