Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 179
  1. #26
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    6,777
    Quote Originally Posted by pixelthis
    < Snip all the insults and other name calling >

    Which is why I call you "rich on paper" rather than rich in Texas, I meant no offense,
    its just that when you are ready to "cash in" dont be surprized if your "assets" wont buy a loaf of bread.
    Thats what happens in dying civilizations.
    But, hey, you at least have the "here and now"
    Thanks to the fact that I work for Texas Instruments, the world's third largest chip maker, my 401K is healthy and as can best be predicted will stay well ahead of inflation. I'll be very surprised if my assets don't buy bread, but thank you for your concern just the same.

    BTW, you don't have to explain your reasoning behind the name calling. I just assume you were the school yard bully in Kindergarten and that trait has followed you through your life.

  2. #27
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    Quote Originally Posted by blackraven
    The M6 is a totally different car. The 650 use to be the 645. There are series 3,5,6&7 BMW's. The M series is in a class by itself.
    True. The M's break a lot more.

  3. #28
    Forum Regular pixelthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    tuscaloosa
    Posts
    5,528

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
    Thanks to the fact that I work for Texas Instruments, the world's third largest chip maker, my 401K is healthy and as can best be predicted will stay well ahead of inflation. I'll be very surprised if my assets don't buy bread, but thank you for your concern just the same.

    BTW, you don't have to explain your reasoning behind the name calling. I just assume you were the school yard bully in Kindergarten and that trait has followed you through your life.
    Sorry, but when anybody talks about "living" in the here and now they are showing their
    ignorance, and sometimes my patience runs out.
    The "here and now" is a result of the "past" you care so little about, and when the future is the "here and now" it will be the result of what you're doing NOW.
    aND SINCE MOST LIVING IN THE "HERE AND NOW" CARE so little for the past, well, that carries over to the future as well.
    Its all threads woven together, basically. You cant fart without the contribution from the past you dismiss so lightly.
    And my 401k is in gold backed stuff, I KNOW mine will be there
    LG 42", integra 6.9, B&W 602s2, CC6 center, dm305rears, b&w
    sub asw2500
    Panny DVDA player
    sharp Aquos BLU player
    pronto remote, technics antique direct drive TT
    Samsung SACD/DVDA player
    emotiva upa-2 two channel amp

  4. #29
    Forum Regular pixelthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    tuscaloosa
    Posts
    5,528

    Cool

    And pointing out somebodies ignorance is not being a "bully".
    You can do something about being ignorant.
    Now, if I picked on you for being a yankee, an affliction you can't help...
    LG 42", integra 6.9, B&W 602s2, CC6 center, dm305rears, b&w
    sub asw2500
    Panny DVDA player
    sharp Aquos BLU player
    pronto remote, technics antique direct drive TT
    Samsung SACD/DVDA player
    emotiva upa-2 two channel amp

  5. #30
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    6,777
    Quote Originally Posted by pixelthis
    And pointing out somebodies ignorance is not being a "bully".
    You can do something about being ignorant.
    Now, if I picked on you for being a yankee, an affliction you can't help...
    What do you mean "if"? Carpetbagger comes to mind...

    The intention of my post was to contribute a hypothetical counter to a subject that has been beaten to death, has no winner or loser, and at the same time attempt to call the guy's bluff regarding who he's talked to. Looks to me like he was in the same conference room as opposed to being on a first name basis with Mr. Fisher, Mr. Marantz & Mr. Bozak. He created a false impression of himself and was called on it. Simple as that. Let's put it this way Pix... I'd give anything to have my old Pioneer SX-450 back as it would "connect me with my past." Sometimes when I turn on my SX-251 and CRANK it, it satisfies my big volume craving.

