Speaker Hall of Fame

[topspeed]

I saw this thread over at avsforum and thought it was a fun idea.

What speaker(s) do you think should be in the Hall and why?

My thoughts:
1) K-horn; an obvious choice for the obvious reasons
2) Quad ESL; one of the most accurate speakers ever made
3) B&W Nautilus; a groundbreaking design. A compelling argument could be made for the Matrix 801 as well.
4) Advent & AR; from Voice of the Theater to AR9, Kloss was a genius
5) Bose 901; Before you start throwing tomatoes (or worse), lemme 'splain. It was a groundbreaking design, came with a dedicated eq, and defined the "hi-end" for over a decade. Ask 99% of the population to name a hi-end speaker and they reply "Bose." It all started with the 901.

Who have I missed?

[markw]

The first acoustic suspension speaker and the first bookshelf design to produce bass to rival the behemoths.

[tentoze]

Dahlquist DQ-10. For very obvious reasons.

[corwin99]

Wilson Audio WAMM - First Speaker sold by David Wilson.
Tannoy Monitor Black - Its not really a complete speaker, but its history is very impressive.

[topspeed]

Good stuff! I forgot to add the Infinity IRS.

[RGA]

Well I suppose it would be an issue of why they're being inducted into a hall of fame. The Snell Type A should be there if only because it inspired others including my own spekaers - if they;re still making and them grwoing rapidly 30 years later and easily beating the Nautilus 801 then that means somehting to me - thus a hall of fame is no more than someone's list of favorites.

Quad for example puzzles me - My criteria requires a speaker to have credible bass response - which Quad's don't have IMO. But each to their own.

[Geoffcin]

Magnepan MGIII. The first in the Magnepan line to have the true ribbon tweeter. A driver that has yet to be improved upon.

[corwin99]

I would pressume that the Quad ESL deserves a place simply because it is the first production Electrostatic Speaker IIRC... not necessarily because it was any good :D

[RGA]

That's probably why somehting like the Bose 901 is there. I never understood this reasoning - in other words they award the "theory" behind the product ---- err but it doesn;t sound right???

Whereabouts in Nanaimo are you Corwin99? I go to school up at Mal-U. You've been at the A&B Sound judging by wehn you heard the Rainmakers - have you been to Soundhounds on Pandora in Victoria?

[topspeed]

Well I suppose it would be an issue of why they're being inducted into a hall of fame.
As Corwin noted, they would be in the HOF not because they are someone's personal favorites or they met their criteria for a "good speaker" but because they were revolutionary and had an impact on the world of audio. Landmark designs such as the ESL or MGIII's ribbon tweeter simply have to be recognized. Whether you like their sound or not is irrelevant.

[corwin99]

Whereabouts in Nanaimo are you Corwin99? I go to school up at Mal-U. You've been at the A&B Sound judging by wehn you heard the Rainmakers - have you been to Soundhounds on Pandora in Victoria?

I live in the North End... and i work in Downtown. My girlfriend goes to Mal... its a nice school. Yeah.. I've spent a bit of time at A&B... just booked my car stereo installation (new car so i had to swap the stuff) next week.

I went to soundhounds a month or so ago... it was pretty busy. I took a look at all the gear they had there... the Magnum Dynalab Receiver, and some of the MF stuff. Listened to the AN system in the main room there too. Nice place. Didn't really audition anything since i wasn't ready to make a purchase... kinda wanted that AN Tuner, but the guy said the Rotel one was better. You buy all your stuff at Soundhounds?

[Feanor]

...What speaker(s) do you think should be in the Hall and why?...
The Ohm F was the most popular model with this technology. I owned them for several years. Wonderful soundstage due, I guess, to their true omnidirectional nature. They weren't really the best in other respects. Also, they were really power-hungry: didn't sound like much 'til I got a Phase Linear 400.

Ohm still makes Walsh driver speakers, but I believe most or all of their models are no longer full range.

[Woochifer]

I would add the JBL 4310 studio monitor and the L100 speaker. The 4310 and its successors were the most widely used studio monitors of their day, and most of the classic rock genre was mixed and monitored on those speakers. Those monitors also found their way into a lot of home audio systems as well. Introduced in the early-70s, the L100 was the consumer variant of the 4310. It quickly built up a very dedicated following (supposedly it was the best selling speaker of its era) and to this day still has a large user base.

[RGA]

I live in the North End... and i work in Downtown. My girlfriend goes to Mal... its a nice school. Yeah.. I've spent a bit of time at A&B... just booked my car stereo installation (new car so i had to swap the stuff) next week.

I went to soundhounds a month or so ago... it was pretty busy. I took a look at all the gear they had there... the Magnum Dynalab Receiver, and some of the MF stuff. Listened to the AN system in the main room there too. Nice place. Didn't really audition anything since i wasn't ready to make a purchase... kinda wanted that AN Tuner, but the guy said the Rotel one was better. You buy all your stuff at Soundhounds?

Well yes because there really isn't anything here for me to get. I tried Blue Door Audio in Parksville but not the stuff I like.

The AN Tuner has been discontinued - not everything they make is good - the AX One speaker was not spectacular. But they have the most gear - however you have to hane an idea as to what you want to listen to before you go so they can set it up - they have a lot of stuff to move around just to get at the stuff.

[corwin99]

Well yes because there really isn't anything here for me to get. I tried Blue Door Audio in Parksville but not the stuff I like.

The AN Tuner has been discontinued - not everything they make is good - the AX One speaker was not spectacular. But they have the most gear - however you have to hane an idea as to what you want to listen to before you go so they can set it up - they have a lot of stuff to move around just to get at the stuff.

Yeah.. i buy a lot of my stuff online, and do the usual shuffle of changing/upgrading while i try and figure out what i want. I've wanted to check out the place in Parksville.. What lines do they carry?

The main reason for wanting the AN Tuner was I guess the fact that it had a tube output stage. But i've heard that British tuners in general are quite poor. From what the guy said, unless you want to purchase the Demo peice, they usually have to order one in for you because they don't keep everything in stock in addition to the demo... so sometimes they give u the demo to keep while you wait for your stuff.. that would be a problem if buying from Nanaimo cuz then u gotta make 2 trips.

[Pat D]

I saw this thread over at avsforum and thought it was a fun idea.

What speaker(s) do you think should be in the Hall and why?

My thoughts:
1) K-horn; an obvious choice for the obvious reasons
2) Quad ESL; one of the most accurate speakers ever made
3) B&W Nautilus; a groundbreaking design. A compelling argument could be made for the Matrix 801 as well.
4) Advent & AR; from Voice of the Theater to AR9, Kloss was a genius
5) Bose 901; Before you start throwing tomatoes (or worse), lemme 'splain. It was a groundbreaking design, came with a dedicated eq, and defined the "hi-end" for over a decade. Ask 99% of the population to name a hi-end speaker and they reply "Bose." It all started with the 901.

Who have I missed?
Actually, the original Bose 901 wasn't that a bad speaker.

The Klipschorn is a quite pleasant sounding speaker at reasonable levels, though it's not super accurate. I personally preferred the original Klipsch Forte over the Klipschorn, La Scala, etc., not to mention the Heresy.

The original Quad ESL was probably one of the most accurate speakers of its time. It is a good speaker within its dynamic limitations, but I found it to have some roughness in the upper midrange. They also were quite directional, as are electrostatics generally. The ESL-63 was quite flat on axis and in the right set up could sound very good. I found they need some space to be at their best, and we no longer have that kind of space. They can do a creditable job on Saint Saens' Organ Symphony so I don't know where those who claim they had no bass are coming from--must not have heard them in a decent set up. However, a subwoofer can be a big help with them, if properly set up (and for some strange reason, some people, even some professionals, never seem to get the knack). To me, the ESL-63 was a big improvement on the original ESL (often called ESL-57 in recent years). However, when it comes to accuracy, I'm afraid quite a number of speakers beat them for flat response over a wide angle, including my PSB Stratus Minis at $1200 Cdn.

I have never been a huge fan of Magnepan, though the ones I've heard were pretty good. But I haven't heard the recent models. Still, they are popular and highly regarded.

The Kef 104 was one of the first computer-aided design speakers; the totally different Kef 104/2 had conjugate bass loading which still has many fans, and the Kef 105 was a nice big speaker in the "pregnant robot" configuration also shared by the various iterations of the B & W 801. I think computer-aided design has helped bring down the cost of good speakers, of which there are many nowadays.

