View Full Version : Snell,Jpw, Audio note
Is it me or are these speakers very similar could say they even use the same drivers the way they are designed and the lay out all looks pretty much similar i might be wrong but they are all very similar and have even read in few places sound wise not much difference,Yet the price hike between them all makes me wonder are we really paying just for the name in hifi?
istari_knight
26-10-2013, 12:03
They all have completely different crossover's AFAIK...
The Snells were meticulously matched to a master reference speaker in the factory so every single one was spot on, AN have "high end" credentials & tend to fill everything up with bling parts so high prices are a given... The JPW's offer a good 90% of the magic at less than 10% of the price IMO.
They all have completely different crossover's AFAIK...
The Snells were meticulously matched to a master reference speaker in the factory so every single one was spot on, AN have "high end" credentials & tend to fill everything up with bling parts so high prices are a given... The JPW's offer a good 90% of the magic at less than 10% of the price IMO.
Yeah exactly my thought's
Andrew B
26-10-2013, 12:36
Mine too, except that I'm pretty optimistic you could chip away most of the missing 10% on the JPWs with quality internal cabling and a better crossover if you know what you're doing. The cabinets on early JPWs are more solidly built than Snell or Audio Note IMO, so I'm sure the potential is there.
JPW's used basically good bits and used perfectly legal cheap UK labour, hence their reasonable costs. Snells were out-dated by the 1980's but seemed to take on a cachet all their own due to the marketing and products they were recommended with IMO. Use them outside of this synergy and their shortcomings were very obvious! As for the AN speakers, the guy's having a laugh ;)
Andrew B
26-10-2013, 16:54
I'm still waiting to hear those shortcomings. As for Snells being outdated by the 1980s, why would that be? They use the same drivers as a number of contemporaries, the crossovers are well built and superbly matched. Cabinets are well made and a good design is a good design: Period.
I hate this whole notion of "progress" in hifi. I regard it as nothing more than marketing bull, spouted by dealers and reviewers to try and persuade people to spend money chasing a notion of "keeping up with the pace". That Emperor lost his clothes many years ago and thankfully most of us now choose our kit on the basis of how good it is, not how old it is.
Andrew B
26-10-2013, 17:00
I should add: i do agree that AN prices are far too high IMO. Good luck finding out the current prices because they don't make it easy. Last time I checked (I had to search) the basic "K" was listed at £1920.
istari_knight
26-10-2013, 17:03
I sent them [audionote] an email asking for crossover values on the K as I wanted to compare them with what JPW thought was best for those drive units... Never did get a reply, maybe I'll try again :)
I sent them [audionote] an email asking for crossover values on the K as I wanted to compare them with what JPW thought was best for those drive units... Never did get a reply, maybe I'll try again :)
You can't automatically assume though that one crossover will work for another design. If they're the same cabinet (ie size and cabinet "Q") and the same drivers, fair enough, but even then, you have the commonest uses of 1st order or 2nd order (and sometimes 3rd order) for a 2-way; then you can choose between Bessel, Butterwoth, Chebyshev or Linkwitz-Riley depending on the type of crossover characteristics you want, and the chosen crossover point, so one manufacturer may well use very different crossover design for their similar speakers than another.
Some manufacturers won't even share the information on crossover design with their customers.
I'm still waiting to hear those shortcomings. As for Snells being outdated by the 1980s, why would that be? They use the same drivers as a number of contemporaries, the crossovers are well built and superbly matched. Cabinets are well made and a good design is a good design: Period.
I hate this whole notion of "progress" in hifi. I regard it as nothing more than marketing bull, spouted by dealers and reviewers to try and persuade people to spend money chasing a notion of "keeping up with the pace". That Emperor lost his clothes many years ago and thankfully most of us now choose our kit on the basis of how good it is, not how old it is.
I agree with you Andrew. One of the finest sounds at the last Scalford show I attended was the Snell type A's and in a different room the K's (at least I think that they were K's). Nothing out-dated with the super sounds that they were making. This whole concept of radical advancements in SQ is just plain nonsense imho. The major advancements have been in digital technology, manufacturing process and materials technology. Even then, the reasonable leaps in performance, where they exist, seem to be at the silly high-end of the spectrum. Anyone sitting down and listening to some good 1970's loudspeakers today are just as likely to be as impressed as they must have been 40 years ago. Ditto, amplifiers. Its a whole new topic really.
Hear, hear to both your post and Andrew's! :clap:
And, yup, the Snells I heard at Scalford unquestionably produced one of the best sounds of the show. As I commented at the time, they actually looked like a (smaller) version of my Lockwoods - and sounded in some ways rather like them, too! :)
Here's what I wrote about them at the time (unfortunately when clearing out my Imageshack account some of the pics have been deleted): http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?24264-Scalford-Show-I-am-back-!!&p=419401#post419401
...and those Snells are probably one of the best speakers I've heard. They're quite vintage Tannoy DC-like in their musical presentation, which of course is a sound I can relate to, and they did genuine scale, vocal and instrumental texture with aplomb and had a lovely 'big-boned', effortlessly musical presentation that really made me smile!