  6. #31
    Forum Regular blackraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,421
    Hey Rich, I know what you mean. I like the feeling of nostalgia with old equipment or music. I still have my old 1970's technic's integrated amp which is built like a beast. Every now and then, I like to listen to it along with some 70's and early 80's music with my wife. It brings back good memories to us of simpler times when we were living in Tulsa and I was in medical school. I have to admit though, that todays equipment sounds better but is not necessarily built better. That old 40wpc amp weighs a ton for what it is and its build quality is excellent. They just don't makem like that any more except on high end equipment. I think I paid $150 for that amp!
    Pass Labs X250 amp, BAT Vk-51se Preamp,
    Thorens TD-145 TT, Bellari phono preamp, Nagaoka MP-200 Cartridge
    Magnepan QR1.6 speakers
    Luxman DA-06 DAC
    Van Alstine Ultra Plus Hybrid Tube DAC
    Dual Martin Logan Original Dynamo Subs
    Parasound A21 amp
    Vintage Luxman T-110 tuner
    Magnepan MMG's, Grant Fidelity DAC-11, Class D CDA254 amp
    Monitor Audio S1 speakers, PSB B6 speakers
    Vintage Technic's Integrated amp
    Music Hall 25.2 CDP
    Adcom GFR 700 AVR
    Cables- Cardas, Silnote, BJC
    Velodyne CHT 8 sub

  7. #32
    Music / Hi-Fi enthusiast Les Adams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    100
    Gentlemen, there is room in our world for all to express opinion, but I believe it is polite to do so without condemning, insulting or dismissing opposing views.

    I have been involved in hi-fi since the 1970's. I started out with two mono tape recorders using the internal valve amps to drive home made speakers to get stereo from my Garrard SP25 with Decca Deram Ceramic cartridge! I eventually ended up with a Quad 33/303, Thorens TD125 / Shure V15 III and Spendor BC1's that were later traded for JBL L100's (as I played mostly rock). I ran that system for many years, till the end of the 90's in fact when I started to upgrade and my current setup is listed below.

    I was satistfied with the old system untill I explored the more modern equipment and discovered how much better is was..and still is! My Garrard 401 is a "vintage" turntable but I don't use it because it is old, I use it because it sounds good, if it didn't it would be on the same scrap heap I threw my JBL's on 6 years ago! BUT... Some people enjoy the "vintage" sound or just get pleasure from keeping the old gear running, just as many people enjoy owning and driving vintage cars. Even the owners of these vehicles will mostly admit that they do not compare technically with today's vehicles, but it gives them pleasure to drive them. Personally I don't get it, but what harm does their opinion do to me or you? None!

    I drive a 3.2 BMW Z4M... would I ever go back to driving the Ford Cortina (Taurus) I dove in the 70's? Never, but some people love nostalgia and probably adore their old Ford like a baby and pobably look after it better than I do my BMW which will be traded in when I get bored with it!

    Now, which of us is right or wrong? The answer is none of us. We are just different and I believe we should celebrate our differences rather than condemn or ridicule others for expressing an opinion or passion.
    STEREO

    Garrard 401 Turntable mounted in Skeletal Oak Plinth /
    Ringmat 330 MKII XLR
    SME 3009-S2-imp Arm (Fixed shell)
    Shure V15Vxmr Cartridge
    Trichord Dino Phono Stage
    Arcam Alpha 8SE CD Player / Ringmat CDi Blue
    Quad 99 Pre-amp
    Quad 909 Power Amp
    Audiovector M2 Loudspeakers
    Silverlink Aero Bi-Wire Speaker Cables

    AV
    Denon AVR3801A/V Receiver (pre out to aux input of Quad 99 for front L + R)
    JBL Centre Speaker
    Gale Satellites for rear L + R

    Interconnects are Van Den Hul 102 mk3

  8. #33
    Mutant from table 9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Les Adams
    Gentlemen, there is room in our world for all to express opinion, but I believe it is polite to do so without condemning, insulting or dismissing opposing views.

    but some people love nostalgia and probably adore their old Ford like a baby and pobably look after it better than I do my BMW

    I couldn't disagree more. Some people absolutely need to be derided and dismissed. Starting with these people: http://dr_pyro.tripod.com/taurus/
    ______________________
    Joyce Summers: "You've got really great albums!"
    Rupert "Ripper" Giles: "Yeah... they're okay..."


    "Tha H-Dog listens easy, always has, always will." - Herbert Kornfeld (R.I.P.)

    "I lick the mothra moniters because they pump up the base!!" - Dusty Beiber

  9. #34
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    6,777
    This thread seems to have become a display case for people's vintage equipment. Maybe that was the original intent???