I would like to have heard the Infinity Servo-Static.

The Dynaco A-25 was a nice sounding budget speaker for its day, and still sound quite pleasant.

The Altec 19 had a big 15 inch woofer and a big hornloaded tweeter. If the mid- and hi- frequency adjustments were set properly, it could be a quite accurate speaker, and quite detailed, even at low levels (my dealer said most of his customers for Altec 19s lived in apartments, and liked the detail at moderate levels. They could throw a very wide and deep image. Of course, if adjusted improperly, they could sound awful . . .

The AR-9 was a very nice speaker.

The IMF TLS50 and 80 were very nice big speakers but never made a big name.

The Allison One was something of a breakthrough in designing speaker for specific locations in a room--these would be placed against the back wall. As well, they were designed not to have a floor dip in a room. The Allison Three, I think, was designed for corner placement. The Allison Four had very wide dispersion and was meant to be placed on a shelf against a back wall. The Allison speaker line has been resurrected by a group of businessmen and investors, so one can now get them again. It would be interesting to hear them again.

[topspeed]

The Allison One was something of a breakthrough in designing speaker for specific locations in a room--these would be placed against the back wall. As well, they were designed not to have a floor dip in a room. The Allison Three, I think, was designed for corner placement. The Allison Four had very wide dispersion and was meant to be placed on a shelf against a back wall. The Allison speaker line has been resurrected by a group of businessmen and investors, so one can now get them again. It would be interesting to hear them again.
Allison! How could I have missed that one? The Allison 3 was just reviewed in TAS, quite favorably I might add. Looking at the pictures, I'm not quite sure I understand how you place them. Am I missing something or do they actually fire towards the walls? However it works, I'd definitely say these were landmark designs.

[Bryan]

A long time ago AR used to have both a hall of fame and hall of shame in the review section. Wonder what happened to it.

[kexodusc]

I can't think of an exact model, but surely there's a legendary Cerwin Vega model that many a college party had AC/DC cranked to the max???

[kfalls]

I see the B&W Nautilus version, but what about the B&W 801 Matrix. From what I understand, it's one of the most widely used recording studio speakers. They've been used to provide the "reference" sound for recordings from Classical to Rock. I believe they should hold a respected place in a true Hall of Fame for speakers.

[bobhaze]

ADS 2001, 2002, and 200c - circa 1972
The 2001 and 2002 were Bi Amplified mini speakers based on the Braun Output C. The 2001 had outboard amplification and the 2002 had it built in to the enclosure. The 200 was passive. Agruably these were the catalyst for the subwoofer/satellite systems we see everywhere today.

M&K "Volkswoofer" - maybe 1980 or so. First powered subwoofer cube. 50W with 12" servo woofer. Often sold with ADS 200's (at least here in New England) as a pretty good sounding Sub/Sat.

ADS300i - First plate type loudspeaker. Designed for car, but with optional in-wall mounting ring can legitimately lay claim to being the first high fidelity in/wall. (I know that Sonance claims that, but the 300i was on the market two years before Sonance existed, however Sonance was possibly the first to design it as an in-wall as opposed to adapting to in-wall.)

None of these may qualify for their ultimate fidelity, but I believe that they are deserving for the influence thay had on changing the market.

[RGA]

I see the B&W Nautilus version, but what about the B&W 801 Matrix. From what I understand, it's one of the most widely used recording studio speakers. They've been used to provide the "reference" sound for recordings from Classical to Rock. I believe they should hold a respected place in a true Hall of Fame for speakers.

First I think the Matrix series was superior to the new ones.

But be careful of this "used in recording studios" stuff. Some companies advertise that they are used in recording studios some don't. SOme companies are willing to GIVE their speakers for free to recording studios - so that they can advertise it - the recording studio is a business and they need "something" after all to record on. Then there are small outfits who don;t have much money and like us have to have a compromise due to budget. Furthermore many require near field monitors like those from PMC. They sound very good in the near-field but if you listen in normal living rooms at normal distance some of them can be pretty lousy sounding...I recommend them and like them but you need to listen in the right set-up.

And remember some companies are used in numerous recording studios, as magazine reference spekaers, etc but the company has chosen not to advertise it. The reasons not too should be obvious. For example if George Lucas uses the N802 at Skywalker recording sudios. Let's say for example Star Wars came out sounding poor and this was done at that recording studio. Some people might then associate the poor sounding discs to the speakers - even if this is totally unfair. It also smacks to some consumers that gee they really need to push their speakers by using evey and all advertising means they possibly can to sell it when the sound all by itself SHOULD be able to do all it needs to do. But many people today don;t have the time to spend listening to 30 speakers for over an hour each - so the nice looking big name ones you see plastered everywhere which get good reviews get you down to maybe 5.

Luckily my dealer carries some of the big names and the company that didn't need the hooplah was easily the best stuff in the store - but you would need to actually listen to the gear to know that.

[topspeed]

I see the B&W Nautilus version, but what about the B&W 801 Matrix. From what I understand, it's one of the most widely used recording studio speakers. They've been used to provide the "reference" sound for recordings from Classical to Rock. I believe they should hold a respected place in a true Hall of Fame for speakers.
I agree. Check my original post.


But be careful of this "used in recording studios" stuff. Some companies advertise that they are used in recording studios some don't. SOme companies are willing to GIVE their speakers for free to recording studios - so that they can advertise it - the recording studio is a business and they need "something" after all to record on. Then there are small outfits who don;t have much money and like us have to have a compromise due to budget. Furthermore many require near field monitors like those from PMC. They sound very good in the near-field but if you listen in normal living rooms at normal distance some of them can be pretty lousy sounding...I recommend them and like them but you need to listen in the right set-up.

And remember some companies are used in numerous recording studios, as magazine reference spekaers, etc but the company has chosen not to advertise it. The reasons not too should be obvious. For example if George Lucas uses the N802 at Skywalker recording sudios. Let's say for example Star Wars came out sounding poor and this was done at that recording studio. Some people might then associate the poor sounding discs to the speakers - even if this is totally unfair. It also smacks to some consumers that gee they really need to push their speakers by using evey and all advertising means they possibly can to sell it when the sound all by itself SHOULD be able to do all it needs to do. But many people today don;t have the time to spend listening to 30 speakers for over an hour each - so the nice looking big name ones you see plastered everywhere which get good reviews get you down to maybe 5.
I suppose it could be all a marketing ploy, as preposterous as that sounds. Or, God forbid, it could be that they are highly accurate speakers that impart little to no colorations thereby allowing the mixer to determine what it should sound like instead of the speaker. Then again, most self-proclaimed "audiophiles" view any "marketing" efforts by audio companies as Satan reincarnate and automatically start dismissing that company. I've never understood that philosphy although I liken it to children trying to keep others from playing in their sandbox.

[Pat D]

Allison! How could I have missed that one? The Allison 3 was just reviewed in TAS, quite favorably I might add. Looking at the pictures, I'm not quite sure I understand how you place them. Am I missing something or do they actually fire towards the walls? However it works, I'd definitely say these were landmark designs.
The Allison Three is a wedge shaped speaker designed for corner placement. The wedge goes into a corner and the drivers face out. As I said, Allison Acoustics is going again and you may wish to look around their web site.

http://www.allisonacoustics.com/three.html

[Buzz Roll]

Ohm, Vandersteen and Magnepan. 3 innovative companies that are still around and sound great.

[RGA]

I suppose it could be all a marketing ploy, as preposterous as that sounds. Or, God forbid, it could be that they are highly accurate speakers that impart little to no colorations thereby allowing the mixer to determine what it should sound like instead of the speaker. Then again, most self-proclaimed "audiophiles" view any "marketing" efforts by audio companies as Satan reincarnate and automatically start dismissing that company. I've never understood that philosphy although I liken it to children trying to keep others from playing in their sandbox.

I am not stating that this IS the case but it CAN be the case. I don't think it is preposterous in the slightest bit. Why, other than to advertise, would B&W put on their website who uses their speakers. It's name dropping - and I'm not calling them out on this because they certainly are not the only ones(they may feel pressured because some of the competition lists EVERY studio that uses their speakers). I don't care a bean other than to me it smacks of someone desperate to sell his ware. See Albert Einstein used this calculator so it must be the best - or Wayne Gretzsky uses this hoockey stick so it must be the best most accurate true stick out there.