At a push, I'd probably nominate it for the best sound I heard at the show. It really did highlight again for me that there has been little real progress made in loudspeaker technology, since the days when the truly great, genuinely innovative speakers were born, and here I include the Snells, along with Tannoys, Altecs, JBLs, Klipschs, Quads, IMFs, etc. Every time I hear speakers of that ilk, it becomes quite obvious what is wrong with 95% of modern speakers!!
Marco.
istari_knight
26-10-2013, 17:34
You can't automatically assume though that one crossover will work for another design. If they're the same cabinet (ie size and cabinet "Q") and the same drivers, fair enough, but even then, you have the commonest uses of 1st order or 2nd order (and sometimes 3rd order) for a 2-way; then you can choose between Bessel, Butterwoth, Chebyshev or Linkwitz-Riley depending on the type of crossover characteristics you want, and the chosen crossover point, so one manufacturer may well use very different crossover design for their similar speakers than another.
Some manufacturers won't even share the information on crossover design with their customers.
Thats why I wanted to know 'cos they are the same drivers & cabinet size... Only the crossovers are different. The JPW's although gaining popularity now seem to have flopped over all whereas I'm yet to hear a negative comment about the AN's... My thinking is that the AN's crossover is better implemented. I am familiar with different crossover design/s you neednt be so condescending :)
Really no big deal, I was just curious.
No offence intended James and I certainly wasn't intending on being condescending. If it came across that way, then happy for mods to delete the post and I'll bow out. Sometimes it's better not to get involved at all.
No need to delete anything here. It's often the case on forums that the written word is misinterpreted :)
Marco.
I'm still waiting to hear those shortcomings. As for Snells being outdated by the 1980s, why would that be? They use the same drivers as a number of contemporaries, the crossovers are well built and superbly matched. Cabinets are well made and a good design is a good design: Period.
I hate this whole notion of "progress" in hifi. I regard it as nothing more than marketing bull, spouted by dealers and reviewers to try and persuade people to spend money chasing a notion of "keeping up with the pace". That Emperor lost his clothes many years ago and thankfully most of us now choose our kit on the basis of how good it is, not how old it is.
I must disagree in part here...
The pair of E's I owned, coupled with the more popular J's (IIRC) had massive harsh nasties at the crossover point when used outside the 'recommended system,' caused by the driver being overused in a resonant box, matched with a rather old spitty tweeter design, masked/tamed by the amps they were usually sold with - and no, I was well away from CB Naim and Linn by this point! The bloody things boomed too, but using them well out from a rear wall sort-of held them in check. Epos ES14's bloody p*ssed all over them in every way in my room! If you think I'm wrong Andrew then TELL ME HERE, rather than wanking over on the other site in agreement with your new best friend!!!!! Box speakers especially have improved almost out of all recognition in recent years, especially with what can be done at modest cost. At t'other end, Tannoy prestige models sounding far more integrated than the stock items from the 70's for example (Marco's are hardly representative of the era they were first manufactured IMO, as the cabs have been re-worked and the crossovers are different in the extreme). The rise and rise of top quality miniatures from China must be testemant to that, these offering a high standard of music making way above most of the lower cost boxes we flogged in the 80's. I'm out of touch at the other end, but there are so many expensive bling boxes (Usher for example?) which offer a big and clear sound with modern materials. I doubt there'd be many speakers from the 70's and 80's that would offer high power handling, high output AND the delicacy too.
The only Snells I liked were the models that looked like big SBL's and again, in the proper matched AI system, they sang nicely in a largish room and far better than the E's did in the same room and system (Voyd/AI but I forget cabling as it was a long time ago).
Yes, Harbeths are on a totally different plane, using a far more modern and highly researched material for the main drivers they make. I can listen to these for hours on a fair range of amps and they totally lack the harshness, grit and grain that pervades so many 'HiFi' speakers these days. Since I'm laying myself open to another attack where I can't reply (reverse ad hominem), I'm mentally referring to a good pair of Quad 57's, which most regard as a damned good speaker.
Just my thoughts of course :)
Andrew B
26-10-2013, 18:59
Dave, I think I did tell you here. Presumably you wouldn't be quoting my reply in your post if I hadn't.
I have used Snells and Audio Notes with all manner of kit over the years. I recall a pair of Ks wiping the floor with my ES14s coupled to Exposure 3/8/Dual 4 so my experience clearly differs from yours. I don't think they are limited to certain kit.