  10. #35
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    If I displayed my vintage equipment I'd get banned.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  11. #36
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    6,777
    Not if it's all tucked in and nobody can see it.

  12. #37
    Music / Hi-Fi enthusiast Les Adams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by SlumpBuster
    I couldn't disagree more. Some people absolutely need to be derided and dismissed. Starting with these people: http://dr_pyro.tripod.com/taurus/
    Ok, I conceed. Point proven, you are right.

    In my defence I will say that the Taurus I owned was considerably older and the previous model to the one in that picture. It was known as the MK3 Cortina in the UK, and is now (probably) a collectors item. I had a 1972 one in white! It had a 1600cc engine and did 0-60 after some considerable delay. It was the superior "XL" model that had a manual foot pump in the footwell to squirt water onto the windscreen! (My goodness this is like admitting to once owning a Tandy mini all in one system)

    Please stop me now before I post pictures of myself wearing bright yellow flared trousers and a sleeveless afghan jacket!
    Last edited by Les Adams; 01-04-2008 at 06:02 PM.
    STEREO

    Garrard 401 Turntable mounted in Skeletal Oak Plinth /
    Ringmat 330 MKII XLR
    SME 3009-S2-imp Arm (Fixed shell)
    Shure V15Vxmr Cartridge
    Trichord Dino Phono Stage
    Arcam Alpha 8SE CD Player / Ringmat CDi Blue
    Quad 99 Pre-amp
    Quad 909 Power Amp
    Audiovector M2 Loudspeakers
    Silverlink Aero Bi-Wire Speaker Cables

    AV
    Denon AVR3801A/V Receiver (pre out to aux input of Quad 99 for front L + R)
    JBL Centre Speaker
    Gale Satellites for rear L + R

    Interconnects are Van Den Hul 102 mk3

  13. #38
    Music / Hi-Fi enthusiast Les Adams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
    Looks to me like he was in the same conference room as opposed to being on a first name basis with Mr. Fisher, Mr. Marantz & Mr. Bozak.
    A serious question. Does anyone know if this Mr Bozak is "Louis Bozak" who made mono mixers for broadcast uses and public address systems and developed the CMA-10-2DL mixer which was the first commercial DJ mixing console as used at the infamous "Paradise Garage" club?
    STEREO

    Garrard 401 Turntable mounted in Skeletal Oak Plinth /
    Ringmat 330 MKII XLR
    SME 3009-S2-imp Arm (Fixed shell)
    Shure V15Vxmr Cartridge
    Trichord Dino Phono Stage
    Arcam Alpha 8SE CD Player / Ringmat CDi Blue
    Quad 99 Pre-amp
    Quad 909 Power Amp
    Audiovector M2 Loudspeakers
    Silverlink Aero Bi-Wire Speaker Cables

    AV
    Denon AVR3801A/V Receiver (pre out to aux input of Quad 99 for front L + R)
    JBL Centre Speaker
    Gale Satellites for rear L + R

    Interconnects are Van Den Hul 102 mk3

  14. #39
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Les Adams
    Does anyone know if this Mr Bozak is "Louis Bozak" who...
    No. My guess is Rudy Bozak, the guy behind the big-box 50s high end speakers with no top end.

    rw

  15. #40
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    276

    let's compare

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    No. My guess is Rudy Bozak, the guy behind the big-box 50s high end speakers with no top end.

    rw
    Bozak , Fisher , Lansing , Marantz , etc, Where pioneers in audio. The men who through hard work and untested ideas created the audio industry we enjoy today.
    Most of the men young engineers worked for the giant Western Electric. These men took the ideas , dreams and with hard work and little money built an industry we now call audio.

    Unlike car hobbyist audio hobbyist have little interest in the history of audio , as there are no audio clubs , ie. Porsche Club of North America.
    The high end Bozak Concert Grands was smooth and detailed something most young listeners would not enjoy.
    To built a Bozak Concert Grand today if one looked at how well it was built , would cost in excess of $15,000 per speaker.
    One must remember all Bozak speakers large are small was covered with oiled walnut !
    Even a $70.00 AR speaker was covered with what we call today premium wood veneers.