No offense but this is HIGH Stakes for a company like B&W to be able to say that the KING of the industrial light and magic the THX God himself that brought some of the great sound and F/X films of the ages uses OUR speakers in his major recording studio. The ultimate advertising tool IMO. See I don't have ANY problem with advertising - it is a business most companies are vying for market share and to turn a tidy profit - no harm there. But I have heard the N802 and my own speakers - and I get the feeling that when the N802 goes for about $11,000.00Cdn and my speaker goes for about $4500.00Cdn that I step back and think well let's see - it sounds to me as a significant amount of money has gone to a lot of "other" things besides sound because the latter speaker "sounds" better so what exactly am I paying for for $11,000.00?

Name recognition, Brand, advertising costs, shipping(I mean they are bloody big and heavy so this cost is understandable), brochure production. There is sound and there is marketing - the N802's are a mix of ART and SOUND. And IMO there are few if anyone that does it anywhere near as good as B&W - which is why I LIKE THEM - and so many audiophiles do - and probably why they're the biggest High end speaker maker. Still you'd be interested to find out the guys who designed the B&W's thoughts about a certain valve amp/speaker maker's speakers when they are off work.

[Lensman]

The Visonik David. Results of pairing this 70's German mini-monitor up with a subwoofer is often credited with starting the whole sub/small satellite phenomenon. The David also inspired numerous knockoffs over the years including Radio Shack's well-known Minimus 7.

[E-Stat]

I saw this thread over at avsforum and thought it was a fun idea.

What speaker(s) do you think should be in the Hall and why?
Although the list is pretty complete, I'll add another.

<a href="http://www.dayton-wright.com/ElectrostaticSpeakers.html">Dayton-Wright Electrostats</a href>

First full range electrostat to break the "polite" barrier with high output levels. It used a novel approach by sealing the enclosure and filling with inert SF6 gas to prevent arcing even at very high bias voltages. I will admit my "bias" in that this was the first electrostat I heard (back in 1976) and started my long love for these gentle giants.


<img src="http://www.dayton-wright.com/d-PatFig06.GIF">

rw

[kfalls]

RGA, I don't remember stating I got my information from B&W. Actually it's from reading many audoio magazines (Stereo Review, Stereophile, S&V, Guide to Home Theater, etc..) for many years as well as the liner notes on numerous CDs and tapes. Many will tell the equipment used in recording and mixing the album. With their reputation I don't believe B&W needs to give away their speakers for a mention in an advertisement or web-site. If so, sign me up. Diminishing returns are relative. I may think spending an extra $500 for a Piano Lacquer finish, which doesn't improve the speaker's ability to reproduce good sound, is a waste, but someone addressing wife appeal factor, may put it high on their list. If you enjoy your speakers and feel they're worth the price, who cares what anyone else thinks.

[Worf101]

Epicure/EPi 100 - Gotta love that 8-inch with the inverted dome tweet...
Ohm Walsh F - Love it or hate it, but it was "different".
Allison 4 - Same as above...

Da Worfster :cool:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If you actually go to Lucasfilm, you would find a single setup of B & W's for music mixing. The speaker that you see all over that studio just happens to be M & K speakers of various models

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

There is one revolutionary speaker that nobody seems to have mention. The SF-1 by DBX. While DBX is not know for audiophile grade speakers, the SF-1 was indeed revolutionary. They used a special crossover controlling 8 tweeters(facing every angle possible) four midrange drivers(facing four different directions) 4 12" woofers. It had a controlled radiation pattern with emphasis in between the L/R speakers, stereo everywhere, consistant frequency response no matter where you are in relation to the speaker, pant rattling bass down to below 20hz, didn't need a special eq or any other special equipment.

If you stood right in front of the left speaker, the output from the right speaker would dominate. And the same went for the right speaker. Wall reflections from the tweeters were down in level so as to eliminate smearing from mulitple reflections. And the only thing you need for this speaker was plenty of power. Stereo review gave them a superior rating, and I can not say enough good things about it.

[Woochifer]

There is one revolutionary speaker that nobody seems to have mention. The SF-1 by DBX. While DBX is not know for audiophile grade speakers, the SF-1 was indeed revolutionary. They used a special crossover controlling 8 tweeters(facing every angle possible) four midrange drivers(facing four different directions) 4 12" woofers. It had a controlled radiation pattern with emphasis in between the L/R speakers, stereo everywhere, consistant frequency response no matter where you are in relation to the speaker, pant rattling bass down to below 20hz, didn't need a special eq or any other special equipment.

If you stood right in front of the left speaker, the output from the right speaker would dominate. And the same went for the right speaker. Wall reflections from the tweeters were down in level so as to eliminate smearing from mulitple reflections. And the only thing you need for this speaker was plenty of power. Stereo review gave them a superior rating, and I can not say enough good things about it.

I auditioned that speaker when it came out. In the demo that I heard, it did some very strange things with the tonal balance. The stereo imaging was definitely there and I remembered thinking that the dbx was truthfully doing exactly what Bose said that the 901 was supposed to do. Overall, I had a very mixed impression of the dbx because I didn't really care much for how it sounded, even though for projecting stereo imaging and big soundstage it was definitely different.

Later on, dbx marketed some lower priced models and rebadged them as BSR speakers (I believe that the dbx model you're referring to cost over $2,000 a pair in the mid-80s). These lower priced versions kept the polygon shape, but had fewer drivers. Eventually, I saw them getting sold for less than $200 a pair thru those full page clearance sale ads that Daktronics used to place in magazines like Stereo Review (remember the Fone Bone? or the LP noise cancellation processor? or that matrix processor that they marketed for the early stereo VCRs and Laserdisc players?).

[spacedeckman]

1) BBC LS3/5a: You want a "standard"
2) Quads: Love 'em, Hate 'em, they were groundbreaking
3) KEF 104/2s: Again, a groundbreaker (I would accept the 104s here too)
4) Original Maggies: Something "completely different".
5) AR-1s: Need no intro
6) Dyna A-25s:
7) Mirage M-1: You guys can take the 901, this was the breakthrough
8) M&K Volkspeaker: Bose made is smaller, worser, and got richer.
9) Heil AMT-1: Breakthrough technology that really didn't "happen"
10) Energy 22: New thinking

These are in no particular order. These are the speakers that changed things IMHO, and that's just what you asked for. If allowed an 11th, it would have to be the IRS-V, the original "overkill" speaker that spawned a hundred more.

[RGA]

RGA, I don't remember stating I got my information from B&W. Actually it's from reading many audoio magazines (Stereo Review, Stereophile, S&V, Guide to Home Theater, etc..) for many years as well as the liner notes on numerous CDs and tapes. Many will tell the equipment used in recording and mixing the album. With their reputation I don't believe B&W needs to give away their speakers for a mention in an advertisement or web-site. If so, sign me up. Diminishing returns are relative. I may think spending an extra $500 for a Piano Lacquer finish, which doesn't improve the speaker's ability to reproduce good sound, is a waste, but someone addressing wife appeal factor, may put it high on their list. If you enjoy your speakers and feel they're worth the price, who cares what anyone else thinks.

I'm not attacking B&W - the Matrix 805 is used in recording studios and is an excellent speaker - B&W advertises it - i have not seen any of my recordings state that they use B&W - but again none of this really matters - the B&W is not better nor is it necessarily worse simply because they're in Recording studios or advertise it. There are a great many recording studios in the world - there are a great number of small speaker makers out there. Audio Note for example is a small speaker maker on a world stage - they are used by several magazines, recording studios, mastering studios, and their competitors. They don't advertise this anywhere because quite frankly it isn't worth advertising - the sound will sell itself they sell to retailers who will allow people to listen for themselves and they believe if that happens they will not have had much need for advertising. They'll run a page to tell you where you can locate a dealer - (and the dealers paid for the advertising not Audio Note).

B&W is a good entry into high end I loved mine.

Also, Lucas used to shop at a dealer in the greater Vancouver area and new the dealer I first heard Arcam at. That dealer carried M&K which had a reasonably ok sub sat set-up. The dealer's dad was the man who invented the Wharfedale speaker that could be sand filled.(unfortunately the dealer went under a good 7-8 years ago). There is not much about M&K and B&W that I would mistake for sound.

