Does "state of the art" matter?

[tube fan]

I auditioned it a few doors away from the two AN rooms at CES. The Teresonic Ingenium made my list as a top five rooms of CES performer. I understand anyone who prefers this speaker to the AN E. It may also be that my ear is more used to hearing the AN speaker sound. And the AN room also had the advantage of a much superior turntable and CD set-up. Still the AN E has considerably more low and high frequency extension and the ability to play siginificantly louder without compression. The Ingenium still had very good bass extension on acoustic unamplified music but had trouble with the heavy trance material that the AN E didn't have trouble with. It simply compresses earlier so it sounded somewhat thin and pinched on this material. The advantages are the clarity and speed of the midrange and articulation that is about as good as I have heard. Basically for me they were one/two in what I would buy because both were fairly affordable speakers - the Ingenium can be bought in a $10k version and the AN E in a $7500 version. I'd like to hear the Ingeniums with the AN front end kit. The digital especially. Soundhounds the last I was there pretty much connected an AN digital rig to almost everything. And in doing so I have heard better sound out of a lot of equipment that didn't remotely impress me. Linn's source first mantra holds some merit.

They connected a DAC zero through McIntosh Amplifiers to Cerwin Vega XLS 215 speakers and it sounded really quite good with Sinead O'Connor - a little horn sound is recognized but for the price of the speakers and what they can do - even if the woofers look like party condoms - you have to tip your cap to what they bring to the table. http://www.hd.ca/speakers/cerwinvega/xls215.php

I agree with most of this. The Audio Note system could play everything (from house, trance, big band jazz, classical, male, and female records) to live levels. Everything sounded wonderful (and this was using digital). However, I preferred the Teresonic. I thought the Teresonic was clearer, with better high end. Vocals were fantastic. Yes, the Teresonic system sounded more like my Fulton J based system, and I have loved the Fultons for decades. However the Audio Note system was digital only. I hope AN brings a tt to the 2011 CAS. Both speakers are VERY easy to drive (the Teresonic system was using a 2 1/2 watt amp, and the AN was using the stupendous Jinro. Yes, both are SET amps.

[Florian]

"Does state of the art matter to the normal audiophile?"

In my opinion only for inspirational purposes. Its like having the picture of an Audi RS6 or something in your mind while you buy that 2.0 TDI Audi 4 with the "sports" package. Its cool to have a mega system picture somewhere and you can get ideas from it. There are some really state of the art audio rooms on Audiogon. They have incredible acoustic treatments and they inspire me to try a little bit of that in my own home and its fun, even if i don't spend that type of cash.

-Flo

[Raj J]

hey Ajani,

looks like you caused quite a stir...
well I guess for what my 2 cents says - if you can afford it go for it! if you can't stop the sour grapes and just enjoy what you have!
take it easy mate,
RJ

[Ajani]

hey Ajani,

looks like you caused quite a stir...
well I guess for what my 2 cents says - if you can afford it go for it! if you can't stop the sour grapes and just enjoy what you have!
take it easy mate,
RJ

I hope you're not under the impression that I'm calling the grapes sour...

I actually have a very similar philosophy: there's always better available if you have the time to research it and the money to afford it... but, you can find a great sounding system for virtually any budget...

What I've always found amusing in HiFi is how audiophiles will say things like my $15K setup gives me 95% of the sound of a $150K setup, and anyone who spends that kind of money has more money than brains... YET, that same person will be offended when someone with a $1.5K system claims to get 95% of the performance of a $15K setup... Both are just cases of the fox calling the grapes sour...

[tube fan]

I hope you're not under the impression that I'm calling the grapes sour...

I actually have a very similar philosophy: there's always better available if you have the time to research it and the money to afford it... but, you can find a great sounding system for virtually any budget...

What I've always found amusing in HiFi is how audiophiles will say things like my $15K setup gives me 95% of the sound of a $150K setup, and anyone who spends that kind of money has more money than brains... YET, that same person will be offended when someone with a $1.5K system claims to get 95% of the performance of a $15K setup... Both are just cases of the fox calling the grapes sour...