    I have never met a car hobbyist who has never heard of Enzo Ferrari or Ferry Porsche.
    It is sad that the names of men who pioneered audio has been forgotten.
    I would AB any speaker system built today with a pair of Concert Grands , Lansing Hartsfield , Jensen Imperials , Electro-Voice Patricians , Tannoy Churchill's and even a pair of AR 3a's. I believe they will hold their own with any present speaker system in the $50.000 range.



    The music classical , jazz , Broadway or pop such as Andy Williams , Sinatra or Nancy
    Wilson etc, Music that these speakers were designed for not the loud non detailed music of today.
    The new is better than the old ? What about a Stradivari violin ?

  16. #41
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by mlsstl
    Things do change with time. Around a hundred years ago, John Philip Sousa bemoaned the invention of recorded music. His complaint was that recordings would result in fewer people learning to play musical instruments. He was looking down his nose at the experience you relish.
    And Sousa was right. In the old days, if you wanted music at home, you mostly had to do it yourself or hire it.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  17. #42
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    And Sousa was right. In the old days, if you wanted music at home, you mostly had to do it yourself or hire it.
    That has nothing to do with the history of high fidelity. It is ironic that we as Americans no so little of our history , as in this case the history of high fidelity.
    Saul Marantz and James Lansing is as important to audio as Enzo Farrari and Ferry Porsche is to high performance cars.

    A 1968 Ferrari Daytona will outperform 98% of the cars today and a Bozak Concert will out perform 98% of the speakers today.
    How many cars today can exceed 170 miles per hour ? How many speakers today can produce the unamplified bass today equal to a Concert Grand. ?

    The cars that can out run a Daytona today will cost in the + $200,000 range.The Daytona new sold for $25,000 ! How many speakers today can produce the bass and power of a Concert Grand without a sub woofer ? The Concert Grand sold for $1000 each. It was also covered with walnut veneer at no exra cost.
    in 1967 !
    To produce a speaker today that matches the Concert Grands performance would cost in excess of $ 50.000 a pair ! without walnut veneer.

  18. #43
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Quote Originally Posted by melvin walker
    That has nothing to do with the history of high fidelity. It is ironic that we as Americans no so little of our history , as in this case the history of high fidelity.
    Saul Marantz and James Lansing is as important to audio as Enzo Farrari and Ferry Porsche is to high performance cars.

    A 1968 Ferrari Daytona will outperform 98% of the cars today and a Bozak Concert will out perform 98% of the speakers today.
    How many cars today can exceed 170 miles per hour ? How many speakers today can produce the unamplified bass today equal to a Concert Grand. ?

    The cars that can out run a Daytona today will cost in the + $200,000 range.The Daytona new sold for $25,000 ! How many speakers today can produce the bass and power of a Concert Grand without a sub woofer ? The Concert Grand sold for $1000 each. It was also covered with walnut veneer at no exra cost.
    in 1967 !
    To produce a speaker today that matches the Concert Grands performance would cost in excess of $ 50.000 a pair ! without walnut veneer.
    So what is to be done?

  19. #44
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by melvin walker
    Unlike car hobbyist audio hobbyist have little interest in the history of audio , as there are no audio clubs , ie. Porsche Club of North America.
    I think you'll find those who are aware of audio's early days.

    Quote Originally Posted by melvin walker
    I would AB any speaker system built today with a pair of ...and even a pair of AR 3a's. I believe they will hold their own with any present speaker system in the $50.000 range.
    What on earth have you been listening to for $50k that sounds like an AR-3a?

    rw

  20. #45
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    This thread is really disturbing to me. I reading everyone waxing nostolgic on me, yet when I talk to the audiophiles and speaker designers of the 70's, they say everything was not all that rosy. There were alot of bad speakers back then, just as there are now. There was some poorly made equipment back then, just like now. There were ALOT of bad recording back then, and there are ALOT of bad recordings now.

    We do not hear in mono, we hear binaurally. A mono recording of a live event would be an acoustical distortion.

    The Bozak speaker mentioned earlier was very good, but so is the new high end thiel speakers.

