Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
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.



What is a run of the mill, and what is not is a matter of perspective. One mans floor is another mans ceiling.



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.




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.



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.



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.




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.



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.
Most audiophiles do not live in the Bay area. I am not aware of Dr. Toole , what is his background in audio ? Run of the mill means average , not high end. A Ferrari are Mercedes 500 is high end. A Corvette or Lexus is run of the mill.
Audio magazines serve as an aid in one making an informed decision.

I would think that the reasons for the decline of the audiophiles is that we have today electronic shows not audio shows. There is very little interest in audio today.
I am not aware of Rives Audio. Are you comparing Rives Audio with the McIntosh
clinics that traveled to every major city in America testing Macks as well as other amps free of charge for more than 35 years ? I am a midwesterner , the Bay area is 1800
miles away !

Why buy Japanese audio equipment to begin with ? The Japanese does not have a history of building high end audio , are cars , maybe TV's.
Does John Curl have the research and development monies to compete with the major high end manufactures who build high end audio today ?
One of the main reason many of the older high end audio companies no longer exist is because of the lack of research and development money.

Objective are not as you see it , that is my opinion regarding the issue of comparing today's high end speakers to yesterday's high end speakers. I respect you position on the issue of audio , although I do not agree with much of it.
I will add finally there has been many improvements in electronic , not so with speakers.
Again that is my position.