[Woochifer]

I am not stating that this IS the case but it CAN be the case. I don't think it is preposterous in the slightest bit. Why, other than to advertise, would B&W put on their website who uses their speakers. It's name dropping - and I'm not calling them out on this because they certainly are not the only ones(they may feel pressured because some of the competition lists EVERY studio that uses their speakers). I don't care a bean other than to me it smacks of someone desperate to sell his ware. See Albert Einstein used this calculator so it must be the best - or Wayne Gretzsky uses this hoockey stick so it must be the best most accurate true stick out there.

So basically EVERY company that cites who uses their products does so out of desperation? Sorry, but that's just a bizarre statement. Endorsements are but one tool for a manufacturer to stand out over another, especially in a competitive market environment where companies are vying for market share. When Chick Corea and Yamaha have an endorsement partnership going, I doubt that it's because Yamaha's so desperate to sell their keyboards that they'll do anything.

You have absolutely no information about the details of B&W's relationship with Skywalker Sound or Abbey Road Studios or any other place where they have an installation, so everything that you're posting here is just speculation.

BTW, Albert Einstein never used a calculator.


No offense but this is HIGH Stakes for a company like B&W to be able to say that the KING of the industrial light and magic the THX God himself that brought some of the great sound and F/X films of the ages uses OUR speakers in his major recording studio. The ultimate advertising tool IMO See I don't have ANY problem with advertising - it is a business most companies are vying for market share and to turn a tidy profit - no harm there. But I have heard the N802 and my own speakers - and I get the feeling that when the N802 goes for about $11,000.00Cdn and my speaker goes for about $4500.00Cdn that I step back and think well let's see - it sounds to me as a significant amount of money has gone to a lot of "other" things besides sound because the latter speaker "sounds" better so what exactly am I paying for for $11,000.00?

Of course you have a problem with advertising because you're infering that the N802 costs double what your Audio Notes cost strictly because of the marketing costs. And you're also presuming that everybody shares your opinion that the Audio Notes are a superior speaker to the N802. If somebody listens to both and prefers the N802, then maybe that speaker is worth the extra coin to them. Or is that just an impossibility because Audio Notes are just sooooooo superior in every possible application?


Name recognition, Brand, advertising costs, shipping(I mean they are bloody big and heavy so this cost is understandable), brochure production. There is sound and there is marketing - the N802's are a mix of ART and SOUND. And IMO there are few if anyone that does it anywhere near as good as B&W - which is why I LIKE THEM - and so many audiophiles do - and probably why they're the biggest High end speaker maker. Still you'd be interested to find out the guys who designed the B&W's thoughts about a certain valve amp/speaker maker's speakers when they are off work.

And don't forget that economies of scale and vertical integration help to LOWER production costs. You keep citing the presumption that B&W's designers are Audio Note fans, so why is it then that B&W has yet to produce anything remotely similar to the Audio Notes?


I'm not attacking B&W - the Matrix 805 is used in recording studios and is an excellent speaker - B&W advertises it - i have not seen any of my recordings state that they use B&W - but again none of this really matters - the B&W is not better nor is it necessarily worse simply because they're in Recording studios or advertise it. There are a great many recording studios in the world - there are a great number of small speaker makers out there. Audio Note for example is a small speaker maker on a world stage - they are used by several magazines, recording studios, mastering studios, and their competitors. They don't advertise this anywhere because quite frankly it isn't worth advertising - the sound will sell itself they sell to retailers who will allow people to listen for themselves and they believe if that happens they will not have had much need for advertising. They'll run a page to tell you where you can locate a dealer - (and the dealers paid for the advertising not Audio Note).

Not worth advertising? This unadulterated praise for everything that Audio Note does gets ridiculous when you find it necessary to keep pointing out why it's such a great thing that they don't advertise. If these Audio Notes "sold themselves" then why is it that you see Audio Note advertisements in magazines? It doesn't matter who pays for it. Obviously, SOMEBODY felt it was necessary to do some conventional marketing for those Audio Notes.


There is not much about M&K and B&W that I would mistake for sound.

So, what are they doing if not producing sound? Are they creating wormholes into which wave propagation no longer occurs? You go at length about how you're not attacking B&W, and now this statement?! I would hope this is a typo.

[spacedeckman]

it will stop hurting.

RGA, I agree with you. B&Ws suck. I don't agree with almost anything else in your posts, but I agree with the original premise.

Marketing is a necessary evil in this world. B&W is on a roll right now in popularity and are getting a lot of attention. I'm not swayed by "studio monitor" hype, if I don't like a speaker, I don't buy it. If it doesn't make me happy, it doesn't come home with me. B&W, Bose, Klipsch, JBL, Infinity, Polk, Boston, Paradigm, Energy, Mirage, and a host of others I won't type all rely on marketing to get people to give them a try.

I'm sure your Audio Notes are very nice. I really like my Audiovectors, and am lusting after a pair of the new Opera Callas. Guess what. Nobody knows what these speakers are spare a couple on this form, any of the three, and 99.999999% + of all of North America hasn't heard of any of them either. Just goes to prove my friends adage: "If you've heard of it, it probably isn't any good" Take a couple of doses of reality and post in the morning.

[J*E*Cole]

901's repeatedly appear. I got my brothers old 901 hand me downs years ago, and even though they don't really sound "right" or completely accurate, they do sound interestingly good. Though "different." Kinda like the sound of a Harley Davidson motorcycle, not the techy, clinical sound of a Honda or Yamaha, but definitely good. I still use them as part of a rec room system made up of various older components I have owned over the last few years. I have Infinity's Alpha series complete speaker system now for my main system, and I think some of Infinity's older designs are worth consideration. These Alpha's are perfectly fine though...

Does anyone else agree with the Bose 901 conclusions I just made? Like the fact that they sounded really pretty darn good, though not technically right, yet pleasing... Just curious.

Thanks

[spacedeckman]

the breakthrough happened with the Mirage M1 a bit over a decade later. The M1 did what the 901 was sort of supposed to do but came up short on.

You could credit the 901 with introducing the concerns of room/dispersion, but none of it was truly addressed until the M1. In my book, the biggest thing the 901 did was to launch Bose as a speaker company.

[topspeed]

the breakthrough happened with the Mirage M1 a bit over a decade later. The M1 did what the 901 was sort of supposed to do but came up short on.

You could credit the 901 with introducing the concerns of room/dispersion, but none of it was truly addressed until the M1. In my book, the biggest thing the 901 did was to launch Bose as a speaker company.
Wasn't the M1 a big black monolithic type of speaker that looked like it came straight out of 2001: A Space Odyssey? If it's the same bipolar speaker that I'm thinking it was, I remember hearing Lyle Lovett through that thing with a Theta pre and Forte amp that was just freakin' amazing. I'd never heard a bi-polar speaker before and was blown away by the M1. Late '80's vintage, right? They had them at the shop in Newport Beach that I bought my first separates from: a PS Audio 4.6 mated with a B&K ST-140.

[kexodusc]

Hey guys:
Being a sucker for the sonic perfection a transmission line can deliver, anybody know WHO made the FIRST t-line?
It should be in the hall-of-fame too.

[theaudiohobby]

Hey guys:
Being a sucker for the sonic perfection a transmission line can deliver, anybody know WHO made the FIRST t-line?
It should be in the hall-of-fame too.

IMF, I think, not sure of the exact model.

[RGA]

So basically EVERY company that cites who uses their products does so out of desperation? Sorry, but that's just a bizarre statement. Endorsements are but one tool for a manufacturer to stand out over another, especially in a competitive market environment where companies are vying for market share. When Chick Corea and Yamaha have an endorsement partnership going, I doubt that it's because Yamaha's so desperate to sell their keyboards that they'll do anything.

I already said I have no problem with advertising because they have to compete with the other guy doing the same thing - I notice you left that out to go on your RGA attack - how typical of your straw men.



You have absolutely no information about the details of B&W's relationship with Skywalker Sound or Abbey Road Studios or any other place where they have an installation, so everything that you're posting here is just speculation.

I made no speculation - Mr. Lucas uses other brands besides B&W such as M&K neither sound alike - so if there is some pinnacl of sound they're going for it would have to be EITHER B&W OR M&K. and i'm sure they have other brands used as well - like I say they have to use something after all - and it is spurious to assume that they have chosen the best. They have chosen a tool with which to do a job - that does not mean they chose the best tool - but that is certainly what the marketing intention is behind it for the speaker maker - Our speakers are best because George Lucas uses them - is certainly what B&W is hoping for or they would not post it. I stress I don't have any problem with them doing it - that's why you pay a marketing staff - and i'm sure there research shows that it nets them more sales.



Of course you have a problem with advertising because you're infering that the N802 costs double what your Audio Notes cost strictly because of the marketing costs. And you're also presuming that everybody shares your opinion that the Audio Notes are a superior speaker to the N802. If somebody listens to both and prefers the N802, then maybe that speaker is worth the extra coin to them. Or is that just an impossibility because Audio Notes are just sooooooo superior in every possible application?

Hmm strictly because of marketing costs eh? I said that did I? Well no in fact I didn't say that another straw man.



And don't forget that economies of scale and vertical integration help to LOWER production costs. You keep citing the presumption that B&W's designers are Audio Note fans, so why is it then that B&W has yet to produce anything remotely similar to the Audio Notes?

Lower production costs - well they have higher overhead, they have marketing department which has nothing directly to do with the quality of the speakers, higher shipping costs and they don't sell as many N802s as they sell 303s. The N802 is a very nice looking loudspeaker - the Audio Notes are not - if the B&W converted over there would be no fancy yellow drivers a tweeter on top eyeball looking three way that looks and is a pretty mondo looking visual specimen. The marketing department would have a difficult time coming out and saying all you B&W's sorry mates but we were wrong for the last 20+ years with the tweeter on top and the kevlar. So here take this new model with a paper woofer and a two way.

There is a heavy design consideration - there are plenty of people who want a nice cool looking stereo system - I have NO problem with that and i don't blame B&W or Energy or whoever wants a style system - a lot of companies viewed the success of B&O and BOSE sats and these look good take up little space and are stylish. B&W has been very successful to have their eye heavily focussed on the appearance and style of its systems - and I like them precisely because they generally tend to sound quite good and ALSO look good. And let's face it most people I suspect would be happy to give up some sound quality if it means that they gain a gorgeous looking piece of furniture.

B&W knows that Speakers like Audio Note can only sell the the niche market willing to give up looks for sound quality - But B&W to keep their station and profits up need a wider net than the niche. This is no insult to B&W - if I were running their company I would have my orders for the engineers: It has to be great looking it has to be well built and it has to sound as good as - or right there with - the big competitors and we need X amount of sales and X amount of profit.

The fact that the engineers there know that some small fry is making a better sounding product for less money is great - but the marketing guy knows what will sell in largel quantities to the widest consumer bass - and that is good looks. The accounting guy knows that well yeah we could make a better sounding product but the marketing guy told me we'll only sell maybe 1/10 as many because it will be ugly and we would have to use quality wood we'd have to completely re-tool for making or buying the drivers from an outside source which will considerably increase our costs, and at the same time such a change would alienate the people who bought our previous speakers which we had previously claimed was the best design. They have to work pretty close to what they've been doing in the past - and the changes have to be relatively minor.Yeah sorry engineers but umm you'll have to make do with the parameters we've set out for.

Boston Acoustics west coast guru has said the Audio Notes are better than anything they make - and Boston has the same "rights" to making the original Snells. My dealer has been badgering them to come out with a heritage line - they could use cheaper cabinets and parts but sell em for $400 - $600 and $900.00 K, J and E respectively and they would instantly according to both be a steal - same problem though - they DON'T LOOK right - they won't sell people won't buy in. It's a big risk to add a line that doesn't look good no matter how it sounds may not sell. For $900.00 the consumer could buy a 3 way Energy that takes up less room and looks awesome with silver looking drivers or some two way ugly fat box you need a stand for and it only has paper woofers and FOAM surrounds. Yeah I want the stuff that can stop bullits.

And as you point out Home theater is a factor - there was no original Type C Center channel for a match for home theater. For B&W that alone is enough to say no.



Not worth advertising? This unadulterated praise for everything that Audio Note does gets ridiculous when you find it necessary to keep pointing out why it's such a great thing that they don't advertise. If these Audio Notes "sold themselves" then why is it that you see Audio Note advertisements in magazines? It doesn't matter who pays for it. Obviously, SOMEBODY felt it was necessary to do some conventional marketing for those Audio Notes.

Yes the dealer felt it was necessary with the buzz on them to tell people you can hear them here. The dealers pitched in money so that they could have their name listed as a dealer. The Audio Note website was originally a Kit site and you would order your parts or kits from them directly. No company can avoid advertising all together you have to know WHERE to go and listen. But that is the only purpose of it - no money is spent on trying to get a presale and there are zero brochures. They do have a big binder with 18 pieces of letter paper sized Birch wood which you can look at and feel when selecting which one you'd like to order your spekaer in - but the dealer has to spend ~$150.00 of their money to buy it form Audio Note. Also, this in itself does not mean the product is better because they don't put a priority on advertising - some can make the case that not advertising is a way of advertising exclusivity like perhaps a Rolls Royce. This is a tough argument to make though unless you know their intentions. I know that they have deliberately done things to not become a bigger selling company and much of it is still an order and wait deal.



RGA
"There is not much about M&K and B&W that I would mistake for sound."

So, what are they doing if not producing sound? Are they creating wormholes into which wave propagation no longer occurs? You go at length about how you're not attacking B&W, and now this statement?! I would hope this is a typo.

ing alike - ie; if the N802 is the pinnacle then why use more M&K's in their studios?

As for Abbey road - well do they shop every year to make sure nothing has come out that is better than B&W Matrix models they bought or were given - Chances are they're in Britain they're going to buy a British Brand. Way back then Audio Note wasn't even a company and the cost of import would have been high still is. Now B&W and a number of North American companies are big names. the average consumer thinks Bose first - so too perhaps does the RE thing B&W first - and both might be huge mistakes. Lots of pretty smart people bought Bose 301s and Acoustimass speakers - even R.E.s and smart people can make mistakes.

[Geoffcin]

Guys please, can we stay on topic.

On that note;

I want to add Proac, for making some of the best "little" speakers money can buy. Now everyone's in the monitor market, but back in the 80's Proac was the greatest small speaker that I ever heard.

[Woochifer]

I already said I have no problem with advertising because they have to compete with the other guy doing the same thing - I notice you left that out to go on your RGA attack - how typical of your straw men.

Can't have it both ways. You say that you have no problem with advertising, yet you praise Audio Note at length because they don't advertise and interject at every opportunity that their ads are paid by their dealers, as if it's a negative that AN would actually pay for their own ad. And then accusing those companies that do advertise of courting endorsements out of desperation. That's not having a problem? uh okay...


I made no speculation - Mr. Lucas uses other brands besides B&W such as M&K neither sound alike - so if there is some pinnacl of sound they're going for it would have to be EITHER B&W OR M&K. and i'm sure they have other brands used as well - like I say they have to use something after all - and it is spurious to assume that they have chosen the best. They have chosen a tool with which to do a job - that does not mean they chose the best tool - but that is certainly what the marketing intention is behind it for the speaker maker - Our speakers are best because George Lucas uses them - is certainly what B&W is hoping for or they would not post it. I stress I don't have any problem with them doing it - that's why you pay a marketing staff - and i'm sure there research shows that it nets them more sales.

Unless you actually know about the marketing arrangement or procurement process that was used, going on at length about B&W and their installation at Skywalker Sound sure sounds like speculation to me.


Hmm strictly because of marketing costs eh? I said that did I? Well no in fact I didn't say that another straw man.

Oh, but you make a helluva lot of inneuendo along those lines when you talk about how Audio Note does not advertise and yet their speakers cost so much less than the inferior N802.


Lower production costs - well they have higher overhead, they have marketing department which has nothing directly to do with the quality of the speakers, higher shipping costs and they don't sell as many N802s as they sell 303s. The N802 is a very nice looking loudspeaker - the Audio Notes are not - if the B&W converted over there would be no fancy yellow drivers a tweeter on top eyeball looking three way that looks and is a pretty mondo looking visual specimen. The marketing department would have a difficult time coming out and saying all you B&W's sorry mates but we were wrong for the last 20+ years with the tweeter on top and the kevlar. So here take this new model with a paper woofer and a two way.

Again, you're speculating on how much this overhead influences their pricing. B&W obviously has economies of scale that make sense for them to do their own cabinetry, driver manufacturing, and R&D. If it did not result in cost savings and/or benefits to product quality or process efficiency, then it would not make any business sense for them to do that.

And again, your comments about the looks of the B&Ws dismiss the simple possibility that a lot of people might just prefer how they sound.