    Things were not any better than they are today. More personal, perhaps, but not better. We tend to think that the time period we cherish was perfect, and any other time period is flawed in comparision. That is a distortion of the mind.

    Alot of speakers back in the day measured pretty poorly, and distortion levels were very high. When you add in the tube amps of the day, what folks thought was more musical was just more dirty. Enough DBT has been done that has determined that ultra low distortion, and a flat frequency response makes a speaker sound good with most all musical material(and movie mixes as well). Most of the speakers back in the day were tailored to the genre of music the designer liked. That means it only sounded good with one type of music. I prefer speakers that sound good with all material, and that means recordings with warts sound like recordings with wart. I do not want a speaker who's tonal characteristic flatter a certain genre of music.

    I just hope this thread is just a trip down memory lane, and not a bash on technology of today. If it is the latter, then it becomes a two way street, because I am going to tell you that most speakers designed today DO sound better than those thirty years ago. I think Floyd Toole would agree with me on that!
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  21. #46
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    276

    compartive analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    This thread is really disturbing to me. I reading everyone waxing nostolgic on me, yet when I talk to the audiophiles and speaker designers of the 70's, they say everything was not all that rosy. There were alot of bad speakers back then, just as there are now. There was some poorly made equipment back then, just like now. There were ALOT of bad recording back then, and there are ALOT of bad recordings now.

    We do not hear in mono, we hear binaurally. A mono recording of a live event would be an acoustical distortion.

    The Bozak speaker mentioned earlier was very good, but so is the new high end thiel speakers.

    Things were not any better than they are today. More personal, perhaps, but not better. We tend to think that the time period we cherish was perfect, and any other time period is flawed in comparision. That is a distortion of the mind.

    Alot of speakers back in the day measured pretty poorly, and distortion levels were very high. When you add in the tube amps of the day, what folks thought was more musical was just more dirty. Enough DBT has been done that has determined that ultra low distortion, and a flat frequency response makes a speaker sound good with most all musical material(and movie mixes as well). Most of the speakers back in the day were tailored to the genre of music the designer liked. That means it only sounded good with one type of music. I prefer speakers that sound good with all material, and that means recordings with warts sound like recordings with wart. I do not want a speaker who's tonal characteristic flatter a certain genre of music.

    I just hope this thread is just a trip down memory lane, and not a bash on technology of today. If it is the latter, then it becomes a two way street, because I am going to tell you that most speakers designed today DO sound better than those thirty years ago. I think Floyd Toole would agree with me on that!
    Have you A-B any of the speaker systems listed ? There are no speakers that sound good with all materials. Have you listen to a JBL Paragon ? or an Electro-Voice Patrician. Is a 50 year old Steinway Concert Grand piano inferior to a present Steinway Concert Grand ? How would you compare an 18th century Stradivari violin with one built today ?

    The speakers I listed were high -end speakers , not the run of the mill speakers.
    My point is that the high end speakers of pre 1970's will hold their own with high end speakers of today.
    High end speakers built before 1970 did not need amplified sub woofers to achieve
    detailed bass response !

    There was bad speakers built pre 1970 and there are bad speakers built today , the only difference is there are more bad speakers built today and fewer audiophiles.
    The absence of audio shows has not allowed present day audiophiles to preview many of the different speaker and audio systems today.
    There are auto shows !

    McIntosh was involved with the public pre 1980's. Mac held audio clinics , one could bring their Mac to the Mac clinic and have it brought up to spics without charge. Mac would test amps not built by McIntosh free !
    Judging by your Japanese audio equipment , it would be hard to speak to a person when inquiring about your audio gear.

    There is no bashing of today's audio equipment but a compartive analysis . No difference than comapring a Farrari Daytona to a Farrari Maranello.
    The difference is we all hear different. I might add auto buffs may drive a Farrari Daytonta,
    and compare it to a Maranello. What I am reading here is that few AR members has ever heard are seen a Jensen Imperial ! How would they know that the new speakers are better ? I will also add there are few audio magazines and fewer audiophiles ,most of the
    few audio magazines left are having a hard time publishing , video is in audio declining.
    The least important item in a Home Theatre system is the audio !