If I feel you are wrong, I will say so, here and anywhere else I frequent. You are free to do likewise. My issue was more with this notion of progress that's touted than it was with Snells in particular. There, we disagree too. Frankly, I think calling Snells dated today is loblocks, let alone thirty years ago and I think most people will agree. I'm not forcing you to listen to them though, so chill out!
There's a pair of AR2ax's on fleabay right now for £150 or near offer. I honestly think I'd rather have these in all honesty. I was also very fond of the AR3a, especially in its last 'Improved' version and absolutely lusted after the huge LST's, which are like hens teeth in the UK. Sadly, these AR models have a lasting and endearing worldwide reputation and I don't think are cheap anywhere now.
Glad you got on with the Snells. I didn't, but my room was smaller than many/most and close proximity to the drivers showed significant problems for me, especially when compared with their BBC-derived peers (nobody could ever call the early Harbeth HL III's slow and sluggish). The wider baffles messed up imagery too if listened to too closely.
Anyway, I'm not up there with you guys on this stuff now, finding great musical enjoyment from very cheap stuff you lot would normally overlook. Maybe my journey is ended, so best shut up now...
Andrew B
26-10-2013, 19:23
Very cheap stuff is always the best IMO. It's like free food. Tastes all the better for it :)
That's the thing with JPWs. Daft money for something that can bring so much pleasure.
...(Marco's are hardly representative of the era they were first manufactured IMO, as the cabs have been re-worked and the crossovers are different in the extreme).
Where did you get the idea that the cabs have been reworked, Dave? :scratch: They're totally stock Lockwood Major cabinets. The crossovers on the Tannoy 15" MGs inside them are of course a different matter!
I can't comment on Snells in general, as I have little experience of them, but what I can assure you is the big ones I heard at Scalford (which could well have been modified) sounded utterly sublime - indeed so much so that I could've easily lived with them.
The point about this is that it is undoubtedly the case that the best vintage speaker designs can easily hold their own, and in some areas outperform, many modern loudspeakers, particularly if they have been judiciously modified with the best modern crossover components.
Combining the best of old and new technologies in audio can produce some of the best sounds you will ever hear. My whole system is testament to the validity of that philosophy! :)
Marco.
Is it really that surprising that someone who likes Harbeths and Spendors dislikes the Snell A J & K? They are pretty far apart in design philosophy and therefore presentation I would have thought. I recall Snell had some far more conventional designs in the nineties that were well rated.
Well, I like Harbeth and Spendor (classic studio monitor series designs), but dislike the new Spendor floor-standing stuff, yet LOVED the Snells, so what does that make me? :eyebrows:
Marco.
Well, I like Harbeth and Spendor (Classic Series designs), but dislike the new Spendor floor-standing stuff, yet LOVED the Snells, so what does that make me? :eyebrows:
Marco.
Confused.
Sorry - was that question meant to be rhetorical? ;)
See my thinking is modern day speaker manufacturers tune their speakers to the extreme to work dvd (multi channel) pushing frequencies sky high to work with modern gear, which is why i prefer the older designs when they made their speakers for 2 channel only and sounded bloody good without fitting fancy bits.
Confused.
Sorry - was that question meant to be rhetorical? ;)
:lolsign:
I just know a good sound when I hear it! ;)
Marco.
There are good modern speaker and bad vintage speakers - It's not cut and dried. Modern speakers have the advantages of superior materials and computer modelling. Many also suffer from too small bass drivers, too small cabs, badly implemented porting and trying too hard to get a flat measured response.
See my thinking is modern day speaker manufacturers tune their speakers to the extreme to work dvd (multi channel) pushing frequencies sky high to work with modern gear, which is why i prefer the older designs when they made their speakers for 2 channel only and sounded bloody good without fitting fancy bits.
Is this true?
I must admit, I haven’t listened to many modern passive designs but don’t speaker manufacturers at least aim for a flat response across the frequencies the drivers will cope with?
The few modern passive speakers I’ve heard weren’t to my taste but that was usually because they were badly made; cheap drivers, truly awful enclosures that would make Ikea cardboard furniture seem solid and the sin of sins imo, ported to try to compensate for poor bass drivers.
After all, the whole idea of tuning speakers is rather pointless for a manufacturer. As soon as the speaker gets put in a room and given each room will be different then the speakers’ response in that environment will be different. Which real environment do you tune for?
There are good modern speaker and bad vintage speakers - It's not cut and dried. Modern speakers have the advantages of superior materials and computer modelling. Many also suffer from too small bass drivers, too small cabs, badly implemented porting and trying too hard to get a flat measured response.
I'm with you with most of that. However, superior materials? Not in my experience, sonically speaking. I can't comment on measurements. Good old-fashioned paper cones (when optimally implemented) still sound best to my ears - and sounding best in audio is what matters MOST! :exactly:
Marco.
So why are more and more people going for older speakers and they are fetching good prices? It must say something about their design and sound compared to modern ones.
I agree about paper cones. But I understand it is harder to get a good speaker using paper cones than with something more advanced like aerogel, kevlar or mica-loaded polypropylene. Break up modes, you see. I know from personal experience it was a lot harder to get a large 2 way with a simple x-over to sound good with a paper mid bass than it was with a Kevlar unit. The kevlar could be run all the way up and still sound good whereas the paper cone audibly broke up if I tried the same thing.
Well, the goal then should be getting the best sounding material (IMO paper) to perform to its full potential (Tannoy managed it), than settle for second best, simply because it's easier to get right....
Marco.
Well, the goal then should be getting the best sounding material (IMO paper) to perform to its full potential (Tannoy managed it), than settle for second best, simply because it's easier to get right....
Marco.
They most certainly did !!
Harder to get right means more expensive. Not everyone can afford a big Tannoy DC. That aside you should also take into account room size and WAF - loudspeaker manufacturers have to if they want to stay in business. In the high end it is assumed the system will have its own room so it is not an issue. For the other 90% it is. What was domestically acceptable in the sixties and seventies is not acceptable now. So compromises are made. No-one does a big three way with a 12 inch bass driver at the £1500 price point even though they could. Because very few people would buy it, despite it being superior to a two and a half way WAF tower with 5 inch drivers at the same price.
Of course if you are an enthusiast and not under the thumb you would have it like a shot. But it is a very small demographic and market.
They most certainly did !!
Indeed... My attitude is if it's harder to get paper cones to work optimally, then simply try harder to achieve it, not give up and use something that's inferior, simply because it's easier to work with.
The latter approach smacks of being rather 'arse over tit', no?
The problem is that the majority of loudspeaker manufacturers today are more interested in convenience and profitability (and/or pandering to current fashions) than in their designs achieving genuine sonic excellence!!
Marco.
Martin, sadly you are right - particularly with your last paragraph... :rolleyes:
All I care about in audio, and desire from my system, is ultimate sonic performance and musical satisfaction. The rest is immaterial!
Marco.
The problem is that the majority of loudspeaker manufacturers today are more interested in convenience and profitability (and/or pandering to current fashions) than in their designs achieving genuine sonic excellence!!
Marco.
But genuine sonic excellence is ugly and expensive. Poor people and people with show homes need speakers too. And in fairness most manufactures have a flagship range that ranges from less compromised to very good. Good loudspeakers require proper mechanical engineering, just like a good TT. It may be 2013 but you still can't do it on the cheap, that's where technological advancement has not helped loudspeakers.
walpurgis
26-10-2013, 21:56
A lot of manufacturers made fine sounding paper pulp driver cones as well as Tannoy. Goodmans had some beautiful sounding units in the seventies and so did Celestion, amongst many. As for material choices, use what works I say. I think much of modern development is aimed at economic production rather than ultimate sound quality, shame really.
...people with show homes need speakers too.
Best not go there, as the whole concept of living in a 'show home' is an anathema to me. Let's just say that it smacks of pretentiousness and insecurity...
Marco.
The Black Adder
26-10-2013, 21:59
Harbeth in the SHL5's use a plastic composite cone, they sound superb... One of my all time fave speakers.
Frankyc2003
26-10-2013, 21:59
sorry for being very controversial here but I remember hearing Q acoustics 2020i speakers in a large room at Scalford in March, and these were basically kicking some seriously expensive speakers in the proverbial n*ts.
The Cones are made with paper by the way...;)
sorry for being very controversial here but I remember hearing Q acoustics 2020i speakers in a large room at Scalford in March, and these were basically kicking some seriously expensive speakers in the proverbial n*ts.
The Cones are made with paper by the way...;)
You have to take into account the different rooms at Scalford. If you set out to design the worst room possible, with a budget of 100 million, a supercomputer and a team of boffins in white coats you would still not come up with anything approaching some of the rooms there. The bigger rooms are pretty good though, if the system can do the SPL required without breaking up.
Harbeth in the SHL5's use a plastic composite cone, they sound superb... One of my all time fave speakers.
Yes, Joe, I would agree. I still wouldn't swap them, though, for my Lockies (which IMO are in a different league).
Marco.
Now we've all gone around the house's again :scratch: are Jpw ap3's worth buying if they have new drivers and a slight crossover upgrade? And will they kick out a nice sound?
The Black Adder
26-10-2013, 22:26
Yes, Joe, I would agree. I still wouldn't swap them, though, for my Lockies (which IMO are in a different league).
Marco.
Tannoy/Lockwoods are more like in a different galaxy mate... :)
If I wanted some more small speakers the SHL5's would be my first choice.
Now we've all gone around the house's again :scratch: are Jpw ap3's worth buying if they have new drivers and a slight crossover upgrade? And will they kick out a nice sound?
If cheap enough yes.
Don't think you can buy much for ££££s new that will better them.
I had a pair of snell Es that had been redone back to very close tolerance.Still regret selling those.
Also had the ANes with the blue cone,another excellent speaker.
Heard a pair of JPWs with a valve amp sound superb some years back.
Can't remember if they were ap2s or 3s.
Yes, Joe, I would agree. I still wouldn't swap them, though, for my Lockies (which IMO are in a different league).
Marco.
With respect mate, Harbeth don't do 15" drivers in 300 litre cabinets and even the 40.1's aren't a fair comparison (they're a 12" 100L approx three way and if you listen very carefully, you can still hear why a good two way is more seamless, in the midrange at least). The SHL5 might just be compared with a smaller Prestige Tannoy (we've been there so no need to dredge old conversations, but they ARE very close I found), but unlike Ash James, I do find there's 'something' about a good big box that no little tiddly cab can ever match, no matter how good the drivers are (AVI use doped paper cones I believe :lol:).
Apologies, I thought you'd done things to the Lockwood cabs, unless it's just getting them off the floor a bit?
I stand by my 'dickshit' comments. I personally don't like the smaller 1970's/1980's Snells when used in smaller rooms and especially when taken out of the matching system in the same way I never liked Linn speakers when taken out of their matching 'comfort zone.' I believe LedZep has an AI500 amp now? if so, he'll love 'em!
istari_knight
27-10-2013, 09:48
No offence intended James and I certainly wasn't intending on being condescending. If it came across that way, then happy for mods to delete the post and I'll bow out. Sometimes it's better not to get involved at all.
No need to delete anything here. It's often the case on forums that the written word is misinterpreted
Marco.
Indeed. Sorry for being an arse Paul. I had a bugger of a migraine yesterday which negatively affected my power of rational thought :doh:
I tried to PM you but your inbox is full :peace:
Yes indeed i have picked up a very clean AI 500 amp,so the Jpw ap'3s should work well with it? I have noticed they are quite a big box my room is fairly small so hoping i wont be overwhelmed with bass.
Apologies, I thought you'd done things to the Lockwood cabs, unless it's just getting them off the floor a bit?
No worries, dude. You must be thinking of the Mana Soundbases, but those are totally external to the cabinets. Everything about the cabinets themselves (including the castors underneath) is original.
I stand by my 'dickshit' comments. I personally don't like the smaller 1970's/1980's Snells when used in smaller rooms and especially when taken out of the matching system in the same way I never liked Linn speakers when taken out of their matching 'comfort zone.'
The fact here is that your experiences, with the particular Snells you heard, are as valid, within the context you heard them, as those of others who heard either different Snells in a different context (room and system), or the same Snells in a different context.
It's impossible to ascribe a 'universal sound' to a specific type of loudspeakers, and view things in such a 'black and white' way, when how they sound will vary depending on a multitude of factors.
All I can say is the big Snells I heard at Scalford, in that specific context, sounded superb. Elsewhere, things could very well be different :)
Marco.
Thanks for clearing up my thoughts Marco, I wholeheartedly agree and would never have bought the E's had they not sounded good in my mate's AI/Void system and set up in a 20x 14 approx room..
I do envy you chaps with the room (and understanding partners) able to fit big speakers and 'life' together. My 2cu Spendors are too big according to herself, although she's sort-of got used to them, despite their very old-fashioned looks..
Yep, the AP3's should work really well - and I wasn't damning them with faint praise earlier.
seoirse2002
27-10-2013, 15:32
Yes indeed i have picked up a very clean AI 500 amp,so the Jpw ap'3s should work well with it? I have noticed they are quite a big box my room is fairly small so hoping i wont be overwhelmed with bass.
The AP2s might be better for you.. not as big...nice tight bass
I really like the Snell speaker sound.
I own two pairs.... K's and C's. In fact, it was probably my K's that were talked about earlier in this thread in relation to Scalford, as they were the only pair there. I have used them there twice now.
They went down very well and received much praise there (and offers to buy).
Deans Snell J's and especially Doms A's also went down very well, with much praise. The latter were for me the best sound of the show this year.
The most common reaction was... " how can they still sound so good, in comparsion with modern speakers." I cant help with the technical stuff, but I think Snell just got it "right" all those years ago.
They prompted so much positive reaction that I hope to do a Snell room next year at Scalford, with K's, J's and C,s all in the same room, possibly on a 1 hour rota system. Who knows.
To my ears/taste, the K's are pretty perfect for smallish rooms. Of course they lack the Bass of the C,s for example, or other equally large speakers, but that isnt an issue for me. I think they produce a very nice sound.
Find me at Scalford next year. It will be nice to chat to fellow Snell enthusiasts.
I really like the Snell speaker sound.
I own two pairs.... K's and C's. In fact, it was probably my K's that were talked about earlier in this thread in relation to Scalford, as they were the only pair there. I have used them there twice now.
They went down very well and received much praise there (and offers to buy).
Deans Snell J's and especially Doms A's also went down very well, with much praise. The latter were for me the best sound of the show this year.
The most common reaction was... " how can they still sound so good, in comparsion with modern speakers." I cant help with the technical stuff, but I think Snell just got it "right" all those years ago.
They prompted so much positive reaction that I hope to do a Snell room next year at Scalford, with K's, J's and C,s all in the same room, possibly on a 1 hour rota system. Who knows.
To my ears/taste, the K's are pretty perfect for smallish rooms. Of course they lack the Bass of the C,s for example, or other equally large speakers, but that isnt an issue for me. I think they produce a very nice sound.
Find me at Scalford next year. It will be nice to chat to fellow Snell enthusiasts.
The K's were fabulous things Brian and one of my show favourites, plus your LP collection was also fab :D. RE the techy stuff, I believe they use a 3rd order crossover (18dB/Octave) to help keep off axis response flat across a broad area, the idea being that in smaller rooms, first reflection points wont result in weird frequency anomalies. AFAIK Audionote K's use a 2-way 12dB/Octave design looking at some pictures of them.
Its funny why some people buy something because of a name,yet the same product doing the same job just as well with a lesser name doesnt sell for as much.
walpurgis
29-10-2013, 13:05
Its funny why some people buy something because of a name,yet the same product doing the same job just as well with a lesser name doesnt sell for as much.
There seem to be parallels between the Icon Audio electronics and Ming Da products, but the prices bear no comparison. I rather like the Ming Da (Miexing) gear.
The power of suggestion, it has "Our" name on it so its going to sound better even though someone else makes the same product for a quarter of the price.
istari_knight
29-10-2013, 16:16
Bewitch & Puresound look similar but apparently Puresound uses different transformers & capacitors :hmm: I owned a Bewitch A10 for all of 3 days... I jolly well hope they're different 'cos that was pants - Couldnt get shot of the thing quick enough !
Anyway, regarding the JPW/Snell/AN debate thanks to Pauls bloodhound like detective skills we now know they have nothing in common apart from the drivers used :)
pure sound
29-10-2013, 16:19
The K's were fabulous things Brian and one of my show favourites, plus your LP collection was also fab :D. RE the techy stuff, I believe they use a 3rd order crossover (18dB/Octave) to help keep off axis response flat across a broad area, the idea being that in smaller rooms, first reflection points wont result in weird frequency anomalies. AFAIK Audionote K's use a 2-way 12dB/Octave design looking at some pictures of them.
Not so in the case of the type K's, 12 dB/Octave there although with some unexpected component values.
Audio Note UK do seem to appropriate other peoples' designs. Save for the DACs and some Andy Grove amps I can't see anything original & some of it appears to be Kondo knock-offs. I can see (suggestions) of downright copying in many cases e.g. 'borrowing' Helius tonearm designs without any license to do so. I think they licensed their Systemdek-derived turntable, and also got the rights to the Snell designs, but a lot of controversy otherwise... interesting how a few components can turn a Snell speaker from costing 100s to costing 10000s. :P
istari_knight
29-10-2013, 16:28
This is the xover I have for the K/1... The R is actually a 5R variable resistor but apparently its usually set between 1R8 - 2R2... Dunno if its correct though ?
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/istari_knight9/K-1_zps7f4932ed.jpg
pure sound
29-10-2013, 16:39
Looks about right although the values would vary from speaker to speaker depending on the characteristics of the particular driver set. You'd need a 'reference' FR plot from a working original K to get the matching absolutely right.
I visited the factory once. The adjustment of the A crossover to replicate the factory reference was something to see. A similar but simpler procedure happened for K, J & E models. But for the K for example, Snell also pre selected a fairly small percentage of the Vifa drivers they bought, sending the 'out of their tolerance' units back to Denmark. Which particular attributes they were selecting for remains something of a mystery. If you ever needed spare/replacement drivers they would come with associated components attached and all of it would go into the speaker replacing the old driver and its associated parts. The result was pair matching & pair to pair consistency that was ahead of anything else at the time. It's also why I'm suspicious of Snells with re-foamed drivers. I think it's highly unlikely that the original driver performance will have been preserved.
To be fair to AN, besides box sizes I don't think they ever seriously tried to reproduce J/IIs or E/IIs. They went for higher sensitivity and the undoped cones from the off. I've seen AN-K's that were similar to Snells but even they didn't sound like them because, I guess, they weren't using the same pre-selection & adjustment processes Snell used in their production. I know PQ would quite happily have carried on buying the Peter Snell designed models had Snell been prepared to continue supplying them but they wouldn't.
The 3 way C's & A's would've been much too complicated to try reproducing.
While the JPW P1, AP2 & AP3 used the same (albeit unselected) drivers, the crossover values & components are quite different. The sound is quite different too with a good deal more than 10% needed to make up the gap!
Very interesting, I wonder if Audio Note have the same approach to matching, or whether drivers are better matched these days... I know Amphion send a lot of units back to their suppliers as they don't meet their tolerances.
pure sound
29-10-2013, 17:03
I don't know what tolerances AN apply or how they apply them. But they've moved a long way from what Snell were doing and still seem to have many happy owners. Maybe their greater SET friendliness helps?
l have Audionote ANJ/D's here and recently in the summer had a home dem of the very latest ANJ/LX and they do sound quite different, with the latter sounding quite amazing sometimes..........
istari_knight
29-10-2013, 18:16
FWIW I recently purchased another pair of JPW AP3's to "do up" so thought I'd take this oppertunity to open them up & draw the crossover...
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/istari_knight9/JPWAP3_zps8d65c793.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/istari_knight9/DSC00174_zps45c4fa4b.jpg
:)
pure sound
29-10-2013, 19:00
No cap across the LF?
istari_knight
29-10-2013, 19:06
No cap across the LF?
Nope. I was surprised too... They are 100% original & relatively late with the lytic dated '93.
pure sound
29-10-2013, 19:16
Just seemed unusual having 1st order on the bass & 2nd on the hf. They'd pretty much stopped doing those models by the time I went there in 1996.
What's the purpose of having an inductor on the tweeter?
pure sound
29-10-2013, 19:35
Makes the high pass filter steeper, 2nd Order, 12 dB per Octave.
Makes the high pass filter steeper, 2nd Order, 12 dB per Octave.
Thanks Guy
Not so in the case of the type K's, 12 dB/Octave there although with some unexpected component values.
Interesting Guy,the K/1 appeared to have a 2nd order x-over but according to this article: http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/191snell/
(http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/191snell/) the K/II used a 3rd order slope. Different drivers to the K1?
pure sound
29-10-2013, 21:56
Different drivers & different designer. Kevin Voecks had been drafted in & worked his way through the range changing all of them.
Very interesting stuff.
Guy, which version of the K's do I have?
pure sound
30-10-2013, 10:19
Yours are original K's with new production Vifa bass drivers and crossovers adjusted to be as close to the reference type K FR plot as I could get them. (my reference being a single, working original type K I had here temporarily & was able to measure.)
pure sound
30-10-2013, 11:20
FWIW I recently purchased another pair of JPW AP3's to "do up" so thought I'd take this oppertunity to open them up & draw the crossover...
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/istari_knight9/JPWAP3_zps8d65c793.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/istari_knight9/DSC00174_zps45c4fa4b.jpg
:)
Incidentally, if you do nothing else, it is worth replacing that 4.7uF tweeter feed cap with something decent. Be careful as you do it though, there's a fine wire from the HF inductor in amongst all that hotmelt glue & that needs to be re-attached to the new cap.
istari_knight
30-10-2013, 11:59
Indeed. I souped up a pair of AP2's last year with Jantzen caps & Mills resistors... You have to be very careful with that inductors wire !
I'm not sure what the plan is yet for these... I'm seriously tempted to build some Snell K/1 crossovers :hmm:
pure sound
30-10-2013, 12:23
Indeed. I souped up a pair of AP2's last year with Jantzen caps & Mills resistors... You have to be very careful with that inductors wire !
I'm not sure what the plan is yet for these... I'm seriously tempted to build some Snell K/1 crossovers :hmm:
You need some heavier gauge wire for the coils but otherwise why not? I've done it. They can be close-ish if not quite the same. Not sure JPW used as much wadding & the Snell cabinet proportions are somewhat different but it'll be better than the JPW version.
The first AP1 'Choice review showed up a few problems, but the second review in 'Choice showed marked improvements. I think the main driver was altered slightly by the manufacturers at around this time, as the Heybrook HB1 definitely changed in sound (I think it used the same bass unit?). The AP3 garnered a good review, my 'Choice copy giving plots as well as positive comments and apart from a gently up-tilted response all the way through, it was smooth and didn't show any obvious nasties.. Old news now, and of course any future AP3's coming up for sale will now cost over double the previous amounts :(
I think that every audio enthusiast ought to have owned some Snell K's or ANKs at some point...or the JPW APs....wonderful speakers. Not sure if there's a mid/woofer that would do the job as well now but sorely tempted to build a pair to the same dimensions. I may well get round to this after my horn speaker project :eyebrows:
pure sound
30-10-2013, 16:40
I still buy quantities of that Vifa woofer (now made in the old Vifa factory by Scanspeak) for HB1, JPW & Snell customers who want to replace old drivers with perished surrounds. It has a cast magnesium chassis and a smallish magnet, deliberately so as it was intended for sealed box use. I still think it's a very nice sounding driver. Recently I've been partnering it with a newer, slightly more civilised, 19mm tweeter from Scanspeak's own range. There's still alot to be said for an 8" in such a configuration in typical British homes. Preferable (to me anyway) than thrashing the life out of a 5 or 6" in a ported cab.
I still buy quantities of that Vifa woofer (now made in the old Vifa factory by Scanspeak) for HB1, JPW & Snell customers who want to replace old drivers with perished surrounds. It has a cast magnesium chassis and a smallish magnet, deliberately so as it was intended for sealed box use. I still think it's a very nice sounding driver. Recently I've been partnering it with a newer, slightly more civilised, 19mm tweeter from Scanspeak's own range. There's still alot to be said for an 8" in such a configuration in typical British homes. Preferable (to me anyway) than thrashing the life out of a 5 or 6" in a ported cab.
Well said there Guy, spot on.
I still buy quantities of that Vifa woofer (now made in the old Vifa factory by Scanspeak) for HB1, JPW & Snell customers who want to replace old drivers with perished surrounds. It has a cast magnesium chassis and a smallish magnet, deliberately so as it was intended for sealed box use. I still think it's a very nice sounding driver. Recently I've been partnering it with a newer, slightly more civilised, 19mm tweeter from Scanspeak's own range. There's still alot to be said for an 8" in such a configuration in typical British homes. Preferable (to me anyway) than thrashing the life out of a 5 or 6" in a ported cab.
I agree Guy...nothing good about an 80Hz tuned hump which lets nothing of bass texture through, let alone how badly most small ported boxes are designed (ports chuffing due to being too small in diameter). I'm guessing that it's the Vifa M21WGs you're referring to which I understand is still made on the original tooling. Looks very reasonable cost wise. Is the Scanspeak one of the discovery range? I guess it would need some resistance added to balance the load with the 8 Ohm woofer if it's one of the 4 Ohm drivers but the specifications on those tweeters looks good. The SEAS H0737 would probably be a suitable alternative for a little less. Very tempting!
Not all manufacturers use the port to extend the bass, but then these speakers seem to lose all the bass (early issue AVI actives anyone) in the process, especially if no eq is added to flatten their response.
Got your PM Dan. I sincerely hope you'll be delighted :)
istari_knight
30-10-2013, 17:16
Got your PM Dan. I sincerely hope you'll be delighted :)
+1 Do keep us updated, I'll be very interested to hear how it turns out :eyebrows:
I agree Guy...nothing good about an 80Hz tuned hump which lets nothing of bass texture through, let alone how badly most small ported boxes are designed (ports chuffing due to being too small in diameter). I'm guessing that it's the Vifa M21WGs you're referring to which I understand is still made on the original tooling. Looks very reasonable cost wise. Is the Scanspeak one of the discovery range? I guess it would need some resistance added to balance the load with the 8 Ohm woofer if it's one of the 4 Ohm drivers but the specifications on those tweeters looks good. The SEAS H0737 would probably be a suitable alternative for a little less. Very tempting!
So just a quick one here,if the port hole is large would it work better?
So just a quick one here,if the port hole is large would it work better?
Optimal port tuning should ideally have the air velocity limited to under 8m/s. Anything much over that, and turbulent airflow results (Reynolds Number and other boundary layer and friction factors come into play). This can lead to a lot of port noise and inefficiency. Ports can then tend to operate part resistively instead of purely reactively. The simple answer is to calculate the correct diameter to avoid this (length then changes) and to form bell-entry and exits for more laminar air flow. Its simpler in principle than this description might have you believe even although the maths behind it is reasonably complex.
Optimal port tuning should ideally have the air velocity limited to under 8m/s. Anything much over that, and turbulent airflow results (Reynolds Number and other boundary layer and friction factors come into play). This can lead to a lot of port noise and inefficiency. Ports can then tend to operate part resistively instead of purely reactively. The simple answer is to calculate the correct diameter to avoid this (length then changes) and to form bell-entry and exits for more laminar air flow. Its simpler in principle than this description might have you believe even although the maths behind it is reasonably complex.
So in everyday language what does this mean?
So in everyday language what does this mean?
Ports fart if they are not very well optimised.
So in everyday language what does this mean?
It translates as: "Buy Snells"
It translates as: "Buy Snells"
Spot on :lol:
Spot on :lol:
Or Royd for that matter he sure knew how to avoid the usual port issues.
Spot on :lol:
Lol ok but doesnt really answer the question
Lol ok but doesnt really answer the question
OK...in layman's terms. Making the port bigger reduces the port noise BUT changes the port tuning. You have to calculate the right diameter and length of port for any given 'speaker design to make them work properly...ie to deliver the bass response that the port is there to help deliver.
OK...in layman's terms. Making the port bigger reduces the port noise BUT changes the port tuning. You have to calculate the right diameter and length of port for any given 'speaker design to make them work properly...ie to deliver the bass response that the port is there to help deliver.
Nice one thats understandable :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.