B&W knows that Speakers like Audio Note can only sell the the niche market willing to give up looks for sound quality - But B&W to keep their station and profits up need a wider net than the niche. This is no insult to B&W - if I were running their company I would have my orders for the engineers: It has to be great looking it has to be well built and it has to sound as good as - or right there with - the big competitors and we need X amount of sales and X amount of profit.

Just because B&W sells some product lines that are more design conscious than others does not mean that those marching orders run throughout their entire product line. The N801 IMO is one of the ugliest behemoths out there right now, but it happens to be a damn good full range speaker that's the successor to one of the most successful high end speakers ever made.


The fact that the engineers there know that some small fry is making a better sounding product for less money is great - but the marketing guy knows what will sell in largel quantities to the widest consumer bass - and that is good looks. The accounting guy knows that well yeah we could make a better sounding product but the marketing guy told me we'll only sell maybe 1/10 as many because it will be ugly and we would have to use quality wood we'd have to completely re-tool for making or buying the drivers from an outside source which will considerably increase our costs, and at the same time such a change would alienate the people who bought our previous speakers which we had previously claimed was the best design. They have to work pretty close to what they've been doing in the past - and the changes have to be relatively minor.Yeah sorry engineers but umm you'll have to make do with the parameters we've set out for.

The thing that you left out in your wild speculative scenario is that people might simply buy something because it sounds good, and if it happens to look decent, all the better. Or a company might simply design a speaker that in its estimation sounds better than its competition in a particular price range? I certainly didn't have the design at the top of my considerations when I was auditioning speakers. That what I wound up with is not some overwhelmingly large hulk turned out to be a side benefit.


Boston Acoustics west coast guru has said the Audio Notes are better than anything they make - and Boston has the same "rights" to making the original Snells. My dealer has been badgering them to come out with a heritage line - they could use cheaper cabinets and parts but sell em for $400 - $600 and $900.00 K, J and E respectively and they would instantly according to both be a steal - same problem though - they DON'T LOOK right - they won't sell people won't buy in. It's a big risk to add a line that doesn't look good no matter how it sounds may not sell. For $900.00 the consumer could buy a 3 way Energy that takes up less room and looks awesome with silver looking drivers or some two way ugly fat box you need a stand for and it only has paper woofers and FOAM surrounds. Yeah I want the stuff that can stop bullits.

Unfortunately, Boston Acoustics is a company that has admittedly shifted their focus towards the lifestyle and architectural segment of the market. Keep in mind though that most of the Audio Notes are also a lot more expensive almost everything that Boston makes. Until they actually make these Heritage speakers that your dealer's pushing them into, no one has any idea how they would actually sound with cheaper cabinets and parts.

Also, for $900 there are plenty of consumers that might simply prefer the sound of those 3-way Energy speakers, regardless of the looks. With the grilles in place, nobody can see the drivers on those speakers anyway.


As for Abbey road - well do they shop every year to make sure nothing has come out that is better than B&W Matrix models they bought or were given - Chances are they're in Britain they're going to buy a British Brand. Way back then Audio Note wasn't even a company and the cost of import would have been high still is. Now B&W and a number of North American companies are big names. the average consumer thinks Bose first - so too perhaps does the RE thing B&W first - and both might be huge mistakes. Lots of pretty smart people bought Bose 301s and Acoustimass speakers - even R.E.s and smart people can make mistakes.

Again, you're speculating. Abbey Road is owned by EMI, which is a multinational company. All that we DO know is that they use a set of B&Ws in at least one of their studios, but we have no idea of what they use for near field monitoring, multichannel monitoring, or if the B&Ws are only used for far field listening.

Recording studios that I've visited or are familiar with typically use Mackie, JBL, Yamaha, and a number of other companies that don't even sell consumer speakers, so it's not like most recording engineers are thinking B&W first.

[Pat D]

I auditioned that speaker when it came out. In the demo that I heard, it did some very strange things with the tonal balance. The stereo imaging was definitely there and I remembered thinking that the dbx was truthfully doing exactly what Bose said that the 901 was supposed to do. Overall, I had a very mixed impression of the dbx because I didn't really care much for how it sounded, even though for projecting stereo imaging and big soundstage it was definitely different.

Later on, dbx marketed some lower priced models and rebadged them as BSR speakers (I believe that the dbx model you're referring to cost over $2,000 a pair in the mid-80s). These lower priced versions kept the polygon shape, but had fewer drivers. Eventually, I saw them getting sold for less than $200 a pair thru those full page clearance sale ads that Daktronics used to place in magazines like Stereo Review (remember the Fone Bone? or the LP noise cancellation processor? or that matrix processor that they marketed for the early stereo VCRs and Laserdisc players?).
I remember a couple of DBX speakers. There was the big one, but it was so omnidirectional I thought it was hard to place. They built a less complicated model with some drivers facing forward and on the inside side facing the other speaker. This I liked better. They had an electronic accessory which could adjust the stereo separation.

A seemingly more conventional technology speaker which holds the stereo image very well way off to the side is the Ethera Vitae. It probably has to do with the shape of the cabinets. Ethera is a small Ottawa based company.

http://www.ethera.com/

The NRC measurements can be found in the soundstage review:

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/ethera_vitae.htm

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/ethera_vitae/

Some years ago, when on a project in Ottawa, I spent a few hours listening to the Ethera Vitae in the home of the designer, Leo Lewis. One of the consultants I worked with also was associated with Leo and so I was able to arrange an audition very easily. I played a great variety of material and they sounded wonderful. The image stood up astonishingly well even well off to the side of the speakers. This is certainly a speaker well worth auditioning.

[RGA]

Can't have it both ways. You say that you have no problem with advertising, yet you praise Audio Note at length because they don't advertise and interject at every opportunity that their ads are paid by their dealers, as if it's a negative that AN would actually pay for their own ad. And then accusing those companies that do advertise of courting endorsements out of desperation. That's not having a problem? uh okay...

Umm sure I can - I don;t have a problem with advertising but by the same token I will defend Audio Note's choice not to. The fact that a dealer advertises is not Audio Note - I'm sure they have to run the advertising past Peter Qvortrup to be able to use his products name - but he didn't pay for it - he does not want to become a big company and he is frustrated as we speak that that's the way it's starting to head. I simply mention one particular KIND of advertising. I don't care if some outfit like B&W runs a full page ad telling people where to buy their speakers and some snazzy little phrase to help you remember them great good. The consumer pays for tht in the final product but that's up to them. IMO it looks desp[erate to name drop. Now it may not loomk desperate to YOU or 98% of the people on this board - but to me when i see a bombardment of advertising I wonder about if it was any good it would not need to be rammed down my throat. Now perhaps north Americans are used to this advertising - I mean thanks I know Coke is out there and I know Tiger Woods wears Nike - and obviously Nike is not desperate to sell their shoes - but it looks like they are more interested in keeping the name out there than anything else.

My dealer indicates that Audio Note is at a hefty disadvantage by not advertising - and even to you that should be obvious. Customers and I used to do it - want the brochure of the speakers I am auditioning to refer back to - many dealers will produce phtocopied reviews of the speakers or even have a glass prop with a review of the speakers - all of this has zero to do with the sound of the speakers - and because it ha zero to do with the sound Peter doesn't pay for it. So this does not mean i'm for or aainst advertising - and i don;t really care that they name drop - I understand WHY B&W does it - and i never said they GAVE Lucas the speakers - just that this does go on in the industry - whether in this specific case I don't know. B&W is maybe the biggest name high end speaker going - if a recording studio were to think of a speaker they might come to mind - and none of this has to do with the sound of the speakers.



Oh, but you make a helluva lot of inneuendo along those lines when you talk about how Audio Note does not advertise and yet their speakers cost so much less than the inferior N802.

Well IMO the AN's J and E are superior sounding speakers. I hope the inuendo was not that this was the result of advertising - of course B&W spends significant doillars on advertising that will be reflected back into the sale of their speakers. The reason as to why I feel the AN's are superior sounding though have little to do with how much B&W charges or whether they or how they advertise.



Again, you're speculating on how much this overhead influences their pricing. B&W obviously has economies of scale that make sense for them to do their own cabinetry, driver manufacturing, and R&D. If it did not result in cost savings and/or benefits to product quality or process efficiency, then it would not make any business sense for them to do that.

That's right - Many companies elect to do things in house and some elect to have it outsourced and some no doubt mix and match. Not every decision is about making something better cost no object -- but about making more of a profit. Plenty of companies in most all sectors have examples of companies that cheap out on parts to save costs to increase profits - sometimes no one notices sometimes companies get called for it and they get into some serious trouble. The company I worked for due to the competition was forced to skimp in order to compete - and the other company had a better foothold making the product. The company I worked for had to shift to the market demand for cheaper. The fact that the product is worse now than it was 20 years ago is irrelevant because if they kept the quality up the price would have had to be kept up and the company would have went under. Audio is less immune from this partly because it is not about a wear item but more of a toy or Want rather than Need item.




And again, your comments about the looks of the B&Ws dismiss the simple possibility that a lot of people might just prefer how they sound.

I don't dismiss that but you seem to dismiss that anyone would ever buy anything on looks alone. You also dismiss any possibility that advertising could EVER sell anyone on anything - hmm you should tell the ad exutives about this nugget of wisdom - advertising has no effect - neat!



Just because B&W sells some product lines that are more design conscious than others does not mean that those marching orders run throughout their entire product line. The N801 IMO is one of the ugliest behemoths out there right now, but it happens to be a damn good full range speaker that's the successor to one of the most successful high end speakers ever made.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it - most people I know and most of the reviews indicate how beautiful the B&W's Nautilus range is. Anytime you make a sporty looking fashion item not everyone is going to want it. But those speakers are designed with fashion in mind. How successful something is does not mean it's better - many including myself felt the much uglier Matrix series was a better sounding product.



The thing that you left out in your wild speculative scenario is that people might simply buy something because it sounds good, and if it happens to look decent, all the better. Or a company might simply design a speaker that in its estimation sounds better than its competition in a particular price range? I certainly didn't have the design at the top of my considerations when I was auditioning speakers. That what I wound up with is not some overwhelmingly large hulk turned out to be a side benefit.

I don't think that most consumers are like us however - my dealer has been in business over 30 years - most people know what they are going to buy before they even listen - they come in and say I want to listen to the B&W or the Paradigm - they listen for a bit and buy it. I think you give way way way way too much credit for the buying habits of most people - and to support my case that advertising LEADS the purchavse is the king of the speaker industry BOSE. Proof that some of the shoddiest systems with gross frequency response problems and generally horrid sound can sell more than the next top 3 speaker makers combined. Certainly, there IS a segment that are very consciencious audiophiles who will agonize like me for 4 years before they find something - but I seriously doubt I'm in the majority - if I were Bose would be out of business and about 90% of the rest of the stuff I've heard over the last 15 years would have gone under long ago - because I doubt people will hear it that differently.



Unfortunately, Boston Acoustics is a company that has admittedly shifted their focus towards the lifestyle and architectural segment of the market. Keep in mind though that most of the Audio Notes are also a lot more expensive almost everything that Boston makes. Until they actually make these Heritage speakers that your dealer's pushing them into, no one has any idea how they would actually sound with cheaper cabinets and parts.

The original Snells were expensive in their day - but I have heard the chipboard versions of the AN speakers - Boston would very likely be able to build a version with that cabinetry and with their size could sell them cheaper than AN can - Peter doesn't mind either - because he'll still make the premium versions that deeper pocketed Audiophiles would want and that Boston probably would have no interest in. But therein lies the problem - if Boston does it Audiophiles will say that Boston is the lower fi version - which of course is not what Boston would want if they are trying to gain a heightened reputation. I don;t see this happening personally - but it was something being talked about - the marketing team at Boston would have to figure out a way to do it. And owning the rights to Snell's original models - well they don;t sound anything like the AN's apparently - but all of this is a side issue.



Also, for $900 there are plenty of consumers that might simply prefer the sound of those 3-way Energy speakers, regardless of the looks. With the grilles in place, nobody can see the drivers on those speakers anyway.

This may be true - it would largely depend how close Boston could get to the AN sound - if they get close - well I seriously doubt consumers - unless influenced heavily by the looks - would prefer the sound of a $900.00 Energy - or the $4500.00Energy for that matter - but then these might be the same people who prefer the sound of the the Bose Acositimess playing Mozart over the Philharmonic doing it live. But hey Bose sells it so obviously it must sound good because appearance and advertising have nothing to do with buying decisions.




Again, you're speculating. Abbey Road is owned by EMI, which is a multinational company. All that we DO know is that they use a set of B&Ws in at least one of their studios, but we have no idea of what they use for near field monitoring, multichannel monitoring, or if the B&Ws are only used for far field listening.

Recording studios that I've visited or are familiar with typically use Mackie, JBL, Yamaha, and a number of other companies that don't even sell consumer speakers, so it's not like most recording engineers are thinking B&W first.

I don;t think you can say what MOST recording engineers are thinking of first - frankly I don't think most of them care other than it's a tool to do a job and preferably want a cheap tool. And this is the point - some speakers are designed for a recording studio environment and don't sound particularly good in a home environment.

My whole point was to illustrate that buying B&W because it has been advertised or even mentioned that it is used in a recording studio is not something that SHOULD in any way influence your buying decisions. For one so many speakers from so many comapnies are used in recording studios - but MANY don't feel the need to try and influence the consumer to buy their speakers.

I used Audio Note as an example simply because I know them better - but i'm sure recording studios use electrostats and panels which from their sites I don't see a page listing them all - it simply doesn;t mean anything to consumers who will actually listen a lot before they buy. If you want 20 pages worth of stuff to have so tht when you sell it you can make the E-Bay advertising look impressive then that's another story - I know that after 5 months if I had the B&W 705 I'd be thankful to have all those reviews and Lucas stuff so that I could unload the bleeding things.

[kexodusc]

Umm sure I can - I don;t have a problem with advertising but by the same token I will defend Audio Note's choice not to.
Oh, the naivety of the spoonfed :rolleyes:
There are many forms of adverstising, frequenting web-based forums is a very cost effective way of adverstising, but still advertising. Audio Note relies heavily on "word-of-mouth" advertising...when it comes from intelligent audiophiles, "word-of-mouth" can actually be a good way to sell your speakers

Peter Qvortrup - he does not want to become a big company and he is frustrated as we speak that that's the way it's starting to head.
This is the most insincere stance I've ever seen in the audio world...."Damn, my speakers are selling, I'm making a ton of money boxing up somebody else's quality drivers in somebody else's textbook, classic box design...I'm so pissed off...this is NOT what I want!!!" Yeah right. If Peter was so devoted to creating great sounding speakers at the lowest cost possible, he'd embrace a few more business models from the likes of B&W and Paradigm, etc to pass of lower costs to the consumer. No compromise needed.



IMO it looks desperate to name drop. Now it may not loomk desperate to YOU or 98% of the people on this board - but to me when i see a bombardment of advertising I wonder about if it was any good it would not need to be rammed down my throat. Now perhaps north Americans are used to this advertising - I mean thanks I know Coke is out there and I know Tiger Woods wears Nike - and obviously Nike is not desperate to sell their shoes - but it looks like they are more interested in keeping the name out there than anything else.

You overestimate the cost of advertising as a % of product cost. Most audio companies use print in consumer magazines to reach the market and create awareness. If the advertising helps generate enough marginal sales, allowing a company to further enjoy economies of scale, it becomes MORE cost effective to advertise than not. Essentially, good advertising LOWERS the cost of a product, it doesn't increase it!!! For companies like B&W, Paradigm, Klipsch, Yamaha, NAD, this makes sense.



My dealer indicates that Audio Note is at a hefty disadvantage by not advertising - and even to you that should be obvious.
This isn't true...First Audio Note is advertising...don't lie to yourself. There's more than 1 way to advertise. Second, Audio Note best serves its target market by NOT taking out full page ads in Stereophile at this point in time. Peter Q is a shrewd business person who knows a thing or two about Micheal Porter's marketing theories. Sneaky Pete knows that Audio Note ads in Stereophile (or whatever) will not increase enough extra sales to offset the cost. But he's rather rapidly expanding distribution network, so the name and product are getting the reach and frequency - two terms consistent with a solid marketing campaign.



all of this has zero to do with the sound of the speakers - and because it has zero to do with the sound Peter doesn't pay for it.
Here, your arguments lose the most credibility...1st, Audio Note's website probably wasn't free to design, or free to maintain...I'm sure they cost Peter SOME money,and yet the presence of that website in cyber space has no impact on the physical properties of my Uncle Rob's AN E's, J's K's, etc. Similarly, when Peter sends his dealer network (and potential dealers) AN speakers to try out, he absorbs the cost...but this form of advertising doesn't make the speakers sound any better either. Peter spends money to advertise his products, and that money doesn't always go directly to sound improvement.
Peter AIN'T the sweet little angel you think he is.



Plenty of companies in most all sectors have examples of companies that cheap out on parts to save costs to increase profits - sometimes no one notices sometimes companies get called for it and they get into some serious trouble.
Not too mention the countless examples provided by the Japanese when lower costs come WITHOUT sacrificng product quality and performance...ahem...Toyota, Yamaha, etc.


Audio is less immune from this partly because it is not about a wear item but more of a toy or Want rather than Need item.
This is true...but quality means more than just reliability and durability...it means doing the job it was designed to do with low rate of failure...period...so in that sense, cheap Sony receivers are of reasonably high quality. They're not designed to be invincible, just to work 95% of the time. Sometimes you pay an artificially high premium for the "perception of high quality"...I'll submit as examples, Bryston and Honda. Damn good products, but the quality perspective accounts for a huge component of cost in these business models...



You also dismiss any possibility that advertising could EVER sell anyone on anything - hmm you should tell the ad exutives about this nugget of wisdom - advertising has no effect - neat!
Most advertising doesn't brainswash...RGA, I suspect by your posts here that you truly don't know much about the advertising industry other than what anti-capitalism propoganda tells you...despite popular belief, advertising does NOT usually increase sales substantially. It does make people remember and associate though...at the very best, it capitalizes on impulse buyers. Most of the time it creates awareness and prompts people to investigate.
Coca-Cola, MacIntosh, Nike, GM, GE, and IBM are the worst advertisers of all time in terms of generating new sales. They're also the most frequently picked on. Ever wonder why Gas/Oil companies advertise? So do I, no new sales being generated here.



I don't think that most consumers are like us however - my dealer has been in business over 30 years - most people know what they are going to buy before they even listen - they come in and say I want to listen to the B&W or the Paradigm - they listen for a bit and buy it. I think you give way way way way too much credit for the buying habits of most people - and to support my case that advertising LEADS the purchavse is the king of the speaker industry BOSE. Proof that some of the shoddiest systems with gross frequency response problems and generally horrid sound can sell more than the next top 3 speaker makers combined.

Most consumers don't put $3000 of their student loan fund towards Wharfedale and Arcam gear like you and I either RGA...they don't have the time to research what makes a good speaker good...and they can't just listen, because in all honesty, even BOSE sounds good to an untrained ear. Sometimes Bose sounds good to trained ears that aren't necessarily looking for the most accurate stereo image reproduction. Bose delivers what it sells to people. Decent sound, great looks, excellent warranty and consumer support. Audiophiles are really a bit too hard on Bose. In all honesty though, it isn't magazine ads that sell Bose. If it was that easy, Samsung could be making zillions doing it right now too...for a very long time now it's been "word-of-mouth"...which is kind of funny when you think about it... Audio Note and BOSE aren't really that different after all!!!
:D

.

[spacedeckman]

Coke actually has data that shows if they back off the advertising their market share starts to drop. Granted it is only slightly, but, when you have such a high market share in a large industry, a fraction of a point makes a huge difference in the bottom line. This is the only mistake you made in an otherwise excellent post. There is a difference between growth advertising and "maintenence" advertising. Companies like Kia are doing growth advertising, Ford and GM are doing maintenence advertising, trying to maintain their market share. Sure they want to grow, but the process is more defensive in nature than offensive. If Kia makes mistakes right now it will be off the radar for many consumers, if Ford or GM makes a mistake it makes the evening news and people pay attention.

To bring this example into audio, if, say Audio Note went out of business tomorrow, the only mention would be in industry magazines in a paragraph or so tucked away in an industry magazine. If Bose went out of business tomorrow, it would be on every available news source. Bose is a name that attracts attention and can create an association with many people in the population. Same incident, different effect.

[Geoffcin]

OK guys, enough already. This thread was about the "Speaker hall of fame" not the issues of marketing, and certainly not the value of B&W vs. A/N. If you feel you want to continue this please take it into another post.

Last warning.

[kexodusc]

Hi Spacedeckman,
Actually I am aware of that fact...but my post was factually correct (if I do say so myself :D) and I didn't make a mistake. Check again - I said Coke is one of "the worst advertisers of all time in terms of generating new sales"
Key words being "new sales" as in market growth....market share retention is another subject.
But for generating new sales, consider: New Coke, OK Cola, Coke 2, C2, Vanilla Coke, Cherry Coke, etc...disasters (though some enjoyed brief short term success)

Geoffcin:
I appreciate your efforst to moderate, but there is more than enough interest in the continuation of the "side discussion" this thread has evolved into. Since we all seem to be respectful still (no name calling yet), I would respectfully ask that this be allowed to continue without interruption...these forums are, afterall, here for us, and it's not like we're preventing other people from posting with respect to the original thread title. What's the wost thing that could happen?
Thanks...

[spacedeckman]

I will grant you the "growth" aspect. C2, New Coke, etc prove that unconditonally. Not only were they bad products, they were poorly thought out, and poorly advertised. Proof the company is in a defensive posture rather than offensive. In their position, they really can't grow within the category much more, since there isn't enough room in the category. Advertising for them is like an investment "stop loss" order.

Okay, you argued your point. I will give you an A- and a half for the post.

[kexodusc]

Okay, you argued your point. I will give you an A- and a half for the post.

A - and a half???? Woo hoo!!! Too bad you weren't my IMC prof at OU (Boomer Sooner!!!)
:D

I've always thought Pepsi's been on the right track. They've used the same model/pop-star formula to sell their product for decades. If you're ever in Atlanta, go to the Coke Museum...amazing piece of Americana, and you can try out New Coke, which actually tastes better than Coke Classic according to all research (and my own opinion)...proof that superiority doesn't always sell either!!!
Cheers!

[spacedeckman]

they still use sugar, not corn sweetener.

I still maintain that New Coke was just a way to allow more corn sweetener in the old stuff, and pass it off. Old Coke was destined to return, but if they could have had two brands, one tasting more like Pepsi (sweeter, less carbonation) and the original that was now much cheaper to produce, they would have won. They got half, and still won.

[Geoffcin]

Geoffcin:
I appreciate your efforst to moderate, but there is more than enough interest in the continuation of the "side discussion" this thread has evolved into. Since we all seem to be respectful still (no name calling yet), I would respectfully ask that this be allowed to continue without interruption...these forums are, afterall, here for us, and it's not like we're preventing other people from posting with respect to the original thread title. What's the wost thing that could happen?
Thanks...

The thread is about Speakers. It's in the Speaker Forum. To post about the marketing models that Coke or Pepsi uses is far off topic and belongs in another forum

No one want's you to stop your thread, just move it to a more appropriate forum.

Unfortunalty the worst thing that could happen when a thread gets hijacked, has already. The thread has lost any member interest in the original "Speaker hall of fame" topic.

[spacedeckman]

It was just getting interesting.

[topspeed]

Since my thread has been completely derailed now, let me just push it right off the cliff while we're at it:

I've got two words for you RGA:
Prove It
You've made a lot of bold claims, most likely from such reliable sources as Peter Q and your a$$. If you want to take the entire audio industry to task for not doing things Peter's way, let's see some proof. B&W uses Tweeter On Top placement for marketing, eh? It has nothing to do with proper dispersion and time alignment as they purport? Maybe you're right, it's all a sham. Give me a link and prove it.

While you're at it, you state their engineers have been given orders to rank aesthetics over sound quality. OK, prove it.

You state B&W engineers think AN speakers sound better but are helpless to do anything about it. Prove it. (No links to AA threads with Peter stating such. If you're going to do that, you might as well include links from the tobacco industry telling us that cigarettes are safe )

Finally, you boldly claim that recording studios don't choose speakers because they are the best tool for the job. In fact, you imply they give it no thought at all, just whatever makes noise should do. Fine. Prove it.

If you would consider, if just for a moment, that you don't have golden ears (gasp!) and everyone will hear just as you do, then you might not catch so much heat. Believe it or not, not everyone will agree with you and Peter that AN's way is the only way. To think such is simply naive. I respect your right to preach about your favorite company but before you make sweeping generalizations and slander everyone else, you'd better have the facts to back it up.