I'm not offended, but I still maintain that you can't get much for $2000, but can get near SOTA for $15,000. What's your $1,500 system?

[RGA]

I hope you're not under the impression that I'm calling the grapes sour...

I actually have a very similar philosophy: there's always better available if you have the time to research it and the money to afford it... but, you can find a great sounding system for virtually any budget...

What I've always found amusing in HiFi is how audiophiles will say things like my $15K setup gives me 95% of the sound of a $150K setup, and anyone who spends that kind of money has more money than brains... YET, that same person will be offended when someone with a $1.5K system claims to get 95% of the performance of a $15K setup... Both are just cases of the fox calling the grapes sour...

Personally I am tired of reading anyone who discusses audio in terms of percentages. It doesn't really mean anything - just as looking at frequency graphs don't mean much (though something). A system that is .03db up at 3khz and mostly flat everyplace else may be deemed more accurate but it may be very irritating - conversely a speaker that is more all over the place and 3db down at that same frequency may be all day listenable and not the least bit off putting - so much for percentages.

And 95% of something else is entirely arbitrary. The saying "The devil is in the details" holds true. That 5% or 1% or .01% improvement could be the difference between a good system and a "pure magic" inspires your soul kind of difference.

The only time a percent comment makes some sense is within a company line-up. The person/reviewer is trying to say that one model's bass output is X factor better or the treble is X factor smoother. That X factor - however it is described may be the difference between mediocrity and life changing audio experience so I don't discount it.

As for $2k budgets or $15k budgets or $150k budgets. The best systems I have heard approach the $150k+ budgets. Nothing at $2k or $15k or $30K that I have heard approach the "X-Factor" "Magic Factor" of those super expensive systems. That doesn't mean the odd $15k system won't beat the odd $150k system - depends on the competency of the designers but out of all the companies who make $2k, 15k, 30k $150k systems the latter always beats the smaller dollar systems. It is true with virtually every speaker maker, amp maker, source maker. The higher priced gear almost always sounds better than lower priced gear.

And perhaps your complaint is that there is no one in your area selling elite gear so you can't hear any of it. Just be patient and eventually you will and you'll know why people spend the money on it.

Granted it sucks to have the ears for the best stuff and the budget that will never be able to afford it - but denying its superiority is just wrong IMO.

[Ajani]

Personally I am tired of reading anyone who discusses audio in terms of percentages. It doesn't really mean anything - just as looking at frequency graphs don't mean much (though something). A system that is .03db up at 3khz and mostly flat everyplace else may be deemed more accurate but it may be very irritating - conversely a speaker that is more all over the place and 3db down at that same frequency may be all day listenable and not the least bit off putting - so much for percentages.

And 95% of something else is entirely arbitrary. The saying "The devil is in the details" holds true. That 5% or 1% or .01% improvement could be the difference between a good system and a "pure magic" inspires your soul kind of difference.

The only time a percent comment makes some sense is within a company line-up. The person/reviewer is trying to say that one model's bass output is X factor better or the treble is X factor smoother. That X factor - however it is described may be the difference between mediocrity and life changing audio experience so I don't discount it.

As for $2k budgets or $15k budgets or $150k budgets. The best systems I have heard approach the $150k+ budgets. Nothing at $2k or $15k or $30K that I have heard approach the "X-Factor" "Magic Factor" of those super expensive systems. That doesn't mean the odd $15k system won't beat the odd $150k system - depends on the competency of the designers but out of all the companies who make $2k, 15k, 30k $150k systems the latter always beats the smaller dollar systems. It is true with virtually every speaker maker, amp maker, source maker. The higher priced gear almost always sounds better than lower priced gear.

That would be essentially my point... whether someone claims that a $1.5K system is as good as $15K systems OR that $15K setups are as good as $150K setups are equally preposterous...

Percentages also don't mean anything to anyone other than the person buying the gear... Your 95% could seem more like 50% to me...

And perhaps your complaint is that there is no one in your area selling elite gear so you can't hear any of it. Just be patient and eventually you will and you'll know why people spend the money on it.