    I

  22. #47
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by melvin walker
    Have you A-B any of the speaker systems listed ? There are no speakers that sound good with all materials. Have you listen to a JBL Paragon ? or an Electro-Voice Patrician. Is a 50 year old Steinway Concert Grand piano inferior to a present Steinway Concert Grand ? How would you compare an 18th century Stradivari violin with one built today ?
    Has anyone A/B any of the speakers listed? Probably not, however that does not mean I cannot have a comparative opinion right? I have listen to the JBL Paragon, my uncle was a employee of JBL, and I also have heard the Patrician many years ago. Both very good sounding speakers, but no better than a Dunlavy SCV(which I own as well) or Thiel CS 3.7(which I recently heard). Your instrument comparisons really are quite irrelevant since the instruments condition and maintainence plays a role in how they sound.

    The speakers I listed were high -end speakers , not the run of the mill speakers.
    What is a run of the mill, and what is not is a matter of perspective. One mans floor is another mans ceiling.

    My point is that the high end speakers of pre 1970's will hold their own with high end speakers of today.
    Subjectively speaking, you are probably right. Objectively through measurements its not even close. The instruments for achieving great performance (anechoic chambers, MLSSA measurements, shufflers, measuring devices) are far more sophisticated today than they were back then. When you combine this with acoustical and listening studies conducted by Floyd Toole, John Dunlavy it is far easy to create a very good sounding high end speaker today than it was pre 1970. I heard Dr. Toole say that himself.


    High end speakers built before 1970 did not need amplified sub woofers to achieve
    detailed bass response !
    That would be SOME high end speakers built before 1970 did not need dedicated subwoofers for detailed bass response. However, what we know about room acoustics tells us that acheiving a flat in room bass response WITHOUT a subwoofer is extremely difficult to do without EQ and acoustical treatment. Dedicated subwoofers allow a speaker to play louder(improve dynamics), and with lower distortion(which makes the system sound clean), and puts the driver where it performs the best(flattest response, lowest distortion) Also keep in mind the SCV, JM focal electra and Grand Utopia, Wilson Alexandra, Revel Concerta, legacy audio whisper(and really I could go on) do not require subwoofers as well. All of these speakers probably have a flatter response, lower distortion, and better imaging because of advances in driver technology and controlled sound dispersion.

    There was bad speakers built pre 1970 and there are bad speakers built today , the only difference is there are more bad speakers built today and fewer audiophiles.
    This is a blanket statement that has no point of fact. There may be fewer audiophiles, but Floyd Toole would argue you to the floor about the amount of bad speakers today versus yesterday.

    The absence of audio shows has not allowed present day audiophiles to preview many of the different speaker and audio systems today.
    I attended 7 audio shows last year alone, so the use of the word "absence" would only describe your lack of attending them, not that they do not exist.


    McIntosh was involved with the public pre 1980's. Mac held audio clinics , one could bring their Mac to the Mac clinic and have it brought up to spics without charge. Mac would test amps not built by McIntosh free !
    Judging by your Japanese audio equipment , it would be hard to speak to a person when inquiring about your audio gear.
    First, people who enjoy good equipment do not speak about it, they listen to it. My japanese audio equipment has been redesigned and upgraded by John Curl, so aside from my receiver(which is really just a pre-pro) there is more that meets the ear than nameplate would allude to.

    Secondly, we have a place here in the bay area called the perfect sound. Alot of high end speaker and amp designers hold workshops and lectures there. This goes for Rives Audio, and several other high end shops all over this country. These lectures and workshops you have to actually have to seek out, they are not going to send an announcement or an invite.

    There is no bashing of today's audio equipment but a compartive analysis . No difference than comapring a Farrari Daytona to a Farrari Maranello.
    The difference is we all hear different. I might add auto buffs may drive a Farrari Daytonta,
    and compare it to a Maranello. What I am reading here is that few AR members has ever heard are seen a Jensen Imperial ! How would they know that the new speakers are better ? I will also add there are few audio magazines and fewer audiophiles ,most of the
    few audio magazines left are having a hard time publishing , video is in audio declining.
    The least important item in a Home Theatre system is the audio !
    Your comparative analysis is one sided and not particularly objective. The amount of magazines or self proclaimed audiophiles is no gauge of equipment quality. Tying the two together is at best disengenious. Alot of high end magazines are folding up because of the outrageous claims they have made regarding amps, cables and speakers. Claims that have been later debuked and disproved. High end audio is in decline because much of what is being sold is severely overpriced. There are way too many statement pieces, and not enough products with a equal price to performance value.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  23. #48
    Forum Regular blackraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,421
    Sir Terrance, I have to agree with what you say. Especially over price equipment making false claims and the fact that there is high end equipment using low quality components that you see in low end audio equipment. There was an article that I read a few years ago where they looked inside various brands of high end audio equipment and you would poop your pants if you saw the results. Many of these comapanies were using low quality components and charging thousands of dollars.

    I also agree with your assessment of audio magazines. You never see a bad review because they would never be allowed to review a company's equipment. In addition, these magazines rarely review budget equipment for tthe very day consumer. I find it rediculous that many of the reviewsare for equiment costing thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars that less than 1% of the population here in the US can afford, including me who is in the top 1% of income earned in the US today! Just browse the stereophile magazine forums and look at the complaints of subscribers complaining of there being to many high end reviews. Many are cancelling their subscriptions.
    Pass Labs X250 amp, BAT Vk-51se Preamp,
    Thorens TD-145 TT, Bellari phono preamp, Nagaoka MP-200 Cartridge
    Magnepan QR1.6 speakers
    Luxman DA-06 DAC
    Van Alstine Ultra Plus Hybrid Tube DAC
    Dual Martin Logan Original Dynamo Subs
    Parasound A21 amp
    Vintage Luxman T-110 tuner
    Magnepan MMG's, Grant Fidelity DAC-11, Class D CDA254 amp
    Monitor Audio S1 speakers, PSB B6 speakers
    Vintage Technic's Integrated amp
    Music Hall 25.2 CDP
    Adcom GFR 700 AVR
    Cables- Cardas, Silnote, BJC
    Velodyne CHT 8 sub

  24. #49
    Forum Regular O'Shag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    543
    "In my defence I will say that the Taurus I owned was considerably older and the previous model to the one in that picture. It was known as the MK3 Cortina in the UK, and is now (probably) a collectors item. I had a 1972 one in white! It had a 1600cc engine and did 0-60 after some considerable delay. It was the superior "XL" model that had a manual foot pump in the footwell to squirt water onto the windscreen! (My goodness this is like admitting to once owning a Tandy mini all in one system)"


    I don't know Les,

    you should be darn proud to have owned the 1600E.

    The Z4M is a wonderful car. I test drove one a few weeks ago at a showroom and almost bought it, I was that impressed. It was in a beautiful metallic taupe colour with red leather interior. I also looked at a Porche Boxter special edition in that peculiar shade of yellow a la GT3 and black painted alloys and trim. I ended up choosing the Mercedes SLK 350 convertible Special Edition (only 200 made) in black on black. I just couldn't get over the crazy cool way the hard-top hood folds into the trunk, or how warm the car keeps you even when its cold and the top is down.

    And yet, one of the cars my Dad owned when I was a whippersnapper was The Ford Cortina 1600E in gold and black. What a car. I think I would get just as much of a kick out of driving around in that as in the Merc, despite a huge performance and technology difference. I've heard the Garrard 401 in a friends system by the way, and I;ve got to say it sounds pretty darn good even though its yonks and yonks old. It is however, heavily modified.
    Last edited by O'Shag; 01-11-2008 at 05:56 PM.

  25. #50
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    506
    Just a quick comment that a comparison between musical instruments and stereo equipment is not a valid analogy.

    Musical instruments make original music. The instrument builders search for pleasant, distinctive distortions, harmonics, and abnormal frequency response. There is not a broad call for musical instruments that generate perfect sine waves. Steinways and Stradivarius violins are prized for their unique distortions, not their lack thereof.

    The goal of musical equipment is quite the opposite. One wants the speakers and the other reproduction equipment to do only that - reproduce what is on the recording without adding anything of its own or leaving anything off. That is quite different from what wants of a musical instrument.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •