a correctly designed interface transformer does not. Resistors and capacitors are imperfect in the sense that they all alter the relationship between amplitude and frequency. That’s something Audio Note has been doing for a number of years, beginning with their top-of-the-line M10.Īs the company’s Peter Qvortrup puts it, transformer drive “linearizes the entire dynamic envelope of the music passing through the preamp. Arguably, though, the M2B’s greatest design distinction is that it speaks to the world through a pair of output transformers, just like a tube amp. The M2 has come up for redesign, resulting in a product that not only nips at the M3’s heels but comes close to tying the race: the M2 Balanced, or M2B.Īs its name implies, the M2 Balanced can drive the balanced inputs of any amplifier so equipped (although it isn’t designed for balanced throughput: all of its signal inputs are single-ended). Now the Audio Note designers have worked their way back through their preamp line-which, incidentally, peaks out at the mighty M10 ($40,000 without phono: go ahead and wince). Then came the very upmarket M3 ($7500 with phono), which took all those strengths and presented them with a level of musical ease and rightness I’d never heard from a preamp before. I tried the somewhat upmarket M2 ($2695 with phono), which sounded like a more refined version of the M1. (Newcomers, please don’t wince: That’s awfully cheap for what it was.) And the M1 cost only $1250 at the time, with phono stage. Here's my excellent, no expense spared, setup.The first time I heard an Audio Note preamp was seven or eight years ago, when I sampled their entry-level M1-a refreshingly musical thing that brought the same kind of color and drama to preamplification that Audio Note’s more famous products brought to the driving of speakers. you're missing a lot with the M3 when compared to an M5, M2, or M22. Hopefully others will chime in with their thoughts and comparisons.īTW, I still feel the M3 is a pleasant sounding standalone speaker and it's probably why a lot of music that sounds good on it doesn't come off as well on more revealing speakers. a lot of detail is lost in the mid territory. In any case, given this non-scientific short listen I have to conclude that Mojo is absolutely right on the M3. The M3 sounded filtered as the high end of the pink spectrum sounded reduced. The 2nd part of the comparison was just to play pink noise through them … both the M2 and M5 were close and presented what I expected pink noise to sound like. Perhaps it was the material I was comparing them with. If I remember correctly the M22 just sounded more accurate than the M3 in the mid-highs and the M3 had more low end. Ī few years ago, I compared the M3 and M22 (a speaker which I think is similar to an M2 sound wise) and didn't come away with this impression. The end result was a loss of detail in both the vocals and instruments. This I think made the high-mids sound recessed. The M3 on the other hand sounded really muddled in comparison in both mids and low-mids. I can tell you both presented instruments and vocals clearly and as far as one can tell by ear seem to span their respective frequency ranges well with perhaps the M2 having the edge here. I’d have to do a lot more listening and need a faster way to switch between speakers to come up with a better comparison. Overall the M2 and M5 where surprisingly close with the M5, as you would expect, having more low end. (Picked to zoom in on the low through high mids) I only spent about 10-20 minutes doing this, playing the first few minutes of just one song: The Psychic by the Crash Test Dummies. Just playing a single channel and moving the banana plugs between speakers. I did a very quick listen to the M2, M3, and M5 tonight.

Audio note m3