Granted it sucks to have the ears for the best stuff and the budget that will never be able to afford it - but denying its superiority is just wrong IMO.

HUH? I don't deny the superiority of more expensive gear... You might be confused because of my other thread about relative prices in the UK: My main point there is that much of pricing is arbitrary, and many of us aren't as good listeners as we think/claim we are... Not that all high priced stuff is a rip off... I'm sure there is always better available when you have more money at your disposal...

[Ajani]

I'm not offended, but I still maintain that you can't get much for $2000, but can get near SOTA for $15,000. What's your $1,500 system?

I don't have one... I would never claim that a $1.5K system is near SOTA... Nor that a $15K one is...

I believe an enjoyable system can be had for $1.5K and an even better one can be had with more money...

[tube fan]

I don't have one... I would never claim that a $1.5K system is near SOTA... Nor that a $15K one is...

I believe an enjoyable system can be had for $1.5K and an even better one can be had with more money...

Well, I DO think that you can get near SOTA for $15,000. My main system compared favorably with any I heard at the 2011 CAS show. Yes, of course, IMO.
System: Fulton J speakers, Mystere CA-21 preamp, AR D70 amp,
Fosgate phono, Auditorium 23 tranny, VPI Scoutmaster, Benz Ruby 3 cartridge.

[RGA]

HUH? I don't deny the superiority of more expensive gear... You might be confused because of my other thread about relative prices in the UK: My main point there is that much of pricing is arbitrary, and many of us aren't as good listeners as we think/claim we are... Not that all high priced stuff is a rip off... I'm sure there is always better available when you have more money at your disposal...

Well and the other factor is that some companies are simply more efficient. Remember just because you may be a good audio engineer doesn't necessarily make you a good businessman. In other words one company may be able to make an amp and sell it for $1k while the other company is less efficient and makes the same kind of thing for $2k. So there is lots to consider with pricing. And we have not even started on the labor costs. Building in China versus countries where they actually want to treat workers reasonably fairly. So in other words overhead costs.

And I don't think your other thread is preposterous or that $15k systems can't beat $150k systems. It really all depends on several factors:

1) The overall design of the gear.
2) what aspects of the sound are most critical
3) the size of the room and volume requirements
4) and what you noted - the personal taste aspect when 95% better to me may be 50% better to you.

I have heard several systems in the $15k range that I would take in a second over a LOT of $150k rooms with very big name gear. UHF magazine noted this many years ago and it is still on their website as a warning to not just assume money is going to get you there - or Stereophile class A ratings etc.

Gerard's note I still remember "In fact there are tremendous barriers to high fidelity. Most of the merchants claiming to sell hi-fi wouldn't recognize it if the RCA dog bit them on the ankle. They have never heard it themselves, and they don't care whether you ever do or not. They will try to sell you boxes, some of them cheap. some of them expensive, bearing famous names. Most of it will not be hi-fi equipment."

CES is about the best of the best - but IMO a lot of it is just expensive and even some of the stuff that sounded excellent was ridiculously priced to my ear (but value is somewhat dependent on your income level) - some people think $8k is crazy for speakers while others spend that on Interconnects.

[RGA]

I believe an enjoyable system can be had for $1.5K and an even better one can be had with more money...

Ultimately it depends what you can live without and the size of room. I think you can most certainly create an enjoyable system for $1.5k.

In fact I know I can create one for even less than that. Off the top of my head:

Speakers: Audio Note AX Two standmount $700 with stands - add $100.

Amplifier - Rotel RA-02, Jolida 102b ~$500

Source - Grant Fidelity Tube DAC-09 ($225) for USB from computer or to help out whatever disc spinner you happen to own.

Might be interesting to try GF's $575 tube integrated amp instead of the Jolida or Rotel since it has more features and very likely first rate build quality. http://shop.grantfidelity.com/Shugua...headphone.html

Might be a hundred or two over but I am betting it would be a very nice system if acoustic instruments are you thing.

[tube fan]

Ultimately it depends what you can live without and the size of room. I think you can most certainly create an enjoyable system for $1.5k.

In fact I know I can create one for even less than that. Off the top of my head:

Speakers: Audio Note AX Two standmount $700 with stands - add $100.

Amplifier - Rotel RA-02, Jolida 102b ~$500

Source - Grant Fidelity Tube DAC-09 ($225) for USB from computer or to help out whatever disc spinner you happen to own.

Might be interesting to try GF's $575 tube integrated amp instead of the Jolida or Rotel since it has more features and very likely first rate build quality. http://shop.grantfidelity.com/Shugua...headphone.html

Might be a hundred or two over but I am betting it would be a very nice system if acoustic instruments are you thing.

Cost of analogue units? I need something that will play at real live levels. I'm NOT interested in background music. I listen to my Ipod at the gym, but it is NOT what I consider hifi! To get a system that will sound like live music costs more than $2000. Yes, IMO.

[RGA]

Cost of analogue units? I need something that will play at real live levels. I'm NOT interested in background music. I listen to my Ipod at the gym, but it is NOT what I consider hifi! To get a system that will sound like live music costs more than $2000. Yes, IMO.

And I also agree with you. Like I said - the system I mentioned is a compromised kind of system - ie; a bedroom system that lie in bed with at midnight kind of deal. For analog we could switch out the CD player and add a Project Debut II which comes with its own phono stage. And for louder levels the AZ Two floorstander is about $1100. But it still won't play to deafening levels. The AZ Three is more robust but the speakers themselves are $1500.

Still the AZ Three (and these MUST be placed in corners or they sound all over the place) with a more robust amplifier I still believe can be done on a budget. But it will be in the $2300 price range.

And of course this all illustrates the point that you have to spend more to get more.

It's not just about getting the speakers that will fill the space - it's about keeping the quality level up while filling the larger space. And keeping the quality of the amplification and sources.

And then factor in the music you listen to. I listen to everything so it rules out some high quality budget speakers like the Magnepan 1.7. As good as they sound - for around half the price my dealer also carries the "shock horror" Cerwin Vega CLS 215 (reviewed and recommended by Soundstage incidentally http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/c...ega_cls215.htm )

Now this is a very high bang for buck speaker based on my relatively short audition but with music you would not expect to play on it - good female vocals but I suspect the treble would become an issue on long sessions. Still it can really rock and play loud and fill a large room on the cheap. It's enjoyable! But what will run it for cheap. I would probably go with Rotel - the dual 15 inch woofers will require some power. Rotel has power on the relative cheap and sounds better than your average SS at often considerably more money.

[Feanor]

Ultimately it depends what you can live without and the size of room. I think you can most certainly create an enjoyable system for $1.5k.

In fact I know I can create one for even less than that. Off the top of my head:

Speakers: Audio Note AX Two standmount $700 with stands - add $100.

Amplifier - Rotel RA-02, Jolida 102b ~$500

Source - Grant Fidelity Tube DAC-09 ($225) for USB from computer or to help out whatever disc spinner you happen to own.

Might be interesting to try GF's $575 tube integrated amp instead of the Jolida or Rotel since it has more features and very likely first rate build quality. http://shop.grantfidelity.com/Shugua...headphone.html

Might be a hundred or two over but I am betting it would be a very nice system if acoustic instruments are you thing.

A pretty good recommendation, RGA. Maybe not exactly what I'd choose, but I agree that an enjoyable system is possible for < $2000.

Cost of analogue units? I need something that will play at real live levels. I'm NOT interested in background music. I listen to my Ipod at the gym, but it is NOT what I consider hifi! To get a system that will sound like live music costs more than $2000. Yes, IMO.

"Real live levels" are your personal preference, TF. I've never need "live levels" (in dB terms) to enjoy music or even feel I'm listening to something resembling live performance. The 100 dB, that you mentioned, is absurd in the home, IMO, and of course, really bad for your hearing.

[tube fan]

100 dbs? I only listen to my wife's house, trance or pop at 100 dbs.

RGA's proposed analogue system looks interesting I must admit. I loved my Spica TC50s in my office, and they were cheap. With their sub, they could play at live levels. I still prefer the Spica to my current Gallo Strata office speakers.

[Ajani]

Well and the other factor is that some companies are simply more efficient. Remember just because you may be a good audio engineer doesn't necessarily make you a good businessman. In other words one company may be able to make an amp and sell it for $1k while the other company is less efficient and makes the same kind of thing for $2k. So there is lots to consider with pricing. And we have not even started on the labor costs. Building in China versus countries where they actually want to treat workers reasonably fairly. So in other words overhead costs.

And I don't think your other thread is preposterous or that $15k systems can't beat $150k systems. It really all depends on several factors:

1) The overall design of the gear.
2) what aspects of the sound are most critical
3) the size of the room and volume requirements
4) and what you noted - the personal taste aspect when 95% better to me may be 50% better to you.

I have heard several systems in the $15k range that I would take in a second over a LOT of $150k rooms with very big name gear. UHF magazine noted this many years ago and it is still on their website as a warning to not just assume money is going to get you there - or Stereophile class A ratings etc.

Gerard's note I still remember "In fact there are tremendous barriers to high fidelity. Most of the merchants claiming to sell hi-fi wouldn't recognize it if the RCA dog bit them on the ankle. They have never heard it themselves, and they don't care whether you ever do or not. They will try to sell you boxes, some of them cheap. some of them expensive, bearing famous names. Most of it will not be hi-fi equipment."

CES is about the best of the best - but IMO a lot of it is just expensive and even some of the stuff that sounded excellent was ridiculously priced to my ear (but value is somewhat dependent on your income level) - some people think $8k is crazy for speakers while others spend that on Interconnects.

Oh I have no issue with the idea that based on tastes a specific $15K setup can be preferred to a $150K one, but the idea that a $15K system is near SOTA and as good as ANY $150K, $500K, $1M, etc system is laughable.. I don't believe the person would have enough experience with such systems to make that determination in the first place...

Despite what many claim, this hobby is very much about subtlety and learning to listen... So claiming that in a quick audition at a show I didn't hear anything superior about a $300K setup and the $20K one I have at home, is a joke... Until you spend real time directly comparing the two, you really have no idea how much you may be missing...

[Ajani]

Well, I DO think that you can get near SOTA for $15,000. My main system compared favorably with any I heard at the 2011 CAS show. Yes, of course, IMO.

Well that is the point: such an observation is only valid to you... Someone who owns or has substantial experience with one of those ultra expensive systems might accuse you of being deaf or just calling the grapes sour because you can't afford it...

[tube fan]

Well that is the point: such an observation is only valid to you... Someone who owns or has substantial experience with one of those ultra expensive systems might accuse you of being deaf or just calling the grapes sour because you can't afford it...

I'm a huge fan of blind testing to remove all bias, both in wines and in audio equipment. And, no, I'm certainly not deaf! I hated early ss and digital when most were praising them. Does ANYTHING in my reference system look like someone who was deaf would love? BTW, I've been quite lucky, and CAN afford almost any audio system as any wines. My wine cellar is stocked with great wines even some that cost $100 way back in 1982. Of course, that was for Mouton-Rothschild, Margaux, Haut-Brion, and Cheval Blanc. Yes, most of my cellar is stocked with wines that cost less than $30, like the 1982 Pichon Lalande (my favorite Bordaux excepting for the 1945 Mouton). I am perfectly ready to buy expensive audio components, IF they sound markedly superior to mine.

[RGA]

I'm a huge fan of blind testing to remove all bias, both in wines and in audio equipment. And, no, I'm certainly not deaf! I hated early ss and digital when most were praising them. Does ANYTHING in my reference system look like someone who was deaf would love? BTW, I've been quite lucky, and CAN afford almost any audio system as any wines. My wine cellar is stocked with great wines even some that cost $100 way back in 1982. Of course, that was for Mouton-Rothschild, Margaux, Haut-Brion, and Cheval Blanc. Yes, most of my cellar is stocked with wines that cost less than $30, like the 1982 Pichon Lalande (my favorite Bordaux excepting for the 1945 Mouton). I am perfectly ready to buy expensive audio components, IF they sound markedly superior to mine.

I never really like the comparison of audio equipment and wine or any food item. Wine prices are dictated more on the market than expense of creating the actual wine. Indeed, I know plenty of people who prefer Guinness to any wine no matter how expensive - if you don't like the taste of wine - it really doesn't matter how much you pay - you still are not going to like wine. Yet even people who don't necessarily care about audio - can generally tell which sounds better. And it doesn't take a blind test to tell you which sounds better.

The main reason I don't put a lot of trust in a blind test to make a decision on is that I have done such a test sighted, then blind then sighted. Sighted I preferred a CD player to several others. This test was level matched through a line level headphone amplifier that could connect 8 sources and 8 headphones. You could wear the headphones connect the CD players, level match them put the same CD in each player and play them all at the same time. Someone else can flip the switch and you would not know what CD player you were listening to.

Sighted I chose A. Blind - I really had some difficulty and didn't pass to statistical significance. Although I was "trying" and not really listening the way I would normally listen (hence what is known as a test stress and this never goes away no matter how the test is done). Anyway, I didn't pass.

With that knowledge the DBT lover should expect the following: Ahh - I know that blind I can't tell a difference so all the players sound the same! So I should buy the cheapest model that has the features I need. Trouble was that as soon as I went back to my normal sighted test I still could not get passed the fact that A sounded better. So what do you do here? You buy the cheapest one because you failed a test (that isn't really testing normal listening habits and has its own test stress bias factor) or do you say ok I failed this test but unit A continues to sound better sighted (and level matched). Gotta go with the end result. In this particular case while I did think A sounded better it wasn't better enough for me to really care all that much about it. Though it was a mid priced unit and not one of the more expensive ones interestingly enough.

Frankly if the differences are so close that you feel you need a blind test to separate the differences then whatever difference it is probably isn't really worth the extra money.

I suppose I do have one advantage with the gear that I like. SET, AN speakers, and no filter zero times oversampling sources. SET amps measure so poorly they will easily be detected in blind tests, and AN digital measures so different than anything else that it too will be detected in blind sessions. And that leaves speakers - the least necessary of the lot to do such tests.

[tube fan]

RGA, I am talking about longterm blind listening tests. For example, when I compared the Fosgate phono unit to my AR SP8 phono section, I played dozens of records over a period of two weeks. In blind listening tests, I focus on the music, and rate each record (on a 100 points scale) for each of the units under consideration. No time pressure whatsoever. If one unit produces significantly higher scores, it's my winner.

[JoeE SP9]

I agree with tube fan. It's been my experience that blind testing over a long term does reveal small differences in gear. Short term testing as usually practiced in most DBT's doesn't reveal anything other than no one is able to hear any difference under the test conditions.

LTLT (Long term listening test) is the only way to hear what a component is doing or not doing.

[Raj J]

I hope you're not under the impression that I'm calling the grapes sour...

I actually have a very similar philosophy: there's always better available if you have the time to research it and the money to afford it... but, you can find a great sounding system for virtually any budget...

What I've always found amusing in HiFi is how audiophiles will say things like my $15K setup gives me 95% of the sound of a $150K setup, and anyone who spends that kind of money has more money than brains... YET, that same person will be offended when someone with a $1.5K system claims to get 95% of the performance of a $15K setup... Both are just cases of the fox calling the grapes sour...

yes! there is always second hand out there, carefully used gear that is very satisfying, and very affordable, that's how I started! The main thing that makes me happy is to see the person really enjoying his/her music no matter what kind of audio system they have. I truly don't care if they have spent a million bucks or just one dollar! As long as they are enjoying their music, that's all that matters. Why not go ahead and ask them that question? you'll be surprised...

well it's 7:35pm now, I'm clocking off at the office heading straight home. daughter has gone off to camp and the good wife is staying over at a friends place. I will be meeting Kenny Burrel, Ray Charles and Liz Wright tonight accompanied with the usual premium larger...
have a good one, cheers!

[filecat13]

My questions are meant to determine whether hearing the SOTA system really helped you... I doubt even you believe that you needed to hear the SOTA to like the speakers you have now... So whether you hate my sarcasm, my point is that hearing SOTA is irrelevant to buying decisions (unless you are actually aiming to buy a SOTA system)...

Also, you don't have to give them any "credibility", as my questions are already credible. Your story on the other hand, while entertaining, added nothing to this discussion...

I'd forgotten about this until I got spammed back to the forum by another thread I'd subscribed to. Your skepticism deserves a response, and I neglected to do so.

As simple as it gets.

1. I went to CAS with no intent to purchase.
2. I heard JBL Everest II loudspeakers while there.
3. I was blown away by the MF and HF produced by those horns. Best of show IMO, despite the problematic room.
4. I went back to that room more than once to be sure I really liked high-priced horns that much.
5. I knew I could not afford $66,000 speakers.
6. The dealer had $44,000 JBL K2 speakers with similar horns/drivers sitting unused on the same room and had no plans to hook them up. (Why bring them?)
7. As the show closed for the day, we prevailed on him to hook them up after most everyone had left.
8. Upon hearing them that one time I was compelled to get them. They were nearly as good as the SOTA K2s (and available for less than 44k).
9. Without hearing those unobtainable (to me) SOTA Everests I would never have desired to hear the K2s and decided to purchase them. I cannot think of a logical sequence in which I would have sought out a dealer to listen to K2s before going to the show, since I was not in the market for expensive speakers.
10. Hearing $66k speakers, then hearing how very close much cheaper speakers are makes a (less than) $44,000 expenditure seem "reasonable," whereas, going out to look/listen/buy $44k speakers seems "unreasonable" to me. That's why I'd never go to the trouble of seeking a hard-to-find dealer to get the speakers I ended up with.

At least my original story was entertaining. Thanks for that.

[Feanor]

I'd forgotten about this until I got spammed back to the forum by another thread I'd subscribed to. Your skepticism deserves a response, and I neglected to do so.




As simple as it gets.

1. I went to CAS with no intent to purchase.
2. I heard JBL Everest II loudspeakers while there.
3. I was blown away by the MF and HF produced by those horns. Best of show IMO, despite the problematic room.
4. I went back to that room more than once to be sure I really liked high-priced horns that much.
5. I knew I could not afford $66,000 speakers.
6. The dealer had $44,000 JBL K2 speakers with similar horns/drivers sitting unused on the same room and had no plans to hook them up. (Why bring them?)
7. As the show closed for the day, we prevailed on him to hook them up after most everyone had left.
8. Upon hearing them that one time I was compelled to get them. They were nearly as good as the SOTA K2s (and available for less than 44k).
9. Without hearing those unobtainable (to me) SOTA Everests I would never have desired to hear the K2s and decided to purchase them. I cannot think of a logical sequence in which I would have sought out a dealer to listen to K2s before going to the show, since I was not in the market for expensive speakers.
10. Hearing $66k speakers, then hearing how very close much cheaper speakers are makes a (less than) $44,000 expenditure seem "reasonable," whereas, going out to look/listen/buy $44k speakers seems "unreasonable" to me. That's why I'd never go to the trouble of seeking a hard-to-find dealer to get the speakers I ended up with.

At least my original story was entertaining. Thanks for that.

Filecat13, you luck JBLophile you, congrats. Enjoy the K2's.

For sure I wish I had you problems vis-à-vis SOTA. For me spending $44k on speakers would be only slightly more absurd than spending the same amount on an automobile.

[filecat13]

Filecat13, you luck JBLophile you, congrats. Enjoy the K2's.

For sure I wish I had you problems vis-à-vis SOTA. For me spending $44k on speakers would be only slightly more absurd than spending the same amount on an automobile.

Maybe that's why I drive a six-year-old Kia.