Snell,Jpw, Audio note

[ledzep]

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]

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.

[ledzep]

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]

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.

[DSJR]

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]

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 As for Snells being outdated by the 1980s, why would that be?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]

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]

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

[Reffc]

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.

[Reffc